Is confirmation bias a symptom of a mem
Are filter bubbles really a bad thing?
I've been thinking that this recent article on bursting filter bubbles (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522111/how-to-burst-the-filter-bubble-that-protects-us-from-opposing-views/ via +Samuel Holmes) is related to my thoughts on the birth of memetic species or species of mind that I articulated last week here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MarkBruce/posts/acmuTgNGh1j. As usual when it comes to memetics, thinking about the ideas throws up more questions than answers.
Filter bubbles can be thought of as people surrounding themselves only with other people they like and content they agree with; the article states that this represents a danger because it can polarise populations and create potentially harmful divisions in society. The authors show an algorithm they developed to connect people with opposing viewpoints on abortion (as a test case), exposing them to opposing ideas but, importantly, only from those with whom they otherwise shared many other interests and views.
A closely related phenomenon is that of confirmation bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias.
I've wondered for a while now whether filter bubbles represent an early type of memetic speciation event, an emergent attempt to produce “reproductively” isolated groups of similar individuals that resist or are otherwise unable to “breed” with other groups; e.g. different collections of ideas or memeplexes shared by people that are resistant to other ideas or memes from getting “in” or obtaining any traction - preventing any mental mixing as it were. These groups would then be actively competing against each other in the environment and encounter selective pressures, but in a different capacity to conventional genetic evolution due to the fact that these groups are not truly isolated from one another, with memes and the substrates they run on still being constrained by their messy, leaky, primordial form.
[As an aside there have been many times in life when I have seen or met someone and thought that the “software” running on their brain was so different to my own that I was effectively reproductively isolated from them; there was no way we could (or I would) genetically breed with them to produce viable offspring. Subspecies within a species? Proto-speciation event in the making?]
Personally, I recognise that my own filter bubble “shields” me from a lot of content. And I’m not convinced that this is a bad thing. For example, I am shielded from content, ideas, and memes that relate to creationism, intelligent design, and religious ideologies in general. As far as I am concerned these represent conversations that have already been had; the answers they provide are simply wrong and have nothing to offer or benefit me. Aside from the occasional humorous imagery or text-based ridicule of course. The same can be said for a whole raft of things that include the likes of homeopathy, astrology, moon-landing conspiracies, and anti-vaccine propaganda, none of which has anything to add or benefit me.
What about things for which I hold dear? Things like the finer points of cosmology, quantum mechanics, philosophy, technological progress, and the cutting edge of various sciences? One example might be dark matter, which I don’t believe exists but rather will be explained by a deeper law of gravity . . . and yet I get exposed to and welcome plenty of articles and posts that discuss dark matter in various ways including new experiments trying to detect dark matter . . . I’m actually interested in data and evidence that might convince me to reconsider my view.
Another example might be in discussing some particular aspect of technological progress that I am enthralled with and positing near-term future scenarios that others don’t believe are credible . . . but I have the likes of +Deen Abiola, +Drew Sowersby, and other realists to provide criticism and a grounded counterpoint to prevent me getting too carried away and at the very least forcing me to more vigorously question the proposal . . . and I welcome these contributions and challenges.
Some might argue that the examples so far have been purely factual and that the issues become more interesting and relevant when moving into emotional, moral, and ethical examples. But my suspicion is that even in these areas a factual, scientific stance can be meaningfully brought to bear on the issue.
Take the abortion example that was mentioned originally: I am firmly in the “pro-choice” camp. For me the evidence suggests that an embryo or foetus has no intrinsic claim to person-hood but rather merely has the potential to become a person; more of a growing, changing, internal organ bereft of direct conscious thought and awareness. As such I strongly believe neither the state nor another person has the right to force parents to abort or not abort.
This is obviously related to my internal (hardwired?) compass that is strongly left-aligned. Drawing lines and splitting hairs between people and potential people is different discussion and one that scientific evidence can also advise on. Suffice to say I see no detriment from my filter bubble shielding me from “pro-life” content, especially given that the vast majority never seem to address the lines of evidence that I allude to.
Filters are incredibly important in a world awash with ever-more content, ever-more ideas, and a fixed amount of time and attention. It seems that my own filter bubble is very good at blocking some things that are no longer up for debate and yet in letting in other things that most certainly are debatable and whose questions have not been convincingly answered.
Is this just a basic consequence of a scientifically-grounded world view? Is it arrogant and wrong to suggest that such a filter bubble is superior to that of a religious ideologue for example and who constitutes a more suitable target for the filter bubble research discussed at the start? Obviously we can't help but miss some good ideas. But I believe that if an idea is good enough, compelling enough, and useful enough then it will percolate through my networks and smash through my filter bubble to get all the attention it deserves.
#filterbubble #mind #memetic
![Do Online Filter Bubbles Facilitate the Emergence of Memetic Species?
Are filter bubbles really a bad thing?
I've been thinking that this recent article on bursting filter bubbles (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522111/how-to-burst-the-filter-bubble-that-protects-us-from-opposing-views/ via +Samuel Holmes) is related to my thoughts on the birth of memetic species or species of mind that I articulated last week here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MarkBruce/posts/acmuTgNGh1j. As usual when it comes to memetics, thinking about the ideas throws up more questions than answers.
Filter bubbles can be thought of as people surrounding themselves only with other people they like and content they agree with; the article states that this represents a danger because it can polarise populations and create potentially harmful divisions in society. The authors show an algorithm they developed to connect people with opposing viewpoints on abortion (as a test case), exposing them to opposing ideas but, importantly, only from those with whom they otherwise shared many other interests and views.
A closely related phenomenon is that of confirmation bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias.
I've wondered for a while now whether filter bubbles represent an early type of memetic speciation event, an emergent attempt to produce “reproductively” isolated groups of similar individuals that resist or are otherwise unable to “breed” with other groups; e.g. different collections of ideas or memeplexes shared by people that are resistant to other ideas or memes from getting “in” or obtaining any traction - preventing any mental mixing as it were. These groups would then be actively competing against each other in the environment and encounter selective pressures, but in a different capacity to conventional genetic evolution due to the fact that these groups are not truly isolated from one another, with memes and the substrates they run on still being constrained by their messy, leaky, primordial form.
[As an aside there have been many times in life when I have seen or met someone and thought that the “software” running on their brain was so different to my own that I was effectively reproductively isolated from them; there was no way we could (or I would) genetically breed with them to produce viable offspring. Subspecies within a species? Proto-speciation event in the making?]
Personally, I recognise that my own filter bubble “shields” me from a lot of content. And I’m not convinced that this is a bad thing. For example, I am shielded from content, ideas, and memes that relate to creationism, intelligent design, and religious ideologies in general. As far as I am concerned these represent conversations that have already been had; the answers they provide are simply wrong and have nothing to offer or benefit me. Aside from the occasional humorous imagery or text-based ridicule of course. The same can be said for a whole raft of things that include the likes of homeopathy, astrology, moon-landing conspiracies, and anti-vaccine propaganda, none of which has anything to add or benefit me.
What about things for which I hold dear? Things like the finer points of cosmology, quantum mechanics, philosophy, technological progress, and the cutting edge of various sciences? One example might be dark matter, which I don’t believe exists but rather will be explained by a deeper law of gravity . . . and yet I get exposed to and welcome plenty of articles and posts that discuss dark matter in various ways including new experiments trying to detect dark matter . . . I’m actually interested in data and evidence that might convince me to reconsider my view.
Another example might be in discussing some particular aspect of technological progress that I am enthralled with and positing near-term future scenarios that others don’t believe are credible . . . but I have the likes of +Deen Abiola, +Drew Sowersby, and other realists to provide criticism and a grounded counterpoint to prevent me getting too carried away and at the very least forcing me to more vigorously question the proposal . . . and I welcome these contributions and challenges.
Some might argue that the examples so far have been purely factual and that the issues become more interesting and relevant when moving into emotional, moral, and ethical examples. But my suspicion is that even in these areas a factual, scientific stance can be meaningfully brought to bear on the issue.
Take the abortion example that was mentioned originally: I am firmly in the “pro-choice” camp. For me the evidence suggests that an embryo or foetus has no intrinsic claim to person-hood but rather merely has the potential to become a person; more of a growing, changing, internal organ bereft of direct conscious thought and awareness. As such I strongly believe neither the state nor another person has the right to force parents to abort or not abort.
This is obviously related to my internal (hardwired?) compass that is strongly left-aligned. Drawing lines and splitting hairs between people and potential people is different discussion and one that scientific evidence can also advise on. Suffice to say I see no detriment from my filter bubble shielding me from “pro-life” content, especially given that the vast majority never seem to address the lines of evidence that I allude to.
Filters are incredibly important in a world awash with ever-more content, ever-more ideas, and a fixed amount of time and attention. It seems that my own filter bubble is very good at blocking some things that are no longer up for debate and yet in letting in other things that most certainly are debatable and whose questions have not been convincingly answered.
Is this just a basic consequence of a scientifically-grounded world view? Is it arrogant and wrong to suggest that such a filter bubble is superior to that of a religious ideologue for example and who constitutes a more suitable target for the filter bubble research discussed at the start? Obviously we can't help but miss some good ideas. But I believe that if an idea is good enough, compelling enough, and useful enough then it will percolate through my networks and smash through my filter bubble to get all the attention it deserves.
#filterbubble #mind #memetic](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-L2-hIZi3mQ4/Uqg8QhsKBwI/AAAAAAAB0c8/w3mejHDpqbg/w456-h310/View%2Bgaps.png)
Do Online Filter Bubbles Facilitate the Emergence of Memetic Species? Are filter bubbles really a bad thing? I've been thinking that this recent article on bursting filter bubbles (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522111/how-to-burst-the-filter-bubble-that-protects-us-from-opposing-views/ via +Samuel Holmes) is related to my thoughts on the birth of memetic species or species of mind that I articulated last week here: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MarkBruce/posts/acmuTgNGh1j. As usual when it comes to memetics, thinking about the ideas throws up more questions than answers. Filter bubbles can be thought of as people surrounding themselves only with other people they like and content they agree with; the article states that this represents a danger because it can polarise populations and create potentially harmful divisions in society. The authors show an algorithm they developed to connect people with opposing viewpoints on abortion (as a test case), exposing them to opposing ideas but, importantly, only from those with whom they otherwise shared many other interests and views. A closely related phenomenon is that of confirmation bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias. I've wondered for a while now whether filter bubbles represent an early type of memetic speciation event, an emergent attempt to produce “reproductively” isolated groups of similar individuals that resist or are otherwise unable to “breed” with other groups; e.g. different collections of ideas or memeplexes shared by people that are resistant to other ideas or memes from getting “in” or obtaining any traction - preventing any mental mixing as it were. These groups would then be actively competing against each other in the environment and encounter selective pressures, but in a different capacity to conventional genetic evolution due to the fact that these groups are not truly isolated from one another, with memes and the substrates they run on still being constrained by their messy, leaky, primordial form. [As an aside there have been many times in life when I have seen or met someone and thought that the “software” running on their brain was so different to my own that I was effectively reproductively isolated from them; there was no way we could (or I would) genetically breed with them to produce viable offspring. Subspecies within a species? Proto-speciation event in the making?] Personally, I recognise that my own filter bubble “shields” me from a lot of content. And I’m not convinced that this is a bad thing. For example, I am shielded from content, ideas, and memes that relate to creationism, intelligent design, and religious ideologies in general. As far as I am concerned these represent conversations that have already been had; the answers they provide are simply wrong and have nothing to offer or benefit me. Aside from the occasional humorous imagery or text-based ridicule of course. The same can be said for a whole raft of things that include the likes of homeopathy, astrology, moon-landing conspiracies, and anti-vaccine propaganda, none of which has anything to add or benefit me. What about things for which I hold dear? Things like the finer points of cosmology, quantum mechanics, philosophy, technological progress, and the cutting edge of various sciences? One example might be dark matter, which I don’t believe exists but rather will be explained by a deeper law of gravity . . . and yet I get exposed to and welcome plenty of articles and posts that discuss dark matter in various ways including new experiments trying to detect dark matter . . . I’m actually interested in data and evidence that might convince me to reconsider my view. Another example might be in discussing some particular aspect of technological progress that I am enthralled with and positing near-term future scenarios that others don’t believe are credible . . . but I have the likes of +Deen Abiola, +Drew Sowersby, and other realists to provide criticism and a grounded counterpoint to prevent me getting too carried away and at the very least forcing me to more vigorously question the proposal . . . and I welcome these contributions and challenges. Some might argue that the examples so far have been purely factual and that the issues become more interesting and relevant when moving into emotional, moral, and ethical examples. But my suspicion is that even in these areas a factual, scientific stance can be meaningfully brought to bear on the issue. Take the abortion example that was mentioned originally: I am firmly in the “pro-choice” camp. For me the evidence suggests that an embryo or foetus has no intrinsic claim to person-hood but rather merely has the potential to become a person; more of a growing, changing, internal organ bereft of direct conscious thought and awareness. As such I strongly believe neither the state nor another person has the right to force parents to abort or not abort. This is obviously related to my internal (hardwired?) compass that is strongly left-aligned. Drawing lines and splitting hairs between people and potential people is different discussion and one that scientific evidence can also advise on. Suffice to say I see no detriment from my filter bubble shielding me from “pro-life” content, especially given that the vast majority never seem to address the lines of evidence that I allude to. Filters are incredibly important in a world awash with ever-more content, ever-more ideas, and a fixed amount of time and attention. It seems that my own filter bubble is very good at blocking some things that are no longer up for debate and yet in letting in other things that most certainly are debatable and whose questions have not been convincingly answered. Is this just a basic consequence of a scientifically-grounded world view? Is it arrogant and wrong to suggest that such a filter bubble is superior to that of a religious ideologue for example and who constitutes a more suitable target for the filter bubble research discussed at the start? Obviously we can't help but miss some good ideas. But I believe that if an idea is good enough, compelling enough, and useful enough then it will percolate through my networks and smash through my filter bubble to get all the attention it deserves. #filterbubble #mind #memetic
This post was originally on Google+