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

Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 119 posts

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#71

Post by baud147258 »

smcl wrote: post #45
adriand wrote: post #39

It's become vogue to talk about social media in this manner but the problem is much more generalized. Sensationalist news from mainstream/traditional media outlets does exactly the same thing. And the sensitivity around issues of race, gender, sexuality, and so on, is destroying our ability to engage in civil discourse with one another - not just on social media, but even in our classrooms. Here's an example of what…

I know where you're trying to go with this and your heart is in the right place, but the example is awful and does not help in the slightest. I have a feeling that I'm gonna get "ugh, replies like yours are exactly the problem, smcl!" but to me asking children to come up with some good side of slavery is up there with trying to find the good side of the holocaust. Whether "good" or "bad" is in quotes doesn't really c…

I think the problem is more how the question is poorly asked. I think one could find economical, political or logistical reasons for the existence of slavery, but that does not change how evil slavery is.

It might be interesting to have an idea of how people could have rationalized slavery as something good and see if the same rationalisation do not persist in our society. But to do so, you have to be able do discuss it, without having the discussion shut down as racist.

Edit: basically what prepend said, since it's much better.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#72

Post by prepend »

gallerdude wrote: post #64

Does anyone have a twitter timeline archiving tool? I get some major FoMO when it comes to not checking twitter.

There are a bunch of twitter to RSS tools. Here’s one I played around with a while ago, https://twitrss.me/

I actually prefer reading twitter via rss. There’s no missing out, and you can organize by topics, user groups, stuff like that.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#73

Post by boomboomsubban »

coffeeacc wrote: post #24
asabjorn wrote: post #3

As a liberal that subscribe to The NY Times I wonder why they always have to make these issues so politicized, even when they are making a good observation. The problem they describe, violent reaction to opposing views, seem present amongst all sides of the political spectrum and it does not seem limited to extreme opinions. The article seems in a very indirect way to make argument that violent reaction to and ostrac…

It seems there's no such thing as objective journalism. Was there ever, is this new, or just worse? Philosopher-based journalism might be an improvement, but sometimes even philosophers seem to be committed to a point of view.

This is an op-ed article, it isn't claiming to be objective or journalism. Yes, there is objective journalism, there's just plenty of crap too. I have no clue what you mean by "philosophy-based," something about logic I'd guess?

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#74

Post by asabjorn »

thriftwy wrote: post #32
afpx wrote: post #7

It shows how far the US has shifted to the right when the NYT would describe Pinker as a liberal. Twenty years ago his views were considered more center-right (in the US at least). But, I am off-topic ... The biggest problem with social media is that it massively amplifies radical (and, often ignorant or misguided) opinions. This especially disturbs me, because I sort of helped cause it. As a kid, I wanted the more r…

What really amplifies radical opinions is the feeling of exclusion from decision-making community. When a person feels their opinions are appreciated, they tend to try and play nicer with others. When a person feels their opinion is ignored and silenced, they tend to radicalize and hold increasingly flamboyant opinions. Compare how hot topic the copyright was when studios insisted they'll get to enforce whatever they…

Groups like alt-right or social justice warriors seem aware that what they advocate are sometimes based upon factually incorrect statements.

I believe these groups are aware that they are fighting for an action through rhetoric that use factual statements that can easily be shown to be incorrect. Further, it seems like they believe better facts supporting their view could be found if their actions were implemented because they insist so much that their subjective truth should be respected to the same degree as real facts that disagree with their subjective truth.

My interpretation is that the awareness of their factual problems is what motivated these groups to develop a pattern of violent intolerance towards anyone that questions it, as people that do not agree with the action would otherwise outnumber them in the discourse and make it harder to implement the action.

There seem to be a synergy between alt-right and social justice warriors in particular, as both narratives need an antagonistic other that justifies why it is ok to be violently intolerant towards anyone that questions their view.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#75

Post by Dowwie »

throwanem wrote: post #54
markdog12 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I could wave a magic wand, I would introduce friction to sharing media Even better, suffuse everyone with that great skepticism you speak of. Unfortunately, your suggestions are infinitely more practical.

Unfortunately, those suggestions are just as impractical, because maximally incontinent sharing is maximally remunerative to a platform which monetizes user engagement.

Yes, they are impractical for those platforms that monetize maximal engagement.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#76

Post by soundwave106 »

asabjorn wrote: post #37
empraptor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article seems in a very indirect way to make argument that violent reaction to and ostracizing of people that hold opposing opinions is ok when you hold the correct opinions and not when you don’t I'm having trouble seeing how you got this impression.

In a case study like this I was hoping for an understanding of how we on the left contribute to a climate where it is ok to be non-factual, as it is much easier to change yourself than others and NY Times audience is clearly the left. Especially since it concludes that everyone "rushes for the safety of their ideological battlements". What are those embattlements? What are the factual nature on each side? My question…

The article pointed out that two "liberal" bloggers / journalists retreated to "liberal" tribe disgust, when confronted with a "liberal" that expressed an actual positive values of the alt right. I saw it more as an article about tribalism; in tribalism, cheerleading and re-framing / spin are very important, and it was more this -- not "non-factual" per se -- that this article was discussing.

Though, Steve Pinker as far as I know really isn't a "liberal", so this article is somewhat guilty of the same tribalism. I'm not familiar with Ben Norton, but casual Googlings makes me wonder what exactly makes him "lefty". And, to be honest, tribalism-oriented cheerleading and spin are not something new to social media.

Whether the dominant social media forms exasperates this tribalism though is a good question to me (one this article doesn't really answer). Part of the reason I dislike Facebook and Twitter is that it seems like the form is not designed with nuance and depth in mind. It's all quick status updates or tweets, likes, follows, quick dopamine hits.

10 years ago, there was a strong long-form social media circle (blogs). These were not entirely free from dramas or tribalism, granted, but the format seemed to allow for more slices of political viewpoints than just two. At the very least, in the blogosphere, there wasn't the pure monetary incentives to create "clickbait". Which these days in Facebook / Twitter land, not only includes the usual celebrity fluff and bait miracle-cures and shock stories etc., but tribal oriented junk too ranging from "news" with a tribal framework, to outright falsehoods.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#77

Post by smcl »

billfruit wrote: post #63
smcl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know where you're trying to go with this and your heart is in the right place, but the example is awful and does not help in the slightest. I have a feeling that I'm gonna get "ugh, replies like yours are exactly the problem, smcl!" but to me asking children to come up with some good side of slavery is up there with trying to find the good side of the holocaust. Whether "good" or "bad" is in quotes doesn't really c…

I do agree that 4th grade is too young for such a topic, but perhaps precisely your reaction is what the parent commenter was speaking about. He made a meaningful observation, yet people were quick to jump on a passing example entirely of incidental importance to the point.

I disagree that my reaction was exactly what the parent commenter was speaking about. If I said "you must be racist or pro-slavery if you even want to consider talking about this" then it would have been. But literally the first thing I said was that I understand the point, and that his heart was in the right place. The example works against his point - because it's so obviously a bad idea, isn't really worth defending and just confuses things further.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#78

Post by thriftwy »

asabjorn wrote: post #74
thriftwy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What really amplifies radical opinions is the feeling of exclusion from decision-making community. When a person feels their opinions are appreciated, they tend to try and play nicer with others. When a person feels their opinion is ignored and silenced, they tend to radicalize and hold increasingly flamboyant opinions. Compare how hot topic the copyright was when studios insisted they'll get to enforce whatever they…

Groups like alt-right or social justice warriors seem aware that what they advocate are sometimes based upon factually incorrect statements. I believe these groups are aware that they are fighting for an action through rhetoric that use factual statements that can easily be shown to be incorrect. Further, it seems like they believe better facts supporting their view could be found if their actions were implemented be…

I think most of them are aware that some of their statements are incorrect when interpreted in strict logical sense. But thing is, absolute majority of statements in natural language are either strictly incorrect or internally inconsistent.

Both groups are pretty sure that the core of their beliefs is valid. Maybe fact A is false and fact B is overblown but sum(A, B, C) is still a vector in the direction of their faith. So debunking their statements won't lead anywhere.

You are much better off agreeing to disagree and trying to discuss a middle ground. But that's not what happens in modern society.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#79

Post by Consultant32452 »

asabjorn wrote: post #37
empraptor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article seems in a very indirect way to make argument that violent reaction to and ostracizing of people that hold opposing opinions is ok when you hold the correct opinions and not when you don’t I'm having trouble seeing how you got this impression.

In a case study like this I was hoping for an understanding of how we on the left contribute to a climate where it is ok to be non-factual, as it is much easier to change yourself than others and NY Times audience is clearly the left. Especially since it concludes that everyone "rushes for the safety of their ideological battlements". What are those embattlements? What are the factual nature on each side? My question…

My experience is that the left is less guilty of being counter-factual than they are of censorship. But that's really two sides of the same coin. The contents of the James Damore memo comes to mind. Twitter verified status has become a political weapon to punish people who don't toe the party line. Youtube de-listing, demonetization, and banning.

Re: Social Media: Making Us Dumber?

#80

Post by smcl »

baud147258 wrote: post #71
smcl wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know where you're trying to go with this and your heart is in the right place, but the example is awful and does not help in the slightest. I have a feeling that I'm gonna get "ugh, replies like yours are exactly the problem, smcl!" but to me asking children to come up with some good side of slavery is up there with trying to find the good side of the holocaust. Whether "good" or "bad" is in quotes doesn't really c…

I think the problem is more how the question is poorly asked. I think one could find economical, political or logistical reasons for the existence of slavery, but that does not change how evil slavery is. It might be interesting to have an idea of how people could have rationalized slavery as something good and see if the same rationalisation do not persist in our society. But to do so, you have to be able do discuss…

OK but "Why was the Confederacy pro-slavery?" or "How did the Nazis justify their actions?" are different questions than "give 3 ‘good’ reasons for slavery and 3 bad reasons" which was the example given.

I'm not sure the answers to these questions are as stimulating as people think though. I suspect the real reason behind the question given in the example was that the teacher was oversimplifying the language of the question for his/her students to the point where all nuance was lost ... which suggests they're maybe not ready for it.

Post reply on HN