
How to Burst the "Filter Bubble" that Protects Us from Opposing Views - sztanko
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522111/how-to-burst-the-filter-bubble-that-protects-us-from-opposing-views/
======
crazygringo
I'm not sure it's that simple.

People hear opposing views all the time -- they just ignore/hate them.
Democrats listened to George Bush talking for eight years. The Republicans are
going to be listening to Obama's pronouncements for an equal length of time.
None of this is changing any of their minds.

The real issue is _integrating_ opposing views -- the Hegelian dialectic where
people take a thesis, antithesis, and turn it into a synthesis -- that's where
actual understanding takes place.

But this is very difficult, and while news organizations often pride
themselves on presenting "both sides", they generally neglect the synthesis
step, because that moves from the realm of supposed impartiality to opinion.

The only exception I can think of is The Economist, whose articles often
follow exactly the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model, which of course is why
they're known (correctly) for being a heavily opinionated publication. But to
their credit, they do generally present "both sides" in most articles, which
distinguishes them from traditional opinion writers like columnists, editorial
boards, and explicitly partisan media outlets.

~~~
Angostura
> Democrats listened to George Bush talking for eight years. The Republicans
> are going to be listening to Obama's pronouncements for an equal length of
> time.

I think it's actually very rare that the audience get to listen to these
people unfiltered. Instead the audience will have chosen their preferred
channels and these channels will have pre-digested, edited and analysed any
speeches. Any nuance will have been stripped away to match a simplified
narrative.

~~~
dllthomas
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I
will find something in them which will hang him."

------
narrator
The best way to get out of the bubble is to argue the opposite of your
position for a while. Do it anonymously. Even argue a position that you
ridicule, just for fun. It's a great excercise that often leads to a deeper
understanding of an issue.

~~~
alextingle
AKA "trolling".

~~~
narrator
Is it trolling if you are arguing the opposite of what you believe currently
in a sincere non-inflammatory manner?

It is because you don't believe it and you're misleading people about what you
really think.

Yes, but isn't the point of it all to get to the truth of the matter that
exists independently of the debate.

The truth of the matter exists and it's what you really believe. Playing
around with contrary viewpoints is just childish.

Why be so arrogant to think you're right and just have to convince the other
person? Are you really convinced you know everything there is to know about
the issue and can't learn any more from another person who doesn't agree with
you?

etc...

------
bmelton
I see this as, perhaps, the most important thing I've seen on HN this year.

People come to a conclusion, sometimes by informed means, sometimes not, but
however we come to it, we generally stick to that conclusion, for better or
worse. Once we've reached that conclusion though, we become very bad
scientists. We discard data that doesn't fit with our conclusion, or if we
can't discard it, attempt to minimize its significance and promote things that
do fit our conclusions as more important.

The media panders to their audience, constantly surveying their audience and
reactions, and serving up more and more of the news that we're already
predisposed to the news we want to hear. Once a certain capture rate has
occurred, the news that people choose begins shaping opinions.

Newsroom parodies this somewhat (disclaimer, I love the show, even though its
politics disagree with my own), proclaiming that the Fairness Doctrine was
unnecessary, and you can deliver hard-hitting news fairly and accurately
without it (which may be a true assumption, maybe not), but then they proceed
to deliver extremely biased news coverage that is extremely colored by their
own politics and beliefs, presented as intellectualism because we're supposed
to get the idea that Will McAvoy is the smartest man in whatever room he's in,
so all his opinions are informed by sheer fact and wisdom, so we should
believe that whatever he says is true because of that.

Despite that coloring, we see in every off-air scene that he's well informed,
but terrible at drawing pragmatic conclusions from a given set of facts,
belying that the central theme of the show is even possible with the cast of
characters as presented.

Back on topic, because I'm rambling terribly, but the brain rewards itself
when it finds facts that agree with its pre-existing beliefs. A chemical 'high
five' to reaffirm how right it already was, and to reinforce that it made the
right decision before, and now the rest of the world is catching up. I don't
know that this can be fixed, but I think that the surest way to mitigate it is
to disallow it from becoming too set in its ways, to keep it slightly off-
guard, and in a constant state of discomfort.

This might kill us in some other way, and it's possible that the brain will
just refuse to allow this, or that we'll all become blathering idiots as a
result, but i's at least a step in the right direction of preventing a vicious
cycle of arbitrary self-affirmation.

~~~
001sky
Isn't the root of this problem _false dichotomies_? The real reason you don't
get synthethesis from two opposing views is that there are _omitted_ variables
at play, that typically increase the complexity of the solution.

~~~
bmelton
I would agree that's a part of it, but the idea that someone hasn't yet
discovered a variable that bears impact on an issue is a far less crucial one
than the ability of one's mind to disregard a salient factor as irrelevant.

Without the ability to think critically of an idea that one is endeared to
though, none of that matters at all. Meanwhile, the ability to be challenged
allows one to accept more variables as relevant than previously.

~~~
001sky
But you're assuming the variables are omitted due to ignorance. That's usually
not the case. The people that profit from false dichotomies are using these
constructs (typically) on purpose, to gloss over the ugliness of a situation
otherwise, which usually involves some form of political advntage, self-
dealing, or personal enrichment.

~~~
bmelton
I was, and I agree that's an issue with the press... but that doesn't mean
that this wouldn't still equate to real progress at a personal level.

------
dspeyer
I'm interested in reading opposing views, but not stupid ones. If there's a
large inferential gap, it often takes me a while to tell the difference. Does
this software have a way to distinguish?

~~~
Houshalter
I'd be interested, maybe, in seeing opposing political views or different
opinions on economics, or something like that. Because I'm interested in those
things and because I'm not very certain that my current beliefs are correct,
when I even have a belief. Just today a friend introduced me to a good
documentary that partially changed my view of nuclear power and I learned a
lot.

However I wouldn't want to get stuck with something that is a complete waste
of time, like creationism, or religion, or abortion, or something along those
lines. Or something that just doesn't interest me, like, say, climate change
or conspiracy theories.

~~~
joshuacc
Personally, I have found that even in those areas where I find the
intellectual position X to be a complete waste of time, it is still well worth
my time to engage empathetically with people who strongly believe X.

I am unlikely to have my mind changed, but I am more likely to understand my
fellow human beings better than if I just dismiss all people who believe X.

------
mkesper
Using [https://duckduckgo.com](https://duckduckgo.com) as a first step:
[http://dontbubble.us/](http://dontbubble.us/)

~~~
thrownaway2424
Hardly seems to address the problem stated in the article, as a search for
"BP" on duckduckgo contains _only_ investment-related information, nothing
about the oil spill. At DDG you are in a filter bubble, it's just not _your_
filter bubble. It's someone else's filter, presumably the collective bubble of
the engineers at DDG's incredibly lackadaisical and tragically understaffed
search quality department.

------
sztanko
TL;DR version: the idea is that "content you might like" should recommend not
only the relevant information of your views, but also the helpful information
of opposite views from highly ranked authors. This will milden the
polarisation of views and make everyone more informed of the issue.

~~~
danielweber
There should be some kind of ranking algorithm for "the best people on our
side for talking to people on the other side." This is often very different
from the people that my side enjoys listening to, since that often includes a
lot of puffery about how our side is _obviously_ correct to anyone with half-
a-brain.

~~~
bmelton
[http://www.opposingviews.com/](http://www.opposingviews.com/) does a good job
here. It lets you see the best arguments from either side at least.

Edit: I dunno what came over me. I had the address transposed in my head. I
meant to post a link to debate.org.

~~~
judk
Where? I just paged through and saw a bunch of mildly controversial news
headlines (which did seen an intriguing collection of conversation starters,
like hard income limits for Medicare), and then a pile of ad spam for "hot
celebrity pics" and testosterone for sale.

~~~
bmelton
Corrected, with apologies.

~~~
judk
Thanks! Debate.org looks good. It even has three sections for highbrow,
middlebrow, and lowbrow; labelled dabatew, views, and polls respectively.

------
awjr
As a keen cyclist (and politically active in this area trying to get better
infrastructure in Bath, UK), I have noticed that I seem to be surrounding
myself with people that have similar view points (cars are bad for cities,
think of the kids).

I have tried to bring in other views by following people, but it seems to only
happen when one of the people I follow retweets an inflammatory tweet. I
follow, get involved in the discussion then move on. Of course then I've
noticed that most of my feed is pro-cycling. I've created my own filter
bubble.

I should probably start looking to break out of this 'sub-conscious' filtering
I appear to be doing although it would be interesting to have twitter
recommend people I would find very annoying to follow.

~~~
tootie
Just because you are subject to confirmation bias doesn't mean you're wrong.
I'm not a cyclist, but I can't stand all the cars clogging up my city. So
dirty and noisy and dangerous. I'm not convinced cycling is the answer though.
Mass transit is best. At least until we all have electric self-driving cars.

~~~
alextingle
Why would self-driving cars be better than mass-transit?

~~~
potatolicious
They get you from point A to point B, not "somewhere near point A to somewhere
near point B".

That said, I'm not greatly convinced that this model is better. It's more
efficient, certainly, but I regard this in the same way that a nutrient paste
is more efficient than eating regular meals. Walking as a part of daily life
strikes me as something that has a lot of positive externalities.

~~~
nhaehnle
Self-driving cars don't fix the congestion problem, though. Actually, it is
quite plausible that congestion might get _worse_ with the introduction of
self-driving cars, because being stuck in traffic will no longer be such a
terribly mind-numbing experience.

------
znowi
> And the danger is that it can polarise populations creating potentially
> harmful divisions in society.

I think we already see the effect of this. It gets harder for opposing sides
to find common ground - from local to government level. People get more prone
to critical commentary, claiming "hurt feelings" at first opportunity. Even
here on HN a constructive debate is uncommon.

~~~
hindsightbias
There are many that see this as a feature, not a bug.

The divisions already exist, someone is just exploiting and amplifying them.
What's 'common ground' has radically shifted - so what you think is common
really isn't so much.

------
linuxhansl
Maybe it is just me, but when I search for something I look for information,
not some bit I happen to agree with for my entertainment.

We see the same problem with the news (think Fox News). It's not information,
it's "infotainment".

All it leads to is more people who are no longer able to even consider other
viewpoints.

~~~
mcguire
" _...when I search for something I look for information..._ "

The problem is, to paraphrase someone I generally disagree with, not in what
you _know_ that you don't know, but rather in what you _don 't know_ that you
don't know.

To look for information, you have to know it exists; you're less likely to
know to look for something if it never impinges on your bubble.

~~~
linuxhansl
Isn't that what I do "partially" with searching, though? I am looking for
something I don't necessarily know ahead of time.

The stuff I don't know I don't know is exactly that which is most valuable to
broaden my horizon.

------
jfasi
This is huge from an academic standpoint, and I sincerely hope this sort of
mind-expanding recommendation will enter the mainstream. Here is a off-the-
top-of-my-head list of some introductory thoughts:

\- I'd be willing to bet that people won't react well to this sort of thing
popping up in their existing news feeds without their explicit permission. For
instance, I'd love to see Facebook or Twitter introduce this as a ranking
signal, but I can't see that resulting in meaningful discussion without some
careful tuning.

\- This being hacker news, the first thing that comes to mind is "let's found
a startup that does this." I'd seriously love to see this turn into a product
of some sort. It would face something of an uphill struggle for adoption, but
it might not be so bad. One major feature of the "ideal customer" is already
lined out: interest in or willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions.
Synthesis of opposing views into a new one correlates strongly with education,
so that's a group you can reasonably target. College students are into this
sort of stuff, so you could go after them. Personally, I think this has
potential as a space.

\- Gathering existing data for this sort of thing could be difficult. Access
to significant amount of social network data is a must, especially if you will
want to perform clustering-type analysis. My hunch is that there may be a way
to make this happen without a large quantity of data, but nothing obvious or
market-tested comes to mind.

------
rpdillon
I've seen a lot of discussion of the 'filter bubble', particularly as a way
for DuckDuckGo to differentiate itself from other search engines. But I have
never seen any scientific data indicating it actually exists. I've seen the
TED talk, and I've seen the oft-repeated example involving BP, but I've never
seen anything more than a couple of examples about how it might exist.

Has anyone demonstrated in any scientific fashion whatsoever that there is a
population of people that are insulated from news they don't want to hear
because it is actively being kept from them on an ongoing basis by supposedly
unbiased news sources?

Here's the data I do know about: we already have 'news' channels that pander
to particular audience, and we've already seen that watching news you agree
with activates the same pleasure centers in the brain that are stimulated by
watching pornography.

Based on evidence I've seen, the problem is with the audience, not the news.
The assertion in the article that the filter "can polarise populations
creating potentially harmful divisions in society" seems, well, unfounded, at
least so far.

~~~
emp_zealoth
I can give you my own experience - i hate using condoms, for various reasons -
last time i had to Google condoms i was greeted by pages upon pages of how
they constantly break, slip off, make you miserable and on and on

I also had a discussion with a friend - tried Googling to find his viewpoint -
anything I'd get was heavily biased towards mine

------
notahacker
The linked paper is a little underwhelming: they find that people generally
find a similarity-based tweet recommendation engine "interesting" even with
the secret twist that it only shows tweets from those who have opposing views
on abortion. Given the study wasn't focused on politics or controversy (except
to the extent Chilean Twitter feeds in general are) and no attempt was made to
gauge whether anyone had felt their views challenged or found interesting new
perspectives, I don't think the "filter bubble" was really burst at all.

------
summerdown2
Maybe just me, but I'd love to sign up for a service that did this. I try to
take in alternative views all the time, but it's very difficult because

a) I know the reasonable (agreeable to me) voices on my side - I have no idea
how to find quality on the other sides.

b) I generally discover opposing views when someone I agree with throws up
something so extreme to criticise it.

It would be amazing to have a discovery service that gave good-quality
alternative perspectives. Not all the time, because a lot of the time I'm just
looking for a particular thing. But certainly some of the time.

------
dreeves
In related research, the Filter Bubble problem itself is exaggerated:
[http://messymatters.com/bubble](http://messymatters.com/bubble)

------
icelancer
If you live in a filter bubble, it is _your fault_. Google isn't the enemy.

When you believe something and want to check the validity of said statement
(already something almost no one does), your Google searches should not be
guilty of confirmation bias. For example - you think test driven development
is a pile of crap. If you search for "TDD is stupid," then that is not
Google's fault. That is your fault for not understanding remedial
philosophy/logic.

------
epaga
Here's what I would love to see some day and am quite sure I don't (yet) have
the clout to pull off myself:

A recommendation engine which points me to articles espousing opposite views
to my own but which are rated highly in terms of being understandable &
logical _by other opponents of the view in the article_.

For example, as a Christian, I would love to find articles or books which are,
say, pro-atheism which are rated by non-atheists as being well-argued and
worth-while.

------
nateabele
This isn't a technology problem, it's a human problem, and the best (and maybe
only) way to solve it is through a little empathy.

Ideas in an article you disagree with are easy to dismiss, less so with ideas
in a human. When you surround yourself with a diverse group of people with
differing views on a variety of subjects _and actually listen to them_ , the
problem goes away.

------
jkldotio
jkl.io tries to attack this problem in news by ranking with blended ranking
signals, then clustering from a variety of sources so that even unpopular
views will be in the top topic clusters.

I am currently building a comment system to go with it that will promote
informative comments in new ways and across threads/clusters if they are in
the same time period.

------
auctiontheory
Do I need really to discuss earthquakes with someone who believes they are
God's punishment on gay people?

------
niels_olson
While this may be a mathematically valid thing, it doesn't make it correct. I
submit that there may be left-right filter bubbles, but there is a growing
flow from ignorant to well-informed, and that flow is right to left.

This article is just a mathematical means of implementing the equal time rule
(1), or the fairness doctrine (2). If anything, 30+ years of broadcast TV has
shown us that these policies lead to stagnation of public though, not growth.
NPR, for one, has attempted to recognize this and move the pendulum back
toward the Enlightened pursuit of truth(3).

(1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-
time_rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule)

(2)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)

(3)
[http://ethics.npr.org/category/a1-accuracy/](http://ethics.npr.org/category/a1-accuracy/)

~~~
niels_olson
Gotta love it a well-cited competing view on an article about tolerating
competing views gets downvoted.

~~~
mcguire
Well-cited? You made a manifestly false assertion, then linked to the
definition of two terms and an article that specifically disagrees with your
assertion:

" _For more accurate stories, seek diverse perspectives._

" _We tell stronger, better-informed stories when we sample a variety of
perspectives on what we’re covering. The best reporting draws on the
experiences of experts, influential figures and laypeople from across the
demographic spectrum._

" _A story could accurately claim, for example, that unemployment in the
Washington, D.C., metro area in the fall of 2011 was quite a bit lower than
the national average. But that fact would probably ring false to a resident of
the city proper, where the unemployment rate was considerably higher at the
time. And such a story would describe a world vastly different from D.C.’s
Ward 8, which had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Any of
these vantage points could make for a technically accurate story. But drawing
on all of them allows for a much more nuanced report. Means and medians can be
informative, but true insight often comes from surveying experiences all along
the spectrum._ "

------
jkscm
How does this apply to content sites like hn/reddit/digg?

The number one use case for commenting systems is the expression of opposing
views, isn't it?

~~~
twobits
In popular reddit subs, you can't have an unpopular opinion. Your link
submissions and your comments get downvoted to oblivion. It also happens in
less popular ones.

~~~
Karunamon
Reddit reacts incredibly negatively to poor tone. You can be completely right
about something, and unless you're _nice_ about it, you will be below
threshold in no time flat.

Most of the comments I see hidden on Reddit are there, not because of simple
disagreement, but because the person posting comes off as haughty or smug.

I can't complain too much. Anything worth saying is worth saying nice.

