Echo chambers always did, but I think the bubble-forming dynamic we have now is a bit different. It's not that I have my own views echoed back to me by the communities I'm in all the time, it's that so much of my exposure to opposing views is often coming from some of the dumbest and most unhinged people on Earth. It's the filtering for nutcases more than echoing back confirming views that seems to be the issue.
It's really easy to believe that certain perspectives are only held by insane people if the only people you see speaking for them happen to be insane. And even if they're not crazy, normal people aren't really going to be interested in communicating nuance or understanding if they're hastily firing off a missive during a toilet break.
There's a lot of reasons for this, but I think one of the big ones is that our intellectual institutions have given themselves over to internet troll logic, including many prestigious Op-Ed pages. In the past you might have encountered plenty of nuts, but you could also see similar enough versions of their ideas being advanced by people who could construct an argument that didn't rest entirely on motivated reasoning, and include enough nuance so as to not be monstrous. But at this point, many professional opinion havers aren't any better or more cogent than a regular Twitter troll. It's mostly just Frankfurtian bullshit all the way down.
>The rich have, Drezner writes, empowered a new kind of thinker—the “thought leader”—at the expense of the much-fretted-over “public intellectual.” Whereas public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Martha Nussbaum are skeptical and analytical, thought leaders like Thomas Friedman and Sheryl Sandberg “develop their own singular lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot.” While public intellectuals traffic in complexity and criticism, thought leaders burst with the evangelist’s desire to “change the world.” Many readers, Drezner observes, prefer the “big ideas” of the latter to the complexity of the former. In a marketplace of ideas awash in plutocrat cash, it has become “increasingly profitable for thought leaders to hawk their wares to both billionaires and a broader public,” to become “superstars with their own brands, sharing a space previously reserved for moguls, celebrities, and athletes.”
> I think one of the big ones is that our intellectual institutions have given themselves over to internet troll logic, including many prestigious Op-Ed pages
Yes, absolutely. The prevalence of stupid "both sides" reasoning calls into being the contrarians and gives them a platform - in order to have someone say the world is round, you have to find a flat earth pundit as well and put them opposite each other so the public can enjoy the fight.
The kind of people who find themselves cited in mass shooter manifestoes. At least the Unabomber wrote his own deranged manifesto; these days people assemble them piecemeal from everyday racism and conspiracism.
Frequently cited by mass shooters: Melanie Phillips
Climate change denial correspondent for Times, Telegraph, Spectator: James Delingpole
Wrong about everything on purpose: Brendan O'Neill (and the rest of the ex-Living Marxism gang who pivoted from Marxism to Libertarianism without ever passing through sanity)
All over television until he had served his purpose and then invisible: Nigel Farage
And of course, reprimanded as a journo for lying about Europe too often; paid more for a weekly column than as a Minister: Boris Johnson
Echo chambers always did, but I think the bubble-forming dynamic we have now is a bit different. It's not that I have my own views echoed back to me by the communities I'm in all the time, it's that so much of my exposure to opposing views is often coming from some of the dumbest and most unhinged people on Earth. It's the filtering for nutcases more than echoing back confirming views that seems to be the issue.
It's really easy to believe that certain perspectives are only held by insane people if the only people you see speaking for them happen to be insane. And even if they're not crazy, normal people aren't really going to be interested in communicating nuance or understanding if they're hastily firing off a missive during a toilet break.
There's a lot of reasons for this, but I think one of the big ones is that our intellectual institutions have given themselves over to internet troll logic, including many prestigious Op-Ed pages. In the past you might have encountered plenty of nuts, but you could also see similar enough versions of their ideas being advanced by people who could construct an argument that didn't rest entirely on motivated reasoning, and include enough nuance so as to not be monstrous. But at this point, many professional opinion havers aren't any better or more cogent than a regular Twitter troll. It's mostly just Frankfurtian bullshit all the way down.
Drezner actually has some really good ideas about the replacement of "public intellectuals" with "thought leaders" that touches on this dynamic. https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-h...
>The rich have, Drezner writes, empowered a new kind of thinker—the “thought leader”—at the expense of the much-fretted-over “public intellectual.” Whereas public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Martha Nussbaum are skeptical and analytical, thought leaders like Thomas Friedman and Sheryl Sandberg “develop their own singular lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot.” While public intellectuals traffic in complexity and criticism, thought leaders burst with the evangelist’s desire to “change the world.” Many readers, Drezner observes, prefer the “big ideas” of the latter to the complexity of the former. In a marketplace of ideas awash in plutocrat cash, it has become “increasingly profitable for thought leaders to hawk their wares to both billionaires and a broader public,” to become “superstars with their own brands, sharing a space previously reserved for moguls, celebrities, and athletes.”