I've been reading some of the essays in Rebooting America.
My favorite so far is "Echo Chambers = Democracy" by David Weinberger,
who briefly explores the value of people talking to other people with whom
they agree. Echo chambers. The web is surely filled with these things,
but so is daily life and there are analog versions
all over the place. And, of course, they can be positive or negative (but either way they tend to be loud).
Overall, though, Weinberger says people just don't actively try to change their own minds by reaching out and engaging others who hold extremely divergent opinions. I agree. Instead, we tend talk to our friends right inside our own echo chamber, and, for the most part, the people in there simply bounce our own views right back to us. Now, there certainly are differences of opinion within echo chambers, but I think those are pretty easily resolved compared to the much bigger differences between echo chambers. Another way to look at this is to consider how clearly the lines are drawn around established paradigms -- political parties, religions, nationalities, and things like that. You're in, or you're out. Everything for the most part makes sense on the inside, and everything is pretty much wrong on the outside. Reminds me of, oh, I don't know, McCain and Obama and their painfully loyal partisans right about now, eh?
So, the larger question becomes: how do you change minds? It's extremely difficult. Those relatively few people I know who have substantially changed their minds have done so only after their ideas have utterly failed them in some way. Perhaps they were wrong to begin with. Perhaps the world changed around them. Who knows. I've learned from this, actually. I regularly check my ideas on the effectiveness scale. If a position is not working (profitable, efficient, logical, healthy, happy, whatever), I dump it as aggressively as I can. I don't care if I'm inconsistent. In fact, that's good. Even then, though, it's hard and takes time. Generally, I think most people simply don't change their minds in substantial ways. Generations holding specific views just grow old and die off and are replaced by the next in line. Or, perhaps, various echo chambers grow to the point where they dominate the debate and run things until they themselves grow old and die or are replaced by another, even stronger echo chamber seeking control. Who knows. But one thing seems clear: it makes no sense to participate in an echo chamber you really don't want to support simply because it's in control at the moment. It makes much more sense to participate in an echo chamber with which you basically agree (or better yet, start a new one!). Then grow that group in size and diversity so its voice can be heard among the others and so it can effectively compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Overall, though, Weinberger says people just don't actively try to change their own minds by reaching out and engaging others who hold extremely divergent opinions. I agree. Instead, we tend talk to our friends right inside our own echo chamber, and, for the most part, the people in there simply bounce our own views right back to us. Now, there certainly are differences of opinion within echo chambers, but I think those are pretty easily resolved compared to the much bigger differences between echo chambers. Another way to look at this is to consider how clearly the lines are drawn around established paradigms -- political parties, religions, nationalities, and things like that. You're in, or you're out. Everything for the most part makes sense on the inside, and everything is pretty much wrong on the outside. Reminds me of, oh, I don't know, McCain and Obama and their painfully loyal partisans right about now, eh?
So, the larger question becomes: how do you change minds? It's extremely difficult. Those relatively few people I know who have substantially changed their minds have done so only after their ideas have utterly failed them in some way. Perhaps they were wrong to begin with. Perhaps the world changed around them. Who knows. I've learned from this, actually. I regularly check my ideas on the effectiveness scale. If a position is not working (profitable, efficient, logical, healthy, happy, whatever), I dump it as aggressively as I can. I don't care if I'm inconsistent. In fact, that's good. Even then, though, it's hard and takes time. Generally, I think most people simply don't change their minds in substantial ways. Generations holding specific views just grow old and die off and are replaced by the next in line. Or, perhaps, various echo chambers grow to the point where they dominate the debate and run things until they themselves grow old and die or are replaced by another, even stronger echo chamber seeking control. Who knows. But one thing seems clear: it makes no sense to participate in an echo chamber you really don't want to support simply because it's in control at the moment. It makes much more sense to participate in an echo chamber with which you basically agree (or better yet, start a new one!). Then grow that group in size and diversity so its voice can be heard among the others and so it can effectively compete in the marketplace of ideas.
