Filtering out certain information flows is an integral part of freedom *from* speech, not an indication that you are in an "echo chamber".
-
Filtering out certain information flows is an integral part of freedom from speech, not an indication that you are in an "echo chamber".
-
System shared this topic on
-
Filtering out certain information flows is an integral part of freedom from speech, not an indication that you are in an "echo chamber".
Both can be true. You need a safe space or an echo chamber for your mental health but you can’t go too extreme and otherwise disconnect from society as a whole. All of us were surprised when first Trumps and Orbans started to gain popularity. Maybe that surprise is a proof that we disconnected too much in general.
-
Both can be true. You need a safe space or an echo chamber for your mental health but you can’t go too extreme and otherwise disconnect from society as a whole. All of us were surprised when first Trumps and Orbans started to gain popularity. Maybe that surprise is a proof that we disconnected too much in general.
It’s not about mental health per se. For example, if I as a researcher want to search for scientific information, it’s good that I can exclude anything but scientific articles. Similarly, excluding flat earthers and antivaxxers from a social media site will probably improve the general public’s understanding of the world.
It’s just pragmatism. The alternative is to have everybody listen to all information - at that point it becomes impossible to find the signal in the noise.
-
It’s not about mental health per se. For example, if I as a researcher want to search for scientific information, it’s good that I can exclude anything but scientific articles. Similarly, excluding flat earthers and antivaxxers from a social media site will probably improve the general public’s understanding of the world.
It’s just pragmatism. The alternative is to have everybody listen to all information - at that point it becomes impossible to find the signal in the noise.
What I was talking about is that while you disconnect from antivax people you might not notice they are growing in numbers. I don’t mean to say you have to engage or debate them because it’s not about facts anyway. That’s because antivax people are a symptom and not the cause and that leads me to another point. Given that rationality is not guaranteed in liberal democracies then we should consider politics to be merely means of negotiating terms of a shared reality with people that have potentially very different opinions.
You can say „I’m right so things should be done my way” but there’s no central authority that decides who’s right so in the end we can only rely on are common laws we can agree on.
To your point specifically, I’m not saying you should hang out with antivaxxers. You should hang out with diverse groups that might happen to include antivaxxers so you can talk to them and socialise them at least. Learn what their real issues are because vaccines certainly ain’t and it’s just a proxy for their mistrust of the system in general.
-
What I was talking about is that while you disconnect from antivax people you might not notice they are growing in numbers. I don’t mean to say you have to engage or debate them because it’s not about facts anyway. That’s because antivax people are a symptom and not the cause and that leads me to another point. Given that rationality is not guaranteed in liberal democracies then we should consider politics to be merely means of negotiating terms of a shared reality with people that have potentially very different opinions.
You can say „I’m right so things should be done my way” but there’s no central authority that decides who’s right so in the end we can only rely on are common laws we can agree on.
To your point specifically, I’m not saying you should hang out with antivaxxers. You should hang out with diverse groups that might happen to include antivaxxers so you can talk to them and socialise them at least. Learn what their real issues are because vaccines certainly ain’t and it’s just a proxy for their mistrust of the system in general.
I was trying to illustrate that filtering out (mis/dis)information it is not only important for your mental health, but also from an epistemological standpoint. All good epistemological systems (science, fair and accurate journalism, etc.) filter out/exclude a lot of point of views. I agree, there is no central arbitor of truth, that’s why good epistemological systems are doubly important.
If your process of finding knowledge isn’t based on good epistemological systems, you will drown in the pool of noise that you get from just listening to people around you. But if your epistemological approach is sound, then yes, interacting with a lot of people will make you understand the world better.
-
I was trying to illustrate that filtering out (mis/dis)information it is not only important for your mental health, but also from an epistemological standpoint. All good epistemological systems (science, fair and accurate journalism, etc.) filter out/exclude a lot of point of views. I agree, there is no central arbitor of truth, that’s why good epistemological systems are doubly important.
If your process of finding knowledge isn’t based on good epistemological systems, you will drown in the pool of noise that you get from just listening to people around you. But if your epistemological approach is sound, then yes, interacting with a lot of people will make you understand the world better.
You’re still on about factuality and finding truth as if that is going to solve the issue of antivaxxers. I’m talking about keeping societies functional by addressing underlying reasons for why we deal with antivaxxers at all.
-
You’re still on about factuality and finding truth as if that is going to solve the issue of antivaxxers. I’m talking about keeping societies functional by addressing underlying reasons for why we deal with antivaxxers at all.
what are you really achieving?
Having knowledgeable researchers that can help produce vaccines, and having at least a part of the population be knowledgeable enough to make sane decisions about their healthcare..
It’s a prerequisite to solving ”the antivaxxer issue”, though not sufficient.
-
what are you really achieving?
Having knowledgeable researchers that can help produce vaccines, and having at least a part of the population be knowledgeable enough to make sane decisions about their healthcare..
It’s a prerequisite to solving ”the antivaxxer issue”, though not sufficient.
Did I get it right that you think that the masses don’t take vaccines because they are dumb?
-
Did I get it right that you think that the masses don’t take vaccines because they are dumb?
I think the masses, by and large, are still taking vaccines. The ones who don't are stuck in epistemic systems that amplify noise (social media, conspiracy theory groups, right wing cults etc.).
I seem to be doing a poor job at making my point here. Hope you appreciated the conversation regardless.
-
System shared this topic on
