Promoted by Brendan
There has been much commentary about how websites can serve as "echo-chambers" allowing us to limit our discussions to like-minded individuals. While sites like Wikipedia and Swords Crossed may counteract this tendency on the web, we may face a much more fundamental threat of political/cultural balkanization arising from where we live .
That's the message coming from some demographers, such as Bill Bishop the author of “The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart”. This political segregation has become increasingly apparent when looking at electoral results on a county-by-county basis, but it is even more extreme when we look at this from the neighborhood level.
Admittedly, we don't intentionally sort ourselves according to political affiliation; instead, we look for particular cultural services when we choose neighborhoods. Unfortunately, our main political parties are largely based on cultural divisions, so they just reinforce our tribal identities--perhaps in the same way that the states of the Balkans reinforce national identity there.
The above article ends on a high note:
American politics may be polarised, but at least no one is coming to blows over it.
This is true as long as we all accept that we share common interests as Americans, and trust each other to follow the rules. Unfortunately, these assumptions are exactly what seems to break down as we get more segregated. As one example: when we don't know anyone who voted for the "other" part, are we less likely to accept the idea that their politicians were elected in a fair election?
__________________________
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Adam, This downward trend in
Adam,
This downward trend in the quality and productiveness of political discourse in America due to increasing partisanship and increasingly selective media consumption (which are mutually reinforcing trends) -- accompanied by an increasing tendency to reflexively reject arguments rather than engage in critical thought and rational discussion/debate -- is a very, VERY important matter.
Not only does the increasing segregation of which you speak (socially, as well as in media consumption and participation) damage our intellectual environment (a harm in itself), even more important is that it makes very suboptimal policy much more likely, thus harming the nation and the world.
I recommend http://www.amazon.com/True-Enough-Learning-Post-Fact-Society/dp/04700501... . Nothing too surprising in there, but some excellent examples of the strength of the tendency of at least some people to consume media with great selectivity and judge the credibility of information with great partisan bias, all to reinforce what one wants to believe.
I have plenty of examples myself from my adventures in Echo Chamber Land on both right and left.
When I first began blogging, I posted this diary (May 03, 2007) expressing my concern http://rationalguy.blogtownhall.com/2007/05/03/real_debate_an_endangered... As I subsequently spent time on partisan echo chamber blogs, I learned that the blogosphere offered probably the worst examples of this unfortunate state and trend in political discourse.
I would appreciate any links that anyone can provide to threads on partisan blogs which are examples of this unreasonable, closed-minded (and often downright hostile and/or paranoid) hyperpartisan mindset and conduct. I'm collecting such information for analysis of this very unfortunate trend, and plan to work to gain awareness of this adverse trend and to do what I can to try to slow/halt/reverse this treand.
PLEASE email me at BrooksBud@aol.com with any such links, and any explanation/commentary you have. Thanks.
Oh boy
I bet you'll get a lot of material.
I might try to dig up a few links myself...
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thanks, man. I'd appreciate
Thanks, man. I'd appreciate all I can get. This problem re: political discourse and our long-term fiscal imbalance are the two issues on which I focus most. And of course, solving the first problem is important for solving the second, although solving the first can help improve policy decisions in general.
There's nothing to debate, BR
You already know full well what has to happen to correct them. Most do. It's simply a matter a doing it.
Medicare must either move to fix the broken price mechanism in health care in general and the distortions in health services that it causes....OR....we have to jack up taxes to cover the imbalance and ignore the soaring cost problem.
On SS, we can't really do much beyond cutting benefits or raising taxes....OR...we just scrap the system and phase it out.
Government is good at falling over itself to offer debatable solutions to a myriad of complex and debatable problems....but it sucks at fixing its own messes.
Something drastic will happen eventually...but only when they can't dodge it anymore.
We're not there yet so don't hold your breath.
I didn't mean to branch off
I didn't mean to branch off into discussion of our long-term fiscal imbalance. I was just mentioning it as the other of the two issues on which I am most focused. But I'd be very glad to discuss fiscal policy anywhere else. I just don't want to go off on that tangent on this thread.
No prob
I was just sayin'...
;)
And I encourage and request
And I encourage and request that any of my fellow SCers who eschew such partisan echo chamber blogs of right, left, or both, to spend some time on such blogs, challenge positions and arguments that you find dubious or consider invalid, present rational arguments and pose legitimate questions, and let me know how it turns out (i.e., were you able to have a substantive, rational discussion/debate, or were you met by resistance, hostility, personal attacks, evasions such as obvious straw men, irrelevant or clearly illogical responses, etc.?)
Fascinating endeavor
I hope you'll share what you find out. One thing I'd try to pay particular attention to when you're looking at people's experiences at "partisan echo chamber blogs" is how people go about attempting to have these discussions. It's hard to quantify, but tone is so important. I remember in particular Redstate's disdain for liberals coming in to conduct "Conservatives in the Mist" conversations and I think the responses were a lot harsher and less productive than they could've been had the liberals in question been less condescending from the outset.
Really great idea. I can think of what seems to me to be a perfect example of what you're looking for from My Left Wing, but it was from long enough ago that I think the comments are all archived offline. I'll keep an eye out, though.
Thanks. I would love it if
Thanks. I would love it if this becomes a largely collaborative project with input from my fellow SCers. I will post a diary on SC that will hopefully be an ongoing, active thread for links and discussion. Anyone can then either email me or post there, whichever he/she prefers.
And you're right regarding tone, although I'd also point out that the tone factor can be easily overestimated. Supposedly improper tone or conduct is often used as a mere pretext -- applying a blatant double standard -- for commenters to refuse to respond to legitimate questions or otherwise engage in rational discussion/debate, and for moderators to ban. It's true that sometimes (to take the example of a liberal on a conservative blog) the liberal begins with a snarky tone and receives even less substantive engagement than he otherwise would, and gets banned sooner than he would, and the same applies to a liberal who shows up with a legitimate point or question, is met with snark/ridicule or evasiveness, and responds in a similarly snarky or otherwise negative tone (often my own case). But generally speaking, the bottom line is that the folks on these partisan echo chamber sites do not want to engage substantively and rationally when they start to feel insecure about their ability to logically defend their talking points, arguments and positions, and even if one is perfectly civil and respectful, but merely points out, say, that some straw man response didn't address the point that he (the liberal) actually made or didn't really answer the question, or that the response contradicted an earlier statement or a statement within the very same comment, etc. (in other words, just engaged in rational debate), at some point the regulars on the site will circle the wagons and want to hang the witch (how's that for a mixed metaphor?), and the moderator often shows up as hangman.
I actually receieve that "Conservatives in the mist" accusation twice early on after joining RedState, the second time as the basis for a warning from a moderator of potential banning. First, as context, I had been on RedState for a couple of weeks. Prior to my first "Conservatives in the mist" warning I had posted 8 diaries, of which 4 expressed views that were probably shared by most folks on RedState, 3 were critical of both right and left, and one just said that Romney was way too phony (this was back in April/May 2007). For titles/links to those posts, see this list in REVERSE chronology http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob?page=1
Both "Conservatives in the mist" warnings came on threads of my diaries from moderator Sreiff:
The first one:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/may/06/darfur_a_holocaust_o...
And the second, with stern warning:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/may/08/george_will_on_anima...
I'd be interested in any commentary on the nature of the discussions (with regard to the aforementioned problem re: discourse) on those threads.
EVERYONE, Please contribute
EVERYONE,
Please contribute links/commentary at http://swordscrossed.org/node/2285 anytime, or email me at BrooksBud@aol.com
Thanks.
Some examples of such
Some examples of such partisan blogs are:
On the right:
http://redstate.com/
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/
http://townhall.com/ *
On the left, skewed toward economics but addressing other issues as well:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press
http://delong.typepad.com/
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/
I've never been to Daily Kos, and I've only commented once or twice on Huffington Post, but I assume they are also likely candidates on the left:
http://www.dailykos.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
PLEASE ADD TO MY LIST (or comment if you think anything on the list shouldn't be.)
*TownHall.com is on my list for the right, because contributors are all right-wing and commenters seem to be mostly on the right and more often than not (in my limited experience there) demonstrate the mindset and behavor I've described, but I should note that I've seen a decent number of commenters challenging the right's talking points and positions, and there seems to be little to no partisan heavy-handedness by moderators (perhaps it's too big a site for it relative to the number of moderators).
hyper-fragmentation
As a preface, I also post at a blog called "Freedom Democrats" which is a pretty blatant "echo chamber". The site's purpose is to organize and encourage a very specific ideological group. I don't see this as a problem, because we are well aware that our viewpoint is a tiny minority in the wider world.
However, this type of hyper-fragmentation could actually be beneficial in the sense that it takes each group closer to being a "lone individual in a big world" rather than being a society in itself (which is often fielding an army to battle another society).
In a hyper-fragmented atmosphere, I think people can be more willing to accept that people disagree with them, because "the outsiders" are basically everyone else in society.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I should probably clarify
I should probably clarify that I don't see anything wrong with partisan echo chamber blogs PER SE. If some group of people accept particular premises and conclusions on some particular issues or even share a general ideology, and want to discuss and debate matters within the relatively narrow range established by the presumption of those premises/conclusions, rather than spend time there debating those premises/conclusions with those who don't accept them as valid, that is a perfectly respectable format and activity -- (1) provided those folks don't spend too much time in such environments relative to time spent considering a broader set of perspectives, (2) provided they retain a sense of perspective/proportion regarding their group rather than starting to see the views expressed in such fora as more mainstream than they are, or start to mistake agreement among that group as proof of validity of those premises and conclusions (starting to think that because the group sees some premise or conclusion as so obviously valid, that must mean that anyone who doesn't agree must be stupid, ignorant, dishonest, or some combination) and (3) provided they don't develop the bad habits that echo chambers tend to cultivate (the stuff I discussed re: reaction to opposing views).
In other words, partisan media (blogs or other) can be an ok -- even healthy -- part of an overall diet of information and opinion, as long as consumed in moderation relative to other foods. I listen a bit to conservative talk radio and to (liberal) Air America even though I often find both irritating for the way they deliberately distort information to support the conclusions they want to reach (or at least claim they've reached). And although I don't currently, I could see myself participating on some echo chamber blog on some particular issue for the purpose of refining my understanding of the issue within the kind of range I discussed, although I would still continue to consider opposing arguments from elsewhere and engage in debate elsewhere on that issue.
Way back in college (a couple of decades ago), I got involved with a political student group and was telling my father about it and he gave me some great advice. He said (paraphrasing, but close to verbatim) "Just make sure you're not spending all your time with people who have the same views." Simple, but great advice.
This is actually tough to judge:
You have to consider that no one thinks they belong to a group of unreasonable, close-minded partisans. Within even the most narrowly defined blog, there exists some disagreement, and people will latch onto that disagreement as proof that they are not close-minded. Meanwhile, they rationalize dislike of other views as practical dismissal of ideas that are either outright wrong, dishonest, disingenuous, or dangerous.
Which isn't to say that there aren't plenty of places that fit your bill, just that your opinion of them as close-minded requires you to be outside the community rather than inside.
Take SC for example. We like to think we're broader because we have something of a political spectrum here. But let's take an exampe: no one here accepts 9/11 Truthout conspiracy theories (as far as I know), so to people who believe in that stuff, our site is just a hyperpartisan echo chamber, where "partisan" is defined as "corporate". So are we narrow-minded because of it?
I'm just trying to show that this isn't as easy a task as it seems.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
You have to consider that no
All true statements, but I am talking about the nature of the discourse. It is often quite evident -- I would even dare to say, in many cases it is objectively evident -- that responses to an argument or question are straw men (or, if unintentional, fundamental misunderstandings of the argument/question), non sequiturs, self-contradictions (or at least apparent self-contradictions worthy of an explanation if the statements in question can be reconciled), responses completely devoid of anything anyone could possibly see as an actual answer or refutation of an argument (e.g., just ad hominem), etc.
I may think someone has such a strong bias that he is not viewing the relevant information with sufficient objectivity to have a rationally-based opinion, and I may be right or wrong in drawing that conclusion about that person, but what I am talking about is how that person, and like-minded persons on partisan blogs, react to opposing arguments.
As for your example of 9/11 conspiracies, while I must admit I might be reluctant to engage someone on that topic and might even imply that he is a loon, first of all, that is an extreme (same deal with someone who claims the Holocaust never happened, or that the earth is flat or the moon is made of blue cheese or that he is Napoleon). Second, if I did engage someone (as I have on a few occasions), I'd send them the Popular Mechanics article debunking all the common myths of that conspiracy theory (which they'd promply claim was part of the cover-up) and I'd ask why they attach so much more credibility to the sources they cite than to all sources they reject?
counterpoint:
But I'd argue we get plenty of that here, and SC is not an echo chamber (at least in the sense that you're looking to study). Furthermore, I'll make a really bold statement: some social/economic/political issues are so complex that you don't have to engage in objectively "bad" discourse to become an echo chamber for a particular set of ideas. There are ways to support a single line of ideology using facts and logic (although - and here's the distinction - without keeping an open mind about the possibility of being wrong).
Although here we're getting into the nature of community versus individual posters: each individual can be an echo chamber unto him/herself, but taken as a group, can exhibit a whole spectrum of ideas (which happens at heated debate sites). But is it possible for a community to be full of open-minded thinkers who nonetheless reach the same conclusions (and thus seem, to the outside viewer, to be an echo chamber)?
This is a good discussion, by the way. I'm enjoying hashing these issues out.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
What I am saying about
What I am saying about mindset and behavior on both an individual and group level is generally a matter of degree -- and a substantial difference in degree. So yes, some of it exists on SC, and, using myself as an example, I wouldn't claim to be completely devoid of bias myself, but I make a conscious effort to be as objective as possible and to listen, consider and discuss rationally opposing arguments, and I always call 'em as I see 'em regardless of whether acknowledging some "fact" or probability or reaching some conclusion supports a policy or candidate I prefer). And while we have varying degrees of tendencies one way or another on the above here at SC, I'd say that the exchanges here generally indicate that most individuals here, and the group as a whole, are on a better place on that spectrum than those on partisan blogs.
is it possible for a community to be full of open-minded thinkers who nonetheless reach the same conclusions (and thus seem, to the outside viewer, to be an echo chamber)?
Yes, but that would probably be the exception rather than the rule for most topics on most political blogs. For example, a community of open-minded thinkers can all come to the same conclusion regarding some very well-documented historical event or scientific finding that is very well-established, and may not take a contrarian view (e.g., Holocaust denial) seriously (as I wouldn't). But the "truth" involved with most political policy topics is not that clear cut, so usually...well, to put this as Jeff Foxworthy might:
- If you're on a political blog on which just about everyone expresses the same core positions/opinions/arguments/premises/logic/etc., you just might be in a partisan echo chamber.
- If you're on an overtly ideologically-oriented blog where commenters are making contradictory statements (i.e., being illogical) to support/defend their position or talking points, and they are either unwilling or incapable of reconciling the apparent contradictions, you just might be in a partisan echo chamber.
- If you're on an overtly ideologically-oriented blog where people either can't or are unwilling to distinguish between conceptual/analytical points/questions and policy advocacy arguments, or refuse to discuss the former (or other premises) unless and until you tell them what policy you are advocating (because they say/imply that you must be advocating some particular policy -- you must have an agenda behind your supposed exploration of the issue, and you must not really be seeking genuine discussion/debate), you just might be in a partisan echo chamber.
- If you're on an overtly ideologically-oriented blog where anyone who raises a challenge to some conceptual/analytical premise of the group is automatically assumed to be an evil, disingenuous member of some agenda-driven conspiracy, you just might be in a partisan echo chamber.
- If you're on an overtly ideologically-oriented blog on which commenters and moderators apply an obvious double standard regarding tone/conduct is applied to those who challenge any of the group's core premises, positions, talking points, etc., and on which moderators use that double standard as a pretext for banning, you just might be in a partisan echo chamber.
(That list is by no means exhaustive. If anyone wishes to add to this Foxworthy-style list, please do.)
partisan self-identification
But people do come pretty close in that they have strong partisan self-identification--which can be a good indicator of "close-minded partisans".
For example, I am registered with the Democrats, but it isn't a part of my identity. I view the parties as nothing more than a component of our electoral system -- I affiliate with the Democrats as part of a strategy of getting my preferred policies implemented (and as a communication strategy).
The idea of "party loyalty" is distasteful to me--yet there are plenty of people who brag about being "a lifelong Democrat" or "coming from a Democratic family" or otherwise indiciate that their party affiliation is part of their identity.
Perhaps my aloffness arises from my experience as a libertarian (always being the political outsider), or perhaps I am just enough of an individualist (I think my nationalist sentiments are relatively weak, though I do have a practical belief in nations) that I don't go for this stuff.
Anyway, I do occassionally encounter intentional, explicit self-brainwashing. Interestingly, both examples that I can think of involve times when I mentioned the Economist magazine in leftist circles -- I recieved responses to the effect that I should not read the Economist because they have a "conservative" bias (I would call it neo-liberal)--instead I should read things like Mother Jones. I don't think the posters believed that magazines like Mother Jones were unbiased--they just felt that it was better to fully focus on developing their "progressive" awareness.
Last thoughts:
I suspect that many self-isolaters are either young or otherwise intellectually imature. They are intent on developing their awareness of a particular pespective, which can be good, but their behavior betrays imaturity in two ways:
- Impulsive: they have embraced a particular ideology even as they have minimal understanding of that ideology.
- Lack of perspective: they don't recognize that there is only so much to be understood about any given ideology/perspective. I've found that after a couple of years of casual study of a given ideology, that I have trouble gaining new insights from it.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Interesting points. Re:
Interesting points.
Re: "identity", that's an important point, and one I was getting at in my reference on another thread to the whole "us vs. them", "good vs. evil" mindset. Basically, people who are part of this trend are apparently seeking to simplify the world and feel confident that a set of policies are right in practical or moral terms (or any other terms), that they are on the side of right and good, and that they have an identity of which they can feel proud (and often superior and self-righteous) and which makes them a member of a community, a band of brothers of sorts. And to maintain this oversimplified worldview and all the emotional benefits that come with it, they tend to avoid information that conflicts with their beliefs and thus causes cognitive dissonance, and when they do encounter such information, they apply great bias to reject it, often reflexively. They are determined to believe what they WANT to believe, what makes them feel good. Granted, we all have some of this tendency, but I'm talking about a matter of degree, (1) degree of strength of this impulse in a given individual, (2) degree of one's awareness of this tendency in one's self, and (3) degree to which one resists this impulse and effectively pressures one's self to be as objective as possible and to be open to rational discussion/debate, whether doing so will create comfort or discomfort. A mature person (intellectually and emotionally) will be (1) low, (2) high, (3) high. The folks I'm talking about are the opposite on all three.
As for ideology, a problem I often see is inappropriate substitution of ideology for sound (or even sensible) analysis (and sometimes even logic). Some people come at tax policy, for example, from an ideological perspective. Should taxes be lower? "Sure!" they say, "because people should be allowed to keep more of their hard-earned money. That's what makes this country great. And that's what works to grow the economy. And the government doesn't spend as efficiently as the private sector. And after all, that's what's right, because it's HIS money, not the government's money!" And that's about as far as they get, although some of them will cherry pick whatever information they can find and twist into some sort of argument supposedly supporting a practical argument (e.g., revenues went up after Kennedy's, Reagan's and W. Bush's tax cuts, so tax cuts MUST cause higher revenues -- we can have our cake and eat it, too!). Never mind considerations such as the very strong likelihood that tax cuts such as Bush's have a substantial net negative impact on revenues, the huge, unsustainable long-term fiscal imbalance that we face, the limitations of the ability of tax cuts to "starve the beast" (which, by the way, is incompatible with their argument that tax cuts increase revenues, but that doesn't stop many of them from contending both), the fact that even they wouldn't want government spending to be cut low enough to provide fiscal health over the next several decades without raising taxes (e.g., they wouldn't want seniors to be left with very little in terms of Medicare and Social Security benefits), etc.
In other words, ideology is often used by these folks as a lazy and/or immature person's convenient, feel-good escape from tough, complex practical considerations and related uncomfortable conclusions.
Eh, I don't care for comments like this:
It's bad form to draw this kind of conclusion from pseudonymous social interaction, especially if you don't have the data to back it up. Remember that most of the people who frequent political blogs are actually older - this has been confirmed again and again in self-run demographic surveys. In fact, I'd be willing to bet money that the average age at SC is younger than at dkos or redstate.
I don't mean to single you out for this comment, but it's a bad habit I see a lot on the blogs (from myself, included!): we have a tendency to make guesses about social behavior without any real evidence.
(I'm not commenting on the second half of your claim ("or otherwise intellectually immature"), because it's just tautological: you think they're immature because their behavior is immature.)
On the issue of party loyalty, I think you've actually got two overlapping dynamics to think about. One, as you pointed out, is single-minded association with a party right that precludes any honest discussion. But another you might not be considering is the purely pragmatic reason for partisanship: people attach to a party not because they believe it has a moral leg up, but because they know they have a better chance of getting what they want out of politics by devoting themselves fully to one party. Those people are perfectly happy to acknowledge that their party deserves a lot of criticism - but they still refer to themselves as lifelong D's or R's because they have an investment there.
__________________________Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
"self-isolating" vs. "closed minded"
In response to both Brutus and Pico...
While describing the "self-isolating" individuals I was specifically referring to those who intentionally seek information sources that reinforce their views, while simultaneously avoiding information that comes from a different perspective. I was not speaking of people who refuse to change their mind when presented with opposing arguments/perspectives.
I am well aware of the conventional wisdom (and apparently, scientific research) that older people are less likely to change their mind when faced with an argument. In fact, this fits in quite well with the idea I presented that it is immature/young people who intentionally restrict what ideas they are exposed to: their exposure matters specifically because they are impressionable.
An older/mature person can read something coming from a particular viewpoint and minimize its impact in a few ways:
1) Recognizing that viewpoint (i.e. saying "this person is coming from a conservative perspective and they tend to overlook certain issues")
2) Placing the new information in the context of their vast experience/knowledge.
Furthermore, once a person is old and certain about their opinions, they probably get bored by hearing their opinions parroted back to them. They'd probably prefer to engage with people of differing opinions, at least in order to have a chance of converting that person.
Finally, I was simply making a speculative generalization about where others are coming from. It was not dismissive or demeaning in any way --simply an attempt to understand their perspective. This is necessary because communication is impossible if we make no attempt to understand the mind behind the words.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
It's an interesting
It's an interesting theory/hypothesis. Is it based mostly/completely on your anecdotal observations? I'm not asking to belittle anecdotal observations, just to know if you have other sources.
By the way, re: "those who intentionally seek information sources that reinforce their views, while simultaneously avoiding information that comes from a different perspective", as some may have seen me write before, the best line I've heard regarding such behavior (well, actually my adaptation of a line used in another context*) is that some people use media the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination.
* The version I heard was in reference to the way some managers use management consultants or market research.
just my own interpretation -- a model of their minds
This is just my favored interpretation for a few interactions I've had. I am not trying to develop a scientific theory here.
I'm just trying to interpret strange behavior as being the result of a reasonable mind. I can understand immaturity. I can understand that a person might have just had a great revelation about society and is so excited about it that they temporarily become dismissive of any viewpoint that isn't based on that profound revelation. I can understand how a person might have had so little exposure to other people's ideas that he can actually view "ideological space" as a simple dichotomy, where you are either "with us or against us".
I have trouble coming up with other explanations for why a person would be so averse to listening to someone with a different perspective in the world. I suppose you could refer to "intellectual cowardice", but I don't understand what a person would be afraid of. I suppose that some people live in conditions where they actually fear for their safety, and quite literally consider these other viewpoints to be a threat -- but I've never had that experience (I'm a straight white middle-class man).
Outside of these interpretations, I'm basically left with some convoluted emotional explanation for their behavior ("they are redirecting their Oedipal fears onto distant male authority figures").
The basic point is that to communicate with someone I need a model of their mind, and I intuitively start building that model with each interaction (even if it is as restricted as a text message). My model may be wrong, but it is impossible to not have a model. The alternative would be to treat everyone identitically (perhaps using only their self-professed interests, assuming that I can even understand how they are using language in the absense of a model of their mind) --but I know that there is great diversity in the people who I encounter online: some are 13 and some are 83; some are well-read, some are street-smart; some are rich, some are poor--their minds will be very different from each other's. It would be pointless to try to work out the details of their lives from these interactions, but I do need to develop a sense of how they will respond to what I write...which means that I need to develop a model of their minds.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
support for what?
Ignoring the above ramble...
It could be that a person is more concerned with maintaining their motivation for their current decisions rather than reconsidering their decisions. Echo-chambers can be useful for that.
The problem that I have with that theory is that i don't understand why a person would care so much about maintaining their motivation. For most of us, political action (not just idle talk) culminates in voting--and that doesn't require a whole lot of determination. However, for those who have made political activism into a major project in their life (organizing campaigns, etc.) I could see how they would want to reinforce their motivation in order to make sure that they "see it to the end". However, I wouldn't expect such people to be spending much time commenting on general interest political blogs or mailing lists--they'd probably be focusing on the nuts and bolts of organizing.
Maybe some people fashion themselves as hard-core activists, even though they don't have much to do in the real world, and have dreams of converting their online interactions into real actions. Even in this case, I'd mark such people as immature, since they apparently haven't learned how limiting these tools are for actual change.
There isn't much point to these political discussions if you aren't actually interested in expanding your understanding of opposing viewpoints.
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
"immature" is not an insult
I know that many people use the term "immature" to simply mean "disagreeable" or "stupid", but in this case I mean it as literally as possible: when I refer to someone being intellectually immature, I mean that their thinking skills are not highly developed, most likely because they do not have much experience thinking about complex issues (or more specifically, political issues).
This could result from a person simply being young, but it could also be because a person never bothered to examine big issues until they were 50. In such a case, the person would be unfamiliar with the many institutions and communities that are involved in political issues, and consequently think about them in a way that can objectively be referred to as "immature"
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I suspect that many
All the books in college that I had, that mentioned this topic, had things seemingly going the other way. The older one was the less likely they were to change their opinion. That would lead me to thinking it would be more likely for older people to not be open to discussing/reading new viewpoints, as they are less likely to change them anyway.
And for my age, I'm younger than Jesse Camp, former MTV "VJ"
__________________________In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Balkanization
You know it might be worthwhile to spend some time debating if this is really a bad thing.
To my mind an increasingly stark division along social and economic lines within the US serves to increase the likelyhood for a dissolution of the country into smaller states. While potentially messy I suspect this could be done in a way so as to produce three to five decent sized nations with strong trade and familial ties to keep any potential friction under control.
That I think would be a very good thing.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Dailykos as example....
I have been writing on it for a couple years now, and the format makes it conducive to immediate feedback, and to gratification. Bush's narrowness and deceitfulness, made it easy to feel the need for a group to counter this, and Dailykos provided such a community.
Perhaps it is the large numbers of people, so a given comment like this has a good chance to get a specific response. And I can find it on my own list of comments, giving me a virtual series of simultaneous conversations.
And while most are trivial, often there is an intellectual, or even human connection that is hard to duplicate. It would be great is Swordscrossed had this feature, where a user could follow his comments, see if they get a rec, which is a "good post" signal, a simple positive reinforcement, or better yet, a specific comment to your point..
Perhaps Dailykos only works because it is defined as having a purpose to elect Democrats, which really is a limitation on serious political discussion. But the web site transcends this fairly frequently, by diaries/essays that could belong in "Dear Abby" or "Science Today" or "Political Science Digest"
Make no mistake, the majority of diaries/essays (present company excepted, of course) in dailykos is trivial. But with 20 or so an hour, there are always a few interesting ones to connect with.
I wish swordscrossed had such comment feedback, actually had Dailykos's software, which I think they are selling. There are no ads on this site, so the expense would have to be covered by the users, but it may not be impossible.
And there is a value in creating a community, something that is more difficult to achieve in real life for a host of reasons.
Owners of Swordscrossed, take note. Consider that you have created a popular coffee shop, but the place lacks certain amenities that would make it even more enjoyable. If it cost a few bucks a month, I might be interested, since I throw money away on things that give me a lot less enjoyment.
What I'm saying, to be clear, is that with the Dailykos software, Swordscrossed could have a larger user base, and actually allow more interaction.
Something to think about, perhaps.
Noted =)
and agreed.
I believe Ender is hoping to upgrade the software sometime soon, which should provide at least a few improvements.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Scoop
I think they are using Scoop.
You're right about the dynamics of Daily Kos -- it is set up in a way that makes it rather easy to separate the wheat from the chaff (though there is still much room for improvement)
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Swordscrossed does need a makeover, but that's not all
Of the blogs I frequent, SC is the "clunkiest", the most homely visually, and the most feature-poor. It's the Ford Pinto of the blogosphere. It's a Pinto that runs, mind you-- it gets you from point A to B-- but it doesn't get you there in style. I know Ender's life and work keep him hopping though, and he seems like much of the time he barely has enough free time to chime in with a comment, much less upgrade the site, so it's not like I expect the upgrades to happen or am disappointed when upgrades don't happen. It is what it is.
Besides, the people make the site, not the platform. I would note that DailyKos also started out as a very rudimentary site, and that the community grew quickly despite that. As a chicken/egg equation, the people definitely came before the slick interface at DailyKos-- the slick interface was paid for with ad dollars from advertisement on a rudimentary site, which was only possible because the eyeballs were already there. So growth in a community can happen without slick software. It just hasn't happened here. I think that SC is not growing just because new people don't come here that often, because it seems like a good percentage of the people who do start participating here like it enough to stick around.
And the small size of SC is an issue, and I think it threatens its growth and perhaps its ultimate survival. The population of SC is at such a low level that the absence of any regular poster deals a significant blow to the viability of the site as an ongoing community. For instance, when GoRight went on hiatus because of the birth of his daughter, several of us remarked about how he was missed, and from my perspective, it wasn't just the wit and charm that was missed; it was that he could be counted on to reliably cross swords on a wide variety of issues, so that if you took the time to compose a comment regarding whatever, chances are you'd get a conversation going. Another good example would be Specter's hiatus while attending to personal matters... just the loss of one solitary commenter who could be counted on to engage on just about any subject had a significant effect on the energy level of the site. As it stands now, you lose four or five qualiy, prolific commenters like Specter and GoRight at once-- for whatever the reason-- and SC may just kind of wither away, and that would be a minor tragedy, because this is a really cool community in my humble opinion. A site like this should never die just because someone had a baby, and someone else got a new job, and someone else just needed some time away from political debate to recharge their interest in the subject. But it could happen.
So I consider the need to attract new blood with fresh perspectives to the site to be more pressing than site upgrades. Attracting the new people that this community needs is not that easy though. I get the feeling that many people think that participating on a site like SwordsCrossed is just a waste of time because of the fact that it is so small, whereas those same people would not consider participating on DailyKos to be a waste of time because there you are "part of something big" and thus there is the possibility of "making a difference". We also don't have the unifying mission that the partisan blogs have.
I think we all see the value in the debate for debate's sake, for the way it sharpens our own thought processes, and for the way that thoughts and ideas get tested here when we are at our best. But how do we get that across to people who've never been here? I've recommended SC to several people on DailyKos in the past, and they seem interested, but I never seem to see their names show up here, so I really don't have good answers as to exactly how to get new people to participate on SC.
As an aside, but not unrelated to this: my lack of participation the past month or two here is just temporary, though I will not be back much for the next month, as I'm spending July hiking in Oregon and Washington. I haven't participated much simply because I haven't felt like I had much interesting to say, which probably happens to most all of us from time to time. I fully plan to be back; in fact I can guarantee you that I _will_ be back, and I want this site to be here when I get back! But I look at the number of comments in the open threads over the past weeks, and I see a lot of 20s and 30s in there, and the most comments since June 13th in an open thread is 63. Open threads used to regularly get over 100 comments, with 150-200 comment threads not uncommon. I know you can't measure a site like SC merely on volume of posts, and I know that there's a lot of quality packed into those comments, but the numbers look anemic, and quite frankly, worrisome for the future of this site.
Yes, traffic is down
I think we're at the point where anyone here is invested in keeping the site running, so that's the positive spin.
Personally I will continue to be busy through August but should have more time beginning in September. Since that coincides with the end of summer we could plan a relaunch for the fall. Get the university crowd on board, get some interest, spruce up the site...
The other thing that I've noticed is that more people from here are discovering the Forvm (perhaps partially thanks to my linking them repeatedly). If you're looking for responses from both liberals and conservatives, they get more traffic than we do and so you could cross-post stuff there as well. It's not exactly the same type of community, of course, and I don't think it could replace SC, but it's an additional option for people looking to keep writing and debating with more feedback than is available solely from SC at the moment.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Forvm
I would go there more but I really don't like the layout.
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ha
Some of them make a habit of ripping our layout.
I don't think either theirs or ours is optimal, but I'm used to ours.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
What would be ideal is
to have the layout be modular so that a person can customize it to their preference, but obviously that's a lot more work (to make sure everything works together correctly).
__________________________I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
self-marginalization
As long as we're on the issue of echo-chambers, I think that there is also a tendency for some groups to marginalize themselves by developing a culture that is quite separate from the mainstream.
For example, Randists (Objectivists) develop a vocabulary that makes it really hard for them to communicate with others. I think that the word "selfish" is the most glaring example: they use it to mean "acting in accordance with one's own values" whereas mainstream society interprets it as "lacking consideration of others". Similarly, I think they use "greed" to mean "ambition or desire for wealth", but restrained by respect for others, whereas in common usage it is typically interpreted as meaning excessive ambition (i.e. unrestrained by respect for others).
I've seen Marxists do similar things, where they will obsessively analyze the capitalist system, then speak about in pseudo-scientific terminology that is inacessible to anyone who hasn't studied tons of Marxist theory.
Among the anti-authoritarian left, they tend to develop clothing styles and protest techniques that create a barrier between them and the people they are supposedly trying to reach. There are a number of slogans or expressions that they use repeatedly in many different contexts, but are awkward or bizzare to mainstream ears. As one example, the band Chumbawamba took some flack when they introduced more "popular" aspects to their music--they were accused of being sell outs, but they justified this action specifically on the ground that they wanted their music to be popular, because they wanted their lyrics to be heard by the general public.
I figure that there are Christian sects that behave similarly, even as they are supposedly evangelical
__________________________"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was
made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Absolutely
Developing a unique "culture" that includes references and vocabulary specific to the group is a good way of promoting a sort of bonding among members, and it can be positive -- I think businesses do this deliberately, for example.
It can also be negative in that it makes it difficult for outsiders to come in and be accepted. You gotta know the language to have a discussion.
__________________________Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson