Echo Chambers and the way it affects our behavior.

 

My last post took a general look at echo chambers and how they can affect the information we use to make decisions.  This post is about echo chambers and how they affect the way we process and disseminate the information we encounter.  Echo chambers narrow the scope of information we receive and can then alter our decisions.  The obvious tactic to address this narrowing is to seek out information sources outside of our echo chambers.  As I wrote last week this is easier said than done.  This is made more difficult due to the biases ingrained in us by our echo chambers.  A particular concern is being primed to information you would encounter from these alternate sources.  By being primed to expect this information it is then easily discounted by us.  This priming is a technique used by sales people to prime potential clients to discount the information presented by a rival sales person.  In the realm of online information and more public issues this is not a deliberate tactic.  It is the result of the same information used on the same disagreements.  Disagreements that have existed for decades.  Take the gun debate in the US.  You could take clips from the 1970's or 80's and they would sound the same as a clip from 2023.  What this really means is that you already know what information you will receive from a contrary source and you have already discounted it.  As a specific example if you are a proponent of the rights of gun owners you already know the arguments a gun control proponent will use.  These are arguments you have heard many times before and when you hear them again they go in one ear and out the other.  You can see more of the details in my previous post.

This phenomena of being primed to discount a contrary argument is representative a deeper issue with echo chambers.  The main issue with echo chambers may not be the actual narrowing of information.  The primary issue may be in the way our echo chambers accept, process and disseminate information.

First off, we are all denizens of echo chambers. We really cannot avoid them.  It is only natural to gravitate to environments where we feel safe and comfortable.  It is equally true that we tend to avoid settings that make us feel uncomfortable.  On a less dramatic scale we gravitate to environments that interest us and avoid ones that do not interest us.  Our echo chambers can be structured and formal such as media outlets or groups that share a common interest.  I have been a member of a couple cycling clubs in the area.  We all share cycling as a common interest.  However, our views on road maintenance and automobile driver behavior would be very similar ( at least I would bet on it).  The common sentiment is that the roads are poorly maintained and drivers are out to kill us.  Echo chambers can also be less formal such as the group that tends to meet at the same time at the same coffee shop.  An echo chamber is not necessarily a place where radical ideas are fostered and grown.  It is simply a place the members share common beliefs and ideas.  These ideas are reinforced by the members of the echo chamber.  These echo chambers could be churches, sports groups, gyms or study groups.

Whether these echo chambers are formal or informal they generally have a set of unwritten rules that the members follow.  Think of a church as an echo chamber.  One unwritten rule is not to interrupt the the pastor when delivering the sermon.  Even if you do not agree with the message it would be rude to turn the delivery into a debate.  Church members sit quietly and listen to the pastor's sermon.  The information is disseminated in a quiet and reflective manner.  Compare that to a study group.  In a study group the information is delivered by several different people.  There may be immediate disputes or contradictions.  Both environments have merits but there is no disputing the fact that information is delivered and interpreted in very different ways.  These differences need to be realized and understood when we deal with situations both within and outside of our echo chambers.

 This thought of echo chambers actually began with the University presidents testifying in Washington.  The main players in this environment were the presidents of Harvard, MIT and U Penn and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY).  If you are not familiar with the actual testimony you can review it here.  I am not going to debate the testimony or the implications of the testimony.  What I found interesting is how the University presidents preformed. These presidents were outside of their echo chambers.  Simply put they were in a different arena.  There is no way I can accurately describe how a university president behaves within their echo chambers.  The environment is "academic" in nature.  I would imagine that behavior is somewhat polite and that information is delivered iteratively.  Also as a University President they wield considerable power over other members of  the echo chamber.  I may have only superficially described the echo chamber for a University president.  However it is quite obvious that it is vastly different than a congressional hearing.

First of the concept of power.  The representatives control the narrative, they ask the questions they get final say.  Even the physical layout.  The university presidents sit in a "well'  while the representatives sit physically higher.  The representatives sit in a "U" shaped set of desks essentially surrounding the university presidents.  It literally looks like shooting fish in a barrel.  Secondly, unwritten rules.  I think this is where the university presidents made there biggest misstep.  If I had to say anything critical about the University presidents performance it would be not recognizing the environment they were in and how different it was from their normal echo chamber.  I am not sure why they performed as they did.  I don't know if they were improperly coached or they ignored any advice that they were given.  It definitely appeared they were behaving as if they were in some philosophical discussion as opposed to a congressional hearing.  In most congressional hearings the goal is for representatives to score points with there electorate.  I go back to my comment "shooting fish in a barrel".  Congress woman Stefanik had the presidents in her sights and she did not hesitate to pull the trigger.  I know very little about Representative Stefanik so I cannot say whether or not this was her plan from the beginning.

However this entire situation does gives us caution for behaving in an unfamiliar environment.  The first caution should be to realize you are in a different environment and to familiarize yourself with some of the "unwritten" rules of that environment.  Then develop a strategy for your behavior in that environment;  To quote Sun Tzu:

Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.

Sun Tzu