Escape the echo chamber • Hacker News Board

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#11

Post by lopmotr » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

jackfraser wrote: post #7

ScottBurson wrote: post #6

Look at the many stories of people leaving cults and echo chambers. Take, for example, the story of Derek Black in Florida – raised by a neo-Nazi father, and groomed from childhood to be a neo-Nazi leader. Black left the movement by, basically, performing a social reboot. He completely abandoned everything he’d believed in, and spent years building a new belief system from scratch. He immersed himself broadly and ope…

> And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works Has anyone actually put this data together in a presentable way? I've only seen things that say the opposite and it would be good to actually have a read of something well-formed that sets the modern progressive case for dealing with this research, beyond simply ignoring it altogether.

I've looked into it a little before and couldn't find anything except research supporting a race-IQ correlation. I've heard rumors of cultural bias in tests but didn't find actual research. There does seem to be an economy factor though because countries with racially similar people tend to have different IQs in relation to their economic performance. I think this is the biggest and most widespread misunderstanding the moderate left (ie not communists) has about the world.

My theory is that people are afraid the general public doesn't have the education or self-discipline necessary to know this information (even if it's wrong!) without turning into violent racists. Black slavery used to be justified by "they're inferior so it's OK to treat them badly", and the left countered the first part of that but not the second. It's entirely possible that they are, on average, inferior intellectually but that doesn't justify abusing them. How can you let that genie out of the bottle though without people making blanket judgments of entire races?

Just in case anyone thinks I'm a white supremacist, it's not whites at the top, it's Asians and Ashkenazi Jews.

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#12

Post by lopmotr » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:22 AM UTC

3131s wrote: post #10

jackfraser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works Has anyone actually put this data together in a presentable way? I've only seen things that say the opposite and it would be good to actually have a read of something well-formed that sets the modern progressive case for dealing with this research, beyond simply ignoring it altogether.

Tell them that it is completely impossible to set up rigorous controls in a study of ethnicity and intelligence anyway. The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence. I typically ask these people if some connection between race and intelligence actually existed, is it your intention to change how so…

It matters for the pursuit of truth in the same way people like to accept scientific claims over religious ones. Sure, you can believe something and carry on with life but for many, that's not satisfying.

Practically, you have people trying to reduce race differences in academic and economic success by reducing racism. If it's not caused by racism, those efforts would be ineffective.

Another reason is predicting future economies of countries. Will Nigeria's rapid growth turn it into another South Korea or Japan? Can America really compete with China in high tech markets in the long term?

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#13

Post by ScottBurson » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:28 AM UTC

3131s wrote: post #10

jackfraser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works Has anyone actually put this data together in a presentable way? I've only seen things that say the opposite and it would be good to actually have a read of something well-formed that sets the modern progressive case for dealing with this research, beyond simply ignoring it altogether.

Tell them that it is completely impossible to set up rigorous controls in a study of ethnicity and intelligence anyway. The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence. I typically ask these people if some connection between race and intelligence actually existed, is it your intention to change how so…

> The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence.

This is well said. I don't hear any impassioned calls for making everybody's lead exposure test results public so employers can avoid hiring stupid people.

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#14

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:41 AM UTC

3131s wrote: post #10

jackfraser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works Has anyone actually put this data together in a presentable way? I've only seen things that say the opposite and it would be good to actually have a read of something well-formed that sets the modern progressive case for dealing with this research, beyond simply ignoring it altogether.

Tell them that it is completely impossible to set up rigorous controls in a study of ethnicity and intelligence anyway. The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence. I typically ask these people if some connection between race and intelligence actually existed, is it your intention to change how so…

[deleted]

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#15

Post by kristianc » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:44 AM UTC

> A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it would fail to clue me in to the fact that, say, my country had been infested by a rising tide of neo-Nazis.

Except it would. I know no-one that talks about opera (or anything) all of the time, and it's hard to think that a rising tide of neo-Nazis would escape the notice of a group of reasonably educated, establishment liberals.

Much of filter bubble theory as it applies to social media seems to treat humans as unthinking demographic blobs defined entirely by their status and political beliefs, and the bubble as something impenetrable, through which new information about the world cannot pass.

Sure, within groups there is groupthink, and I get the appeal of techno-dystopianism, but I can't accept the idea that this is in any way a new phenomenon, or that we are not more connected to new ideas now than we have ever been.

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#16

Post by Normal_gaussian » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:48 AM UTC

3131s wrote: post #10

jackfraser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works Has anyone actually put this data together in a presentable way? I've only seen things that say the opposite and it would be good to actually have a read of something well-formed that sets the modern progressive case for dealing with this research, beyond simply ignoring it altogether.

Tell them that it is completely impossible to set up rigorous controls in a study of ethnicity and intelligence anyway. The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence. I typically ask these people if some connection between race and intelligence actually existed, is it your intention to change how so…

There is often a discussion about ethnicity (and gender) in relation to athletic events; when you have the position put to you, by observation or another, that despite the general adversity faced by certain ethnicities they dominate the medal tables - you are forced to seriously consider the position that not all ethnicities are equal. This will quickly spawn the question of the relationship between ethnicity and intelligence as it is perceived as an orthogonal measure of superiority.

Of course, as you say, it is incredibly hard to control ethnicity and intelligence - due to them largely being perceptions as opposed to metrics. However I am saying the discussion of intelligence in relation to ethnicity comes to most through perfectly normal observations of concrete metrics.

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#17

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 6:52 AM UTC

lopmotr wrote: post #12

3131s wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell them that it is completely impossible to set up rigorous controls in a study of ethnicity and intelligence anyway. The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence. I typically ask these people if some connection between race and intelligence actually existed, is it your intention to change how so…

It matters for the pursuit of truth in the same way people like to accept scientific claims over religious ones. Sure, you can believe something and carry on with life but for many, that's not satisfying. Practically, you have people trying to reduce race differences in academic and economic success by reducing racism. If it's not caused by racism, those efforts would be ineffective. Another reason is predicting futu…

[deleted]

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#18

Post by rapnie » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 7:10 AM UTC

Your page has loads of problems! Like: Who are you? Why would I trust you? What's your business model? What's your privacy policy? Code of Ethics? Security? How does it work?

I would not install the app, nor fill in your website forms before anything like that is clear!

Maybe you should interact with The Center for Humane Technology (humanetech.com), because the subject matter is really interesting, and the problem and ways to avoid it need more attention.

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#19

Post by mercer » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 7:15 AM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #15

> A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it would fail to clue me in to the fact that, say, my country had been infested by a rising tide of neo-Nazis. Except it would. I know no-one that talks about opera (or anything) all of the time, and it's hard to think that a rising tide of neo-Nazis would escape the…

While it's perhaps also true that it's easier now than ever to just remain in a bubble of like-minded people, I sometimes wonder if that maybe misses the point.

Perhaps the problem is not so much lack of access or exposure to new information, but rather that it's information, or 'self marketing' social interaction instead of real, sustained, connection/relation.

Kind of a 'medium is the message' type deal: technology enables/encourages us to relate in ways that involve promotion, lack of day-to-day interaction, increased compartmentalization of our social lives, etc.

For example, one argument against the 'bubble' theory is that a hugely popular site like reddit makes it easier than ever to be exposed to wildly different viewpoints. Not just through the 'all' section, but also by subscribing to various subreddits with a simple click.

But the fact that none of these pieces of text represent people that I know, that I grew up with, that are part of my daily life, that I talk to about my person non-partisan troubles, that I experienced things with, or touched/saw/heard, they're rather abstract.

In fact, they're so abstract that it's even difficult to 'link' their particular messages to each other and form a picture of a person who is more than the contents of that one message + the subreddit we're in.

I definitely feel that both online, and in 'real life', it's not so much the lack of information that is a problem, but rather the lack of real, ongoing relationships with others.

I've seen so many examples of people changing their minds on things simply because of their partner, or close friends, etc. I've seen far right individuals change their views after they sort of accidentally became friends with an immigrant. I've seen extremely conservative Christians change their views on, say, homosexuality because they had a wonderful colleague who was gay. And so on. I've seen much fewer examples of people who 'engaged' with information (books, articles, study, whatever) and made similar changes in their views.

Furthermore, I think we actively hide the effect of relationships on our views, because we want to think that our convictions are reasonable, and well-considered. So if our beliefs change through relationship (and of course information too), we are likely to de-emphasize that. Because it's not exactly 'rational'.

The documentary "Accidental Courtesy" highlights this well, I think. Some of Louis Theroux's stuff also shows this dynamic.

Re: Escape the echo chamber

#20

Post by stillkicking » Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 7:18 AM UTC

3131s wrote: post #10

jackfraser wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works Has anyone actually put this data together in a presentable way? I've only seen things that say the opposite and it would be good to actually have a read of something well-formed that sets the modern progressive case for dealing with this research, beyond simply ignoring it altogether.

Tell them that it is completely impossible to set up rigorous controls in a study of ethnicity and intelligence anyway. The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence. I typically ask these people if some connection between race and intelligence actually existed, is it your intention to change how so…

Why care? That seems pretty obvious: because ethnicity is already used to justify policies of affirmative action, used as a measure of prosperity and equality. The common reasoning is that until the conditional probabilities by demographic are flat, there must be systemic oppression which must be rectified by applying concerted pressure in the other direction. This is an a priori assumption that there are no relevant confounding factors that could acceptably create this outcome, and this assumption ought to be unwarranted for anyone who is interested in the truth. It is only appropriate that you examine whether the policies stand a chance of actually reaching the yardstick they are aiming for, or whether that's treating symptoms that really aren't symptoms at all.

Furthermore, there are some indicators that this is indeed going badly. For instance, by lowering the admissions criteria for an ethnicity, it creates a (correct!) stereotype that those students are on average less skilled, both among others and also among themselves. In an attempt to address an ill-defined form of supposedly systemic oppression, this policy creates a very concrete and actually systemic mechanism to cause the very thing it claims to oppose, and which has knock-on effects.

You see the exact same thing in STEM: anything but a 50/50 representation of gender is an indicator of discrimination. The 'cure' is to roll out the red carpet with biased programs, so that you actually get lower qualified and less interested people working side by side with others who receive no special provisions and worked hard to get there. It's associated with a moral panic that very noticeably makes the relations between the genders worse.

The question of 'why are you so interested in race?' reads to me as a form of denial and projection. The policies already treat groups as monolithic entities. White students, or men in tech, are treated as if they are somehow collectively conspiring to benefit each other at the expense of other groups, even though the individuals compete against each other. Anyone who disagrees, even a member of the 'oppressed group', is dismissed out of hand as having internalized their oppression or denying their privilege. This is ironically exactly the kind of bourgeois talking-down we're all supposed to be fixing, and betrays a moral and value judgement that is the exact opposite of "don't treat people differently by race and gender" and "different ability doesn't means you're less of a person".

"Why is the answer important?" is the wrong question. It's "why are you turning a mundane question about group averages into a moral judgement on individuals, and blaming others for it?" This is a real problem that is happening today, and it's dismissed out of hand in favor of LARPing against the ghosts of christmas past, because facing the present makes the activists uncomfortable whose policies we've already been following for decades.