Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 964 posts

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#921

Post by Ajedi32 »

xwolfi wrote: post #848
Ajedi32 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this article is necessarily arguing for centrism. Being able to understand the perspective of all sides of an issue doesn't mean your own views will necessarily fall directly in the "middle" of those perspectives. It probably does mean, however, that you're less likely to demonize those who disagree with you.

There are no sides, and certainly not just 2 positions to have on issues. The rest of the world is a lot less binary than US politics as well. I live in China and I smirk painfully at people in a biparty telling us our monoparty is oppressive and reduce variation of solution (having only 2 mutually exclusive choices is not twice as good as only one, it's like 10% better if you consider there are 10 choices of solutio…

You'll notice I said all sides, not "both". That was intentional. As you say, there are often more than two sides to any one issue, and a near-infinite number of different perspectives once you start considering more than one issue at a time.

For what it's worth, the US actually does have more than two political parties. It's just that our first-past-the-post election system ensures only two of them are able to effectively compete on the national stage at a given time.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#922

Post by mythrwy »

myko wrote: post #916
mythrwy wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are really doubling down on that? The facts are not on your side but the reverse. It's amazing to see in real time to be honest.

Yes I am doubling down on the facts. For reference, you posted two links with no explanation as to how they supposably refute my points and have refused to backup your claim that HRC created the Russia problem for trump. Please explain: - Don Jr's meeting where he's looking for help from the Russian government - trump's obstruction regarding that meeting - Manafort's shady dealings in Ukraine on behalf of Putin - Rog…

The Steele Dossier was paid for by a firm hired by Hillary's campaign.

So essentially what you have is some weak circumstantial evidence and a campaign that tried to take advantage of existing leaks (about... what? was the information provided truthful?) and another campaign that paid to have false information compiled then leaked to the press in order to discredit a political opponent. Then, when that opponent was in office they tried to use it to overturn his presidency subverting the will of the people.

In spite of your "certain" rhetoric you are clearly in the wrong on this issue, as the Mueller investigation ultimately found.

But I suppose it's not worth arguing "religion" as this apparently has become, discarding reason and rationality. So as other poster says, have nice day! And I truly mean that, have great one.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#923

Post by bena »

commandlinefan wrote: post #434
bena wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the problem with your framing: It's not "left-wing" if it's true. The first. Sure, that's an opinionated take on the facts of the matter. But the facts aren't great either. The second. Did a federal judge call the reasoning "unanchored in any facts"? If so, then they're just telling you what the judge said. Did the Trump DOJ then continue to pursue those records? If so, then they're just telling you what happe…

> It's not "left-wing" if it's true. Then Fox News is also not right-wing.

I notice how you give Fox News the benefit of the doubt but don't post examples from them.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#924

Post by jgoewert »

Grim-444 wrote: post #60
vsskanth wrote: post #8

I tried this experiment: read nytimes, wapo, fox, national review and politico. I wanted to get different perspectives. However, I encountered a bunch of issues: They dont talk about or even cover the same things, which makes it hard to compare liberal vs conservative perspectives. This is the most common form of bias I've come across. In the rare case they do cover the same thing, many articles either simply do not…

"They dont talk about or even cover the same things" - this is the number one fake news tactic in play. I'm not sure what to call it, but it's a 2x2 matrix - If a group is left-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the left and everything bad about the right, If a group is right-leaning, they'll report on everything good about the right and everything bad about the left. For example, you'll almost never se…

>> you'll almost never see CNN write an article critical about Democrats

I can name one CNN reporter right off the bat who does and his post is nearly always in the headline section for the topic being covered:

Chris Cillizza

Find me the same thing on Fox and I will accept your arguement.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#925

Post by jfrunyon »

dragonwriter wrote: post #392
jfrunyon wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The percentage of the American population which is either Democrat or Republican is consistently[1] well[2] above[3] 90%[4], so I'm not sure where you're getting 54%. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_presidentia... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidentia... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_Sta…

> The percentage of the American population which is either Democrat or Republican is consistently[1] well[2] above[3] 90%[4] Even if you read “voting for a D or R candidate in a Presidential general election” as “being a D or R”, and “eligible voters” as “the American population”, both which are clearly and wildly wrong, your evidence still doesn’t support your claim, because it has 98.2% of 66.2% = 65% of eligible…

I'm not sure why you expect news to target people who aren't even in their coverage's audience.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#926

Post by mariodiana »

dragonwriter wrote: post #733
mariodiana wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a fan of Haidt and think his moral "tastebuds" (I think he makes that analogy somewhere) is an interesting model. I largely buy into it, but I found a really perceptive take in this short blog post that came out a few years back that's a bit more skeptical. https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2017/05/26/trump-as-...

I think this piece, referenced in one of the comments to the one you reference, is particularly on point: https://crookedtimber.org/2017/01/22/protestandpolarization/

Thank you for that. I used to read Crooked Timber pretty regularly, years ago. In fact, I had one of the sometime contributors for a semester as a philosophy professor (back in the last century).

I agree Haidt's model is flawed, especially on the idea of sacredness being something liberals aren't concerned with. I think he's onto something, but he's painted with too broad a brush.

Lately, I've been reading a lot on the subject of religion: specifically, from an anthropological or sociological perspective. I'm interested in the idea of ersatz religions—filling the void left by modernity's secularism. My suspicion is that the great bulk of people cannot do without the things that religion affords; and so if they aren't "religious" in the traditional sense, they unwittingly find some substitute that does everything but revere Christ, YHWH, Allah, etc.

Behavior that fits that model I see again and again, on what we think of as the political left.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#927

Post by username90 »

ookdatnog wrote: post #915
Moodles wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all actually. I'm sure both side demonize the other to some extent, and it's our natural reaction to look at them both as equally bad like we're disciplining two siblings or something, but it really seems that right now the left is more melodramatic in the demonization than the right. In my personal experience, quite a few people I've met seem to think if you disagree with them, you…

As someone left-leaning, I've always tried to be understanding and compassionate towards those with differing viewpoints. When Trump was campaigning, although I loath the man (and, to be clear, I believe he's outright evil), I did try to understand the viewpoint of "forgotten America" and see them as people whose frustrations are legitimate. But then Trump tried to overturn the presidential election by attempting to…

And the Democrats completely want to dismantle the police and let criminals run free on the streets. It is true, I saw these cherry picked quotes and the democrats still supports those politicans! How can you support them when they are pro crime? You are a horrible person, just like everyone else who votes Democrats and thinks that government handouts are more important than ensuring that rapists and murderers can't continue to rape and murder!!!

/s I hope you realize the problem here. Republicans doesn't really support ending democracy, similarly Democrats doesn't support ending the police. Those are just what the other side thinks that side wants.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#928

Post by myko »

mythrwy wrote: post #922
myko wrote: post #916

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I am doubling down on the facts. For reference, you posted two links with no explanation as to how they supposably refute my points and have refused to backup your claim that HRC created the Russia problem for trump. Please explain: - Don Jr's meeting where he's looking for help from the Russian government - trump's obstruction regarding that meeting - Manafort's shady dealings in Ukraine on behalf of Putin - Rog…

The Steele Dossier was paid for by a firm hired by Hillary's campaign. So essentially what you have is some weak circumstantial evidence and a campaign that tried to take advantage of existing leaks (about... what? was the information provided truthful?) and another campaign that paid to have false information compiled then leaked to the press in order to discredit a political opponent. Then, when that opponent was i…

> The Steele Dossier was paid for by a firm hired by Hillary's campaign.

Eventually, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that it was initially paid for by other concerned folks.

> So essentially what you have is some weak circumstantial evidence and a campaign that tried to take advantage of existing leaks

This is where your argument falls down. It isn't circumstantial evidence that Manafort worked for the Russian government's interest in Ukraine, and was convicted for work he did there. The guy he worked with fled to Russia once their ill deeds were known.

Stone worked directly with wikileaks/guccifier 2.0, who were working directly with Russia.

I guess you can try to say Junior was just doing what anyone would do, but his attempt to do so involved conspiring with Russia to get dirt on a political opponent - which doesn't make the Russia entanglements non-problematic. Especially considering trump then obstructed justice by lying about the meeting.

> as the Mueller investigation ultimately found.

Nope, the Mueller investigation was clearly an impeachment referral and documented multiple obstruction counts against the elder trump.

> But I suppose it's not worth arguing "religion" as this apparently has become

You are ignoring facts because that is convenient to your position, which is not backed by reality. Good day.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#929

Post by bena »

nradov wrote: post #524
mariodiana wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jonathan Haidt (who is mentioned in the article) did a study years ago. He separated a group of people into conservatives and liberals and then gave them a questionnaire on politics. Then he got a second group, separated them, and gave them the same questionnaire. Only he asked the second group of liberals and conservatives to answer the questionnaire the way they imagined the other side would. What he found was that…

I think you are referring to this study. Your summary of the results is basically accurate. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

In a way, it's the Family Feud problem. Spiders are not insects. But if you are playing Family Feud and the prompt is "Name the most popular insect", you should say spider because a lot of people will off the cuff say spiders are insects.

So it's possible they are not answering to how conservatives see themselves.

And let's not ignore that the MFQ is kinda shaky at best.

I also find it interesting in that link is the why they were the most off. Liberals seemed to have been wrong because they regressed to the mean when answering for other people. They seemed to think conservatives were more group-focused than they were and less individual-focused. And vice versa for liberals. They thought that the average liberal was less group-focused and more individual-focused than they were.

And it's not like conservatives weren't wrong. They got it right when estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for individuals, but not groups.

Moderates were the most accurate in estimating the average conservative and liberal answers for groups. And both conservatives and liberals over-estimated conservatives concerns for the group.

So I really don't think it's entirely fair to frame the results as "conservatives know how liberals think better than liberals know how conservatives think". Because another reading of it is that liberals give conservatives a greater benefit of the doubt. And also that conservatives don't even know how little they care for the group.

And that's also ignoring that these are self-reported morality questionnaires. It's not really indicative of how these people might act in real situations. Even Hitler thought he was a swell guy just trying to do right. We all kind of think that of ourselves. No one thinks they're the monster.

Re: Some Americans are breaking out of political echo chambers

#930

Post by threatofrain »

axguscbklp wrote: post #271
smt88 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google News is a dumpster fire. They include Sputnik and other govt propaganda sites from oppressive regimes.

I do not see that as a problem. Most news media is at least to some extent propaganda and basically all of it is biased. At the end of the day, if I want truth then I have to evaluate each bit of news media for its credibility whether it comes from state funded propaganda or from some supposedly impartial organization. So what I want from an aggregator is to just show me relevant content without trying to sort it by…

Yes, the utility of an aggregator is not to show you correctness, but to help you survey the landscape of narratives and trajectories.

The utility of looking at multiple similar voices is to get a sense of the scale of a story, and inter-rater reliability; otherwise you have a portfolio of unweighted novelties.

Post reply on HN