
Social perception bias might be an emergent property of our social networks - BerislavLopac
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/its-the-network-stupid-study-offers-fresh-insight-into-why-were-so-divided/
======
jfengel
I think this kind of thing may be hard to study, at least for prominent
issues, because the effects have been magnified by the creation of media to
exploit it. Not only do people reinforce things for each other, but they have
authoritative-seeming sources to point to. Those sources are in fact carefully
crafted for that purpose, partly for political gain, partly for the sheer
commercial power of being perceived as the only acceptable information source.

Once you've bought into the notion that everybody else is lying to you, no
amount of getting outside your social circle is going to help. You can simply
reject their reality and substitute your own. The cause-and-effect of these
superpowered propaganda machines and social networks are hard to untangle;
they arose together and influenced each other.

~~~
aalleavitch
We're never going to figure out how to rebuild trust until we can figure out
how to redesign our systems of government and commerce to not reward lying and
manipulation, or at least to mitigate its appeal. The problem has never been
that we don't know how to overcome human biases, the problem is that we don't
even really want to because exploiting them for political power and financial
gain is so lucrative.

~~~
jfengel
My opinion, which is obviously reflecting my own bias, is that there is a very
large segment of the US who really ought to know better, and that there isn't
much we can do until they choose to do so. They've crossed the line from the
ordinary kind of biases, selfishness, and differences of opinion to active
malice.

That has been exploited by those seeking power and money, but that
exploitation is so transparent that they can't be unaware. They accede to it
because their top priority has become the fight itself and defeating their
opponents -- even though those opponents are fellow citizens. That allows them
to buy into even the most obvious deceptions, because it affirms for them the
deeper truth.

I've expressed this in nonpartisan terms, but I'm willing to bet that
everybody knows who I'm talking about, and they will object. I'm not going to
engage -- the whole point here is that I don't believe engaging will achieve
anything. And it also means that their attempts to convince me will similarly
be ignored -- either because I'm right, or precisely because I'm wrong. The
irony bugs the hell out of me.

~~~
WalterBright
Are you really that sure you're right, and not the victim of propaganda
yourself?

~~~
jfengel
Well... yes and no.

I'll just go ahead and be less coy about it: they were so far off base when it
came to same-sex marriage that it casts doubt on every bit of reasoning they
claim. The arguments were absurd. They lost the fight and none of the evils
they claimed came to pass.

It's not the most important issue, but it's one in which they were so
obviously and overwhelmingly wrong that I think it justifies my claim that
they may be similarly off-base on many other issues. I am, of course, wrong
about many things myself, but nothing so egregiously and demonstrably
incorrect as that. There are other issues that aren't as massively a slam-
dunk, but I've seen enough egregious propaganda repeatedly refuted that it's
clear to me that they're not listening.

That said, no, I can't be certain that I'm not just the victim of propaganda.
That's why I put it as I did: if I'm wrong, then I'm _very_ wrong, and it will
be impossible to convince me otherwise.

~~~
susijdjdjxa
Our moral intuitions are almost entirely determined by the society we live in.
30 years ago, 30% of people in the US supported gay marriage, and now it’s
over 60%. Do you believe the number of good people doubled during that time?

I’m gay, and to me the animal farming industry is obviously more wrong than
banning same-sex marriage. Yet almost everyone in both of the political tribes
eats meat.

My values fall in line with the left in most areas, so I generally associate
and agree with left-wingers. This means I get exposed to a lot of left-wing
perspectives and media, so to me, it appears that the Republicans are
constantly being evil. But then again, everyone on both sides is eating meat,
so how different can they possibly be?

~~~
retsibsi
Yes, GP's argument seems to rest on the assumption that people who reach the
right conclusion do so for the right reasons. But opposing discrimination
against gay people didn't become more obviously right over the course of a few
decades; it gained social momentum until it was the path of least resistance
for the majority.

Hopefully a similar thing will happen with respect to our treatment of
animals: as humane alternatives become easier and more appealing, there will
be less incentive to avoid thinking about the suffering inflicted, and this
will kick-start the social process whereby factory farming eventually becomes
obviously indefensible to most people.

~~~
jfengel
Really, my argument was that people who reach the wrong conclusion for the
wrong reasons, and stick to them, are suspect. We're all guilty of that at
times, of course, but it's rare to have it quite so prominently and
comprehensively refuted. And it makes it hard for me to believe that anything
I say will make a difference on a topic that isn't obvious.

I hope you're right about animals. It's a case where I know I'm being
inconsistent. But at least I'm aware of it and trying to do better, rather
than twist the rationale why my existing behavior (and misbehavior) must be
correct.

I don't need people to do the right things for the right reasons. But I need
them to be open to reasons.

~~~
aalleavitch
If you feel like it shouldn't be this hard, it's because there's a massive
force pushing against you. Our situation isn't an accident; the status quo
actively seeks to maintain itself, and incentives become structured in such a
way as to reinforce it. You can't change people's minds without changing the
structures that have forced them into that configuration.

As human beings, we're predisposed to think socially; when we see an issue, we
look for the individual person who is the proximal cause of that issue. We
have a much harder time seeing when the issue was caused by a broader system.
That's why we're constantly frustrated and thwarted by issues where it seems
the problem will never go away: we dealt with the person who was at fault, why
has the issue reappeared? It must be hopeless, there must be nothing to do but
accept that every bad person will be replaced with another bad person. But why
aren't we asking what mechanism it is that keeps replacing these "bad" people
with new ones? We're stricken with learned helplessness because we can't see
the structure of the system or realize the fact that we have the ability to
manipulate and change it, because the problem doesn't lie in any one person
but in the shape of society itself.

------
darkkindness
In other words, "our social networks" tend to have mostly like-minded people
influence us, so increasing the diversity of these incoming opinions can
counter bias. I'm a fan of this particular explanation:
[https://ncase.me/crowds/](https://ncase.me/crowds/)

~~~
Nasrudith
That doesn't necessarily follow with self-selection. One group's presense may
push out another, others usually do have disproportionate influence on overall
bias.

------
airstrike
On a related note, I'd argue the end of the Fairness Doctrine policy in 2011
allowed broadcasters to increasingly present a singular point-of-view to the
detriment of diversity, which naturally has since made networks significantly
more partisan.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine)

~~~
will4274
The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. It was created during an era where
virtually all Americans had only the big three television stations as news
sources. Given the relative diversity of sources available today, serious
questions exist as to whether it's reimplementation would even be
constitutional.

~~~
airstrike
> The fairness doctrine went away in 1987.

Thanks, I misread the date upon quickly glancing the article on Wikipedia (and
not American / quite old enough to remember it happening in 1987...)

> Given the relative diversity of sources available today

My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument. I'm arguing
in favor of more moderation, not less plurality. You're presenting false
dichotomy by suggesting that showing both sides of an issue gets in the way of
a diversity of sources.

Now for more subtle and perhaps subjective criticism: what good is a plurality
of sources if all of those are simply pushing their biased agenda hard down
people's throats? From society's standpoint, there seems to be consensus that
the state of news media today is worse than it was a few decades ago as far as
partisanship, sensationalism, clickbaiting and alarmism go.

~~~
will4274
>> Given the relative diversity of sources available today

> My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument.

It's not a straw man, it's history/law. The US Supreme Court was asked to rule
on the fairness doctrine in the 60s and ruled that the government has a
legitimate interest in promoting a variety views that could supersede the
broadcaster's right to free speech only when a limited number of sources were
available (Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC). If there is a diversity of
sources, then people's right to free speech trumps the government's interest
in favor of more moderation.

~~~
airstrike
> It's not a straw man, it's history/law.

It's not, at least based on the evidence provided by you thus far.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the availability of sources _today_ , so
your argument can't be really considered historical.

At best you may claim that based on past ruling, the SCOTUS is likely to rule
that reviving the rule would infringe on the right to free speech. Even then,
I'd argue precisely for the opposite, again based on the evidence you
presented, i.e. Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. FCC.

I refer you to [https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-
court/395/367.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/367.html)
(emphasis mine):

> The FCC's statutory mandate to see that broadcasters operate in the public
> interest and Congress' reaffirmation, in the [395 U.S. 367, 368] 1959
> amendment to 315 of the Communications Act, of the FCC's view that the
> fairness doctrine inhered in the public interest standard, _support the
> conclusion that the doctrine and its component personal attack and political
> editorializing regulations are a legitimate exercise of congressionally
> delegated authority._ Pp. 379-386.

> 2\. The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal
> attack and political editorial rules _do not violate the First Amendment._
> Pp. 386-401.

> (a) _The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the
> right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the
> broadcasters_ , which is paramount. Pp. 386-390.

> _(b) The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters
> who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied
> to others. Pp. 390-392._

> (...)

> (e) It has not been shown that the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, which
> impelled governmental regulation, is entirely a thing of the past, as new
> uses for the frequency spectrum have kept pace with improved technology and
> more efficient utilization of that spectrum. Pp. 396-400.

And last but certainly not least:

> Believing that the specific application of the fairness doctrine in Red
> Lion, and the promulgation of the regulations in RTNDA, _are both authorized
> by Congress and enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press
> protected by the First Amendment_

I don't see from that how one may conclude that "promoting a variety views
that could supersede the broadcaster's right to free speech only when a
limited number of sources [is] available", but I'm also not really familiar
with case law to argue fervently one way or another.

------
DHPersonal
I took the test mentioned in the comments and failed quite remarkably:
[https://perceptiongap.us/the-perception-gap-
quiz/](https://perceptiongap.us/the-perception-gap-quiz/) I was certain that
the world was more polarized than the tests stated. I didn't base my answers
on my interactions with people in my personal life but rather on what I read
from social networks, especially Twitter. I think I may be poisoning my
perception of the world when I use the Internet as my lens.

~~~
Baeocystin
This SMBC explains it as well as anything I've come across.

[https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07](https://www.smbc-
comics.com/comic/2013-04-07)

------
mjohn
I'd highly recommend How Behaviour Spreads by David Centola for anyone
interested in this topic. His lecture at the Santa Fe Institute is also worth
watching as a summary:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fDcUJMzkI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fDcUJMzkI)

------
airstrike
See also:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29)

Sadly the article on Wikipedia singles out some of the most egregious cases
(e.g. /r/incels) as "alleged examples", which in turn implies other
communities (e.g. HN) aren't equally valid examples, which I don't personally
view an intellectually honest assessment.

~~~
vorpalhex
Any community is going to be an echo chamber around something.

HN is generally a "tech is good" camp, given that we're all in tech. We might
recognize boundaries and nuance in there, but most HNers generally believe
tech solves problems (myself included).

The concern imo is when a network, say your Facebook friends, ends up becoming
a secret echo chamber without understanding it. Instead of realizing you are
engaging in a biased group you assume you have a representative sampling and
that people who disagree with you are the outliers.

~~~
lostgame
Not to nitpick, but I’d argue HN is more of in the ‘tech is good - when it’s
good’ camp.

I definitely perceive a sense of gearing towards a more ethical and
responsible growth or use of technology, and that’s part of what makes me keep
coming back here every day.

Totally just my own anecdotal observations, however.

~~~
killface
HN is more worship of entreprenuership with a focus on tech.

------
8bitsrule
Schopenhauer: "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the
limits of the world."

Goethe: "What is the hardest thing of all? that which seems to you the
easiest: to see with your eyes what is before your eyes. "

------
big_chungus
What this doesn't address is why many people don't conform to this. My primary
friend group is about half male, half female. Half left-ish, half right-ish,
some more or less authoritarian/individualistic. Some techie, some med people,
some business, some arts. We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural,
and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's
not as though any of us consciously selected anything.

The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is
different?

~~~
mistermann
> We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get
> along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of
> us consciously selected anything.

Does your friend group perhaps engage in a sort of a curation process, only
allowing in new members who can disagree but still get along fine?

> The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is
> different?

It seems to me that this is _the_ question humanity should be trying to answer
right now. The majority of the problems the world faces right now (political
polarization, inequality, climate change, you name it) share one common core
problem: the inability of humans to get along as well as they "should" be able
to (if each out-group would "just <do x>").

I wonder if you started intently observing _the nuanced nature of_
conversations and "conflict" in your group, and compare that to similar
conversations you observe among other people (IRL, on social media, in the
news) and making a list of difference in behavior and style, perhaps some
interesting patterns and ideas might rise to the top.

I also wonder if some way could be found to scale this exercise up, and
collaborate with people in various fields (psychologists, neurologists,
linguists, historians, mediators, rationalists, spiritualists, autism-
spectrumists (neuro-Atypical people in general), etc), if some really
important and pragmatic ideas might result that could actually be used to make
some widespread improvements in this problem.

~~~
big_chungus
I guess there is some curation, yeah; we don't really invite back those who
are unpleasant or can't handle being wrong. I personally don't use much social
media, so that might be a difference? I'm tempted to say that people just
don't do too well arguing behind a screen, me included. It's difficult to see
the other person as a person. I also thinks it takes some willingness: just
the other evening I conversed with someone else, not a typical acquaintance,
and trying to persuade him of a point. Went through my chain of logic, got to
the end, and watched him shut off when he realized where I was going. Not
everyone is interested, plain and simple.

~~~
mistermann
> Not everyone is interested, plain and simple.

"Not many people can read and write, plain and simple" was a true statement
for much of the planet not that long ago. I wonder what changed between then
and now, was it just a run of good luck, or was the change somehow man-made.

------
raxxorrax
> people often strenuously resist such diversification efforts

Yes, that would make sense.

Didn't look at the study, but if the depicted diagrams are representative of
the phenomenon, people might just have used linear extrapolation to estimate
population sizes. Extrapolation is just an improved form of lying, ask any
mathematician. But could it really be called bias?

That aside, I also believe that I have a right to bias. This is equivalent to
having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If not, please specify the
difference.

~~~
airstrike
> This is equivalent to having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If
> not, please specify the difference.

I would argue "bias" is a subconscious variation of having an opinion. It's
fine to have opinions, so long as you think critically about them and chose a
rational opinion based on well-defined principles and / or assumptions. It's
not equally fine to discredit disconforming evidence simply due to cognitive
dissonance.

------
SolaceQuantum
So, given this conclusion and resolving this is to meet a diverse amount of
people:

How do we meet a diverse group of people?

~~~
brlewis
I don't have personal experience with this organization, but it's one I've
heard of for bringing diverse viewpoints together:
[https://www.livingroomconversations.org/](https://www.livingroomconversations.org/)

------
Mediterraneo10
Do social networks have a business case to diversify the connections of people
on it? If people are encouraged to adhere to a limited number of affiliations
and be firm in that group identity, then doesn’t that make it easier for
advertisers to target them?

~~~
yorwba
If you're open to connecting with new people, it's easier to introduce you to
someone who's really into product X and recommends it to all their friends.

------
jariel
Highly relevant to this is the 'perception gap' data, which shows the extent
to which some groups misperceives others.

[https://perceptiongap.us/](https://perceptiongap.us/) [1]

------
AlphaWeaver
This intuitively makes sense to me, but I'm sure there's plenty more research
to be done on the topic. As a whole though, I think this is definitely a very
hard problem to solve.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, and interested in seeing how we
can use technology to build better and more meaningful social networks, you
should check out VC3 ([https://vc3.club](https://vc3.club)). I started a
discussion group specifically for topics in this problem area, and we would
love to have you join the conversation.

------
airstrike
Another study from 2016 suggests that social networks tend to lead users to
become increasingly polarized regardless of the content or promotion
algorithm:

[https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/htm/papers...](https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/htm/papers/facebook%20and%20Youtube%20polarization%202016.PDF)

------
jaydouken
A related an interesting resource:
[https://ncase.me/crowds/](https://ncase.me/crowds/)

------
zyxzevn
I have no social network.. hmmm So I am smart :-)

