Monthly Archive for October, 2010

Could dissenting punditry (on the same network) have a mitigating effect on political polarization?

Published on October 31, 2010 in Politics. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

The filter bubble phenomena has been on my mind for the last few weeks as I’ve contemplated its reach beyond our individual web footprints and considered media production and consumption overall.

There’s a constant tug of war for media outlets, between making money by giving consumers what they want versus providing what we need at an acceptable cost. Amazon knows I’m apt to buy more books if it recommends reads similar (in content and in style) to ones I’ve already read, though I’d be more well-rounded if I read outside my comfort zone now and again. Print, online and television news sources develop their own framework for reporting based on the audience demographics being targeted: Fox News reports to the right of mainstream; MSNBC embraces the left. And their framework is typically meant to fire up their viewers to keep them coming back for more. As Jon Stewart pointed out this weekend at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear:

The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.

Does ignorance of the full spectrum of information and interpretation available to the public, threaten our ability to exchange ideas and shake up the status quo to reach amenable compromises on urgent issues? Groupthink experiments point to the greater cost. Living in a media bubble, as conflict- free  and as comforting as it may seem to be, takes a toll on our ability to think as independent actors, which, may in turn, amp polarization in this country. It becomes increasingly difficult to express sentiment that falls outside the echo chamber that makes up our preferred media channels.

In The Element, Ken Robinson reviews the Solomon Asch conformity experiments of the 1950s. Subjects were placed with groups of fellow college students whose answers to a set of questions had been coached to be wrong the majority of the time; the experimental subject had no idea as to the preparation of fellow group members.  With planted group members repeatedly responding incorrectly to questions, the experimental subject answered incorrectly, as well, the majority of the time. Test respondents readily admitted that they responded contrary to  answers they believed to be true out of fear of being called out for straying from the majority opinion.  Subjects wanted to fit in and self-censored accordingly.

Our ability to voice opinions contrary to the majority, let alone consider alternatives to popular sentiment is limited in a media vacuum that constantly regurgitates the talking points we want or — worse — expect to hear.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Lately, the Daily Dish’s Andrew Sullivan has been posting reader comments about whether liberals should do interviews on FOX News. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Rachel Maddow regularly implores conservatives to be guests on her show for a fact-based discussion of trending issues.

There is tremendous value in even hearing varied opinions, whether or not they are your own. In Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, the Brafman brothers noted the power of dissent in another Asch study.  Repeating the same scenario, one of the control subjects in the group was directed to answer independently, while the others continued to respond with wrong answers.

The dissenting actor didn’t even need to give the right answer to inspire the real participant to speak up with the correct response; all it took to break the sway was for someone to give an answer that was different from the majority. (p.155)

If the mere presence of a differing opinion can change the participation choices of an experimental subject, what would hearty debate of the issues do for viewers at home? As it stands, we’re mostly standing in an echo chamber of reiterated talking points. Could it bring more voices into the fray?

And if we create space where we can be open to disagreement about the solutions, can we create space that allows us to more completely expose the range of options, including those in our worldview periphery, in such a manner that we could find the common ground we need to move forward on urgent issues?

Things to consider before you take the LSAT

Published on October 21, 2010 in Education. 0 Comments Tags: , , , .

This week a third-year Boston College law student drafted a letter to the dean asking that his debt be waived; in return, the almost-graduate would forfeit his law degree.  The six-figure debt became too much for the career changer who has his first child on the way with his wife.

There are plenty of people who regret going to expensive grad school programs right now.  And one practicing lawyer made a video about it.

Things to consider before you take the LSAT.

Compassion on the wane

Published on October 20, 2010 in Uncategorized. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

Earlier this month the Obion, Tennessee fire department declined to put out a fire that burnt a trailer home to the ground because the owner had been delinquent in paying an annual fire services fee to the county.  Four pets perished in the blaze.  When it began to spread to a neighbors home, the fire department kept the neighbor’s home from burning up because the owners had paid the requisite fee.

Reaction has been split on the fire fighters’ actions; some are appalled by the moral shortcomings, while others are trying to make the case for personal responsibility.  Conservator Daniel Foster summed up the morality argument thusly

what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?”

Radio and Fox News personality Glenn Beck countered that people need to except the inevitable costs of personality responsibility.

If you don’t pay the 75 dollars then that hurts the fire department. They can’t use those resources, and you’d be sponging off your neighbor’s resources… It’s important for America to have this debate.  This is the kind of stuff that’s going to have to happen, we are going to have to have these kinds of things.

I have to wonder if Beck would have been so indifferent had it been toddlers or grandma that perished in the fire because the fire department declined to act? Would fire fighters have been able to physically do nothing had the scenario involved people instead of pets?

It seems that as America life grows increasingly polarized, with marginalized populations increasingly being targeted to gin up (primarily) white voters that feel left behind in the current economic straits, we’re losing our compassion.

In the past week a CVS pharmacist in NJ denied a customer a refill of her asthma inhaler while she was in the midst of an attack because she was $1.50 short.  Despite offering to leave behind ID and to return with the rest of the payment, the pharmacist refused her the needed treatment, even after her boyfriend expressed concern that an ambulance would not make it in time to help her.   Over $1.50?  Really?

Is that really the kind of stuff that has to happen?

Is there an echo in here? Living in the bubble.

Published on October 18, 2010 in Technology. 2 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

photo by scion_cho

Over at Beyond the Times, Walter wrote about the inevitable echo chamber effect that would follow the introduction of a news aggregator into Facebook update streams.   Given all the “likes” assigned a variety of content on the site, it would be an easy feat to develop an algorithm to direct relevant news  that fits an individual user’s world view, eliminating any challenges to that perspective.

It’s not as though such formulas aren’t already pervasive on the intertubes.  Netflix regularly recommends a variety of films within subgenres that I frequently view, and Amazon.com is constantly tweaking its suggestions to me based on my purchases, viewing and rating of titles.

Eli Pariser recently discussed the filter bubble phenomena with Lynn Paramore of the Roosevelt Institute:

Since Dec. 4, 2009, Google has been personalized for everyone. So when I had two friends this spring Google “BP,” one of them got a set of links that was about investment opportunities in BP. The other one got information about the oil spill. Presumably that was based on the kinds of searches that they had done in the past. If you have Google doing that, and you have Yahoo doing that, and you have Facebook doing that, and you have all of the top sites on the Web customizing themselves to you, then your information environment starts to look very different from anyone else’s. And that’s what I’m calling the “filter bubble”: that personal ecosystem of information that’s been catered by these algorithms to who they think you are.

This technology-induced bubble is particularly problematic in that it is human nature to accept facts and opinions that align with  personal beliefs and disregard information that clashes.  A recent Yale Law School study published in the Journal of Risk Research found that regardless of political leanings,

Individuals systematically overestimate the degree of scientific support for positions they are culturally predisposed to accept.

Social technology is making it effortless find and follow preferred sentiment and these sites are increasingly becoming the go-to places for news.   Forty-two percent of respondents in a Retrevo Gadgetology study admit to checking and updating their Twitter and Facebook feeds first thing in the morning, with 23 percent of iPhone identifying these feeds as their morning news.  In a recent Oxygen Media study, more than one third of women 18-34 years old reported checking Facebook before getting out of bed in the morning.

What happens to society when people can no longer have informed discussions of reality and data because of a refusal to acknowledge the very existence, let alone the validity, of information that conflicts with our own world view?  Does it increasingly heighten the notion of an “Other” that could destroy a preferred way of living?  Should marginalized religions, races and cultures expect increased persecution for being an outlier of mainstream thought?

And most importantly, how do we find ways to be more receptive to ideas that challenge our own? New solutions to old problems could emerge from the discussion that follows.

Girl Powering the Economy

Published on October 12, 2010 in Education. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

In 1995 Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the UN Women’s Conference in Beijing, China that made clear that women’s rights are human rights.  In recent years, the folks at Nike have put substantial funds toward campaigning to improve the lot of the next generation of girls in the developing world.   Their nonprofit The Girl Effect recently released its latest video driving home the importance of education and health care for girls and the potential impact those resources have on the lives of a community.

Domestically, Step Up Women’s Network is one of many nonprofits that provide programming to at-risk teens to better their odds of success upon graduating high school.   They provide roughly 100 hours of programming to more than 250 girls each year across chapters in  New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago.   As a result 90% of program participants wind up in college upon completion of the program, despite the majority of the girls living at or below the poverty level.

This month SUWN is hoping to meet 60% of its annual teen programs budget needs by winning a $250K grant from the Pepsi Refresh Project. Vote for Step Up daily.  And text 103315 to 73774 every day in October.