Show HN: An anti-book recommendation tool, to help you escape your echo chamber(abooklikefoo.com)
abooklikefoo.com
Show HN: An anti-book recommendation tool, to help you escape your echo chamber
https://abooklikefoo.com/escape/
260 comments
I think in order for the opposite thing to work, you have to approach the material with the understanding that "There are people who believe this stuff as firmly as I believe the complete opposite. If you asked them, they say, with absolute conviction, that I'm nuts. How might that happen? What if they're right? What could I have missed?"
This engages System 2, hard. And it's so easy to slip back into System 1 and continue to reject the evidence in front of you, as System 1 does so well when it doesn't like what it's seeing.
I have to constantly remind myself of the possibility that I could be wrong or have an incomplete view of things, but then that allows me to extract the valuable nuances and hidden assumptions that underlie the belief.
Even more importantly, it tends to cast a light on my unconscious biases and assumptions that underlie my beliefs.
This engages System 2, hard. And it's so easy to slip back into System 1 and continue to reject the evidence in front of you, as System 1 does so well when it doesn't like what it's seeing.
I have to constantly remind myself of the possibility that I could be wrong or have an incomplete view of things, but then that allows me to extract the valuable nuances and hidden assumptions that underlie the belief.
Even more importantly, it tends to cast a light on my unconscious biases and assumptions that underlie my beliefs.
>There are people who believe this stuff as firmly as I believe the complete opposite. If you asked them, they say, with absolute conviction, that I'm nuts. How might that happen? What if they're right? What could I have missed?
After having read books on two sides of various things, I have found that most people don't have firm beliefs at all. Their beliefs don't even have anything to do with how they live. They have everything to do with what they're told will make them look good. So, just because someone says they believe something, I'm not willing to waste any more of my time on learning how it is justified on an intellectual or logical level (which is what books tend to capture). Even the believers most likely don't have any understanding of it themselves or how or why it matters to them. It's simply not worth it.
After having read books on two sides of various things, I have found that most people don't have firm beliefs at all. Their beliefs don't even have anything to do with how they live. They have everything to do with what they're told will make them look good. So, just because someone says they believe something, I'm not willing to waste any more of my time on learning how it is justified on an intellectual or logical level (which is what books tend to capture). Even the believers most likely don't have any understanding of it themselves or how or why it matters to them. It's simply not worth it.
I believe that it's important to understand the perspective of someone you fundamentally disagree with.
Or, well, you described it more accurately, it's a bit deeper than disagreement, it's an entirely different epistemology! Like waaayy different
Or, well, you described it more accurately, it's a bit deeper than disagreement, it's an entirely different epistemology! Like waaayy different
The problem is most people don't have those perspectives. Their beliefs don't come from their life experience or that of their family handed down to them. It comes from marketing material. Therefore they're highly inconsistent in their beliefs and what they believe they believe does not have anything to do with them or how they actually live their lives.
So, if you want to understand what they think they're about, you can just watch the "news" or read other PR material targeted to them. That is now more difficult because it's a bit more targeted because of social media marketing but it is still possible.
But if you want to know what they actually believe without even knowing that they do, you have to look at what they actually do and how they live their lives.
So, if you want to understand what they think they're about, you can just watch the "news" or read other PR material targeted to them. That is now more difficult because it's a bit more targeted because of social media marketing but it is still possible.
But if you want to know what they actually believe without even knowing that they do, you have to look at what they actually do and how they live their lives.
And that's also true of most high brow, abstract school stuff. Like evolution. Even in countries where creationism isn't a thing and everyone "believes in" evolution, most of them couldn't describe a logically workable mechanism of evolution, they know a cartoon version but believe it because they "know" that "evolution" is true.
But would you say it makes no sense to read books on evolution just because most people who believe in evolution don't believe in it for the reasons outlined in advanced books?
Why did schools end up teaching evolution? For scientific reasons? To suppress religion in some freemasonry conspiracy?
You can ask the same about the race topics.
But would you say it makes no sense to read books on evolution just because most people who believe in evolution don't believe in it for the reasons outlined in advanced books?
Why did schools end up teaching evolution? For scientific reasons? To suppress religion in some freemasonry conspiracy?
You can ask the same about the race topics.
>Why did schools end up teaching evolution? For scientific reasons? To suppress religion in some freemasonry conspiracy?
I think it has nothing to do with "increasing scientific literacy" or anything like that, for sure. It would be very odd that of all the scientific things you could push to teach kids, the theory of evolution is somehow the most important one. I think it has everything to do with attacking the Christian Right at their homes by forcing their kids to learn something they don't want them to. It's a socio-economic and political tool for war.
When grilled by someone, I remember Richard Dawkins, one of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism, said that he just wants people to understand that it happens in nature but doesn't want people to live by the idea of natural selection or something to that effect. In other words, he wants people to understand evolution but not "believe" it... i.e. in the sense that he doesn't want people to live by it (I disagree with Dawkins, but more on that later).
Speaking of that, it reminds me of a comment I posted yesterday here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25412712
I know that if one really believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason to "conserve a species". It makes absolutely no sense. Species come and go. Whatever species remain will evolve to acquire characteristics suitable for whatever changes happen... or perish. So why does everyone believe in conservation and in evolution? Because they don't. But what if they believed in Noah's arc? It would be terrible if one of the species that Noah himself picked to be on a boat were to go extinct because humans did something, wouldn't it? That is exactly the reaction you see from all these westerners who allegedly "believe" in evolution.
I mean people can make use of certain rhetoric for status, or political gains or economic gains, but to actually believe those is a different matter altogether. I think westerners believe in many dogmas of Christianity, no matter how much they deny it or pretend that they are above it. I, as a non-Christian non-westerner who grew up mostly outside of the reach of westerners, see it in many aspects of how they actually live. The things that they actually believe in comes from Christianity. The things they pretend believe in comes from corporate and political PR material that they're exposed to... and some of it they do believe, as long as it doesn't contradict with Christianity.
I think it has nothing to do with "increasing scientific literacy" or anything like that, for sure. It would be very odd that of all the scientific things you could push to teach kids, the theory of evolution is somehow the most important one. I think it has everything to do with attacking the Christian Right at their homes by forcing their kids to learn something they don't want them to. It's a socio-economic and political tool for war.
When grilled by someone, I remember Richard Dawkins, one of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism, said that he just wants people to understand that it happens in nature but doesn't want people to live by the idea of natural selection or something to that effect. In other words, he wants people to understand evolution but not "believe" it... i.e. in the sense that he doesn't want people to live by it (I disagree with Dawkins, but more on that later).
Speaking of that, it reminds me of a comment I posted yesterday here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25412712
I know that if one really believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason to "conserve a species". It makes absolutely no sense. Species come and go. Whatever species remain will evolve to acquire characteristics suitable for whatever changes happen... or perish. So why does everyone believe in conservation and in evolution? Because they don't. But what if they believed in Noah's arc? It would be terrible if one of the species that Noah himself picked to be on a boat were to go extinct because humans did something, wouldn't it? That is exactly the reaction you see from all these westerners who allegedly "believe" in evolution.
I mean people can make use of certain rhetoric for status, or political gains or economic gains, but to actually believe those is a different matter altogether. I think westerners believe in many dogmas of Christianity, no matter how much they deny it or pretend that they are above it. I, as a non-Christian non-westerner who grew up mostly outside of the reach of westerners, see it in many aspects of how they actually live. The things that they actually believe in comes from Christianity. The things they pretend believe in comes from corporate and political PR material that they're exposed to... and some of it they do believe, as long as it doesn't contradict with Christianity.
> I know that if one really believes in evolution, there is absolutely no reason to "conserve a species". It makes absolutely no sense. Species come and go. Whatever species remain will evolve to acquire characteristics suitable for whatever changes happen... or perish. So why does everyone believe in conservation and in evolution? Because they don't. But what if they believed in Noah's arc? It would be terrible if one of the species that Noah himself picked to be on a boat were to go extinct because humans did something, wouldn't it? That is exactly the reaction you see from all these westerners who allegedly "believe" in evolution.
The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier. There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic. Monocultures are susceptible to all sorts of problems that diverse ecologies are not.
How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.' This is because evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't tell you anything is good or bad about 'fitness.' Fitness always refers to an environment. Given another environment, something else would be more fit to survive.
Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier. There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic. Monocultures are susceptible to all sorts of problems that diverse ecologies are not.
How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.' This is because evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn't tell you anything is good or bad about 'fitness.' Fitness always refers to an environment. Given another environment, something else would be more fit to survive.
Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
>The reason to conserve a species is because a biodiverse ecology is healthier.
Healthier for who or what or to what end? Whatever changes (because of humans or otherwise), some individuals of a species may evolve to fit better to that... or they'll perish and something else will happen there. Worst case, it will go back to how things were 4 billion years ago.
>There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic.
And humans are special why? Disease-causing is very human-centered... because of course we are special because God created us in his image. You may deny that because you "believe in evolution"... but I'm arguing is your beliefs make more sense if I go with the assumption that you belive in the Christian dogma and do not believe in evolution AT ALL. You may use your understanding of evolution to justify your Christian beliefs while simultaneously denying that you believe in Christianity... but from the outside, I see right through you.
If you believed that we are not special and that bacteria is running the world as much as we think we are, there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
>How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.'
>Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
If you believed in evolution, you'd see that humans are just as much part of nauture as anything else. It's your Christian dogma that leads you to believe that the world was created with a certain intent and humans are ruining it (by going against God's will, like Adam did with the fruit).
Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
Healthier for who or what or to what end? Whatever changes (because of humans or otherwise), some individuals of a species may evolve to fit better to that... or they'll perish and something else will happen there. Worst case, it will go back to how things were 4 billion years ago.
>There is more competition so any organism (such as a disease-causing bacteria) is less able to cause a pandemic.
And humans are special why? Disease-causing is very human-centered... because of course we are special because God created us in his image. You may deny that because you "believe in evolution"... but I'm arguing is your beliefs make more sense if I go with the assumption that you belive in the Christian dogma and do not believe in evolution AT ALL. You may use your understanding of evolution to justify your Christian beliefs while simultaneously denying that you believe in Christianity... but from the outside, I see right through you.
If you believed that we are not special and that bacteria is running the world as much as we think we are, there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
>How this interplays with evolution is that humans are in the position of unintentionally changing the environment drastically so that many species are now 'unfit.'
>Conservation relies on an understanding of human power over the environment and a desire to maintain an environment that doesn't succumb to the same problems we see with monocultures.
If you believed in evolution, you'd see that humans are just as much part of nauture as anything else. It's your Christian dogma that leads you to believe that the world was created with a certain intent and humans are ruining it (by going against God's will, like Adam did with the fruit).
Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
> Healthier for who or what or to what end?
Healthier for humans.
> And humans are special why?
Because I am human.
> but from the outside, I see right through you.
You're actually reading something into this that isn't there. I want a world that's good for humans because I'm human and my genes make me want a world that is good for me and my offspring.
> there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
its not a need, its a value.
> Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
I'd still have a genetic drive for self preservation and a gene based desire to live in an environment that was better for me.
Healthier for humans.
> And humans are special why?
Because I am human.
> but from the outside, I see right through you.
You're actually reading something into this that isn't there. I want a world that's good for humans because I'm human and my genes make me want a world that is good for me and my offspring.
> there is no need to favor humans over disease-causing bacteria.
its not a need, its a value.
> Again, in absence of Christian dogma, and with knowledge of evolution, you would not see the world as you do now.
I'd still have a genetic drive for self preservation and a gene based desire to live in an environment that was better for me.
If that was the case, the least that would be called for is to eliminate all other apex predators, have herbivore population grow and open up hunting in those areas. Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans.
Yet, this idea would not fly in the west. I know other countries where this would be preferred. The western governments put pressure on those poorer governments to "conserve" those species. The only reason this would be unacceptable to Christians is the Noah's arc story. Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans. Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental. It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
Yet, this idea would not fly in the west. I know other countries where this would be preferred. The western governments put pressure on those poorer governments to "conserve" those species. The only reason this would be unacceptable to Christians is the Noah's arc story. Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans. Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental. It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
> Removing apex predators and using human hunters instead has no side effects that are harmful to humans.
Thats not true, apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem.
> Yet, this idea would not fly in the west.
Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west.
> Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
This is also a useful heuristic that is borne out of experience when we intervened in the ecosystem and discovered second order unintended consequences that no one could have foreseen. However in the case you mentioned, there are easily identifiable negative consequences that make it unnecessary to rely on the "least affect possible" heuristic.
> That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans.
There are none, at least not on Earth.
> Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental.
This is incorrect. They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem.
> It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability.
> Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.
Thats not true, apex predators perform a valuable service by keeping the prey populations in check. Without them, humans would have to go hunt which is additional labor. Also its clear that humans wouldn't be able to hunt the same populations in the same amounts in the same way, which would have effects on the prey population, which would affect the rest of the ecosystem.
> Yet, this idea would not fly in the west.
Any ecologist could explain the above, it has nothing to do with the west.
> Yet westerners would justify it with completely unsubstantiated "oh there are other imbalances that we can't forsee", at best.
This is also a useful heuristic that is borne out of experience when we intervened in the ecosystem and discovered second order unintended consequences that no one could have foreseen. However in the case you mentioned, there are easily identifiable negative consequences that make it unnecessary to rely on the "least affect possible" heuristic.
> That's just a start. A human-centric approach would see little value in other ecosystems which evolved with humans completely outside of the picture and have nothing to do with humans.
There are none, at least not on Earth.
> Humans are a part of very specific parts of very specific ecosystems. Most of others have nothing to do with humans and at best are a nuisance and potential disease risk, at worst are directly detrimental.
This is incorrect. They provide a check on disease by encouraging competitor organisms through biodiversity. They provide a future stock of biological goods and biological inputs for industrial goods that will be used when discovered to be useful. They also interact with our ecosystem because all the ecosystems are connected and make one planet-Earth-sized ecosystem.
> It can be argued that some of them may be of medicinal value but it can also be argued that they could be breeding ground for future pandemics.
They are however the other organisms are busy evolving responses to these potential pandemic-causing organisms and that both keeps them in check and allows us to use those organisms to respond to the pandemics when they (inevitably) arise. Pandemics and plagues are more prevalent with less biodiversity because there is less competition once an organism evolves a means to take advantage of a vulnerability.
> Yet, even talking about this to westerners who are otherwise "believers of evolution" and "anti-Christianity" will hit deep sentiments and they'll be seen grasping at straws to justify their position... which could be anything... any position is OK as long as it is pro saving all the species that Noah intended to save.
You're pursuing this pet idea of yours to the exclusion of the facts and values of the people who address these ideas regularly.
I tried to read "The End of Policing". I got half way through chapter 1 before the author stated, as support for his argument, that The Bell Curve was "overtly racist". Now, you could argue that lots of racists like that book, that the authors might be motivated by bias, etc etc, but no credible reviewer at the time it came out would call it "overtly racist". This is retroactive moving of the goal posts, and the word "overt", to me, still has meaning.
So I tried to read the tripe, but the arguments are not persuasive unless you already believe what they are trying to convince you of.
So I tried to read the tripe, but the arguments are not persuasive unless you already believe what they are trying to convince you of.
I suspect that the author is using the term "racist" differently than you use it. The Bell Curve explicitly argues that some racial groups are inherently, biologically less intelligent than others. In the author's view, that in itself is overtly racist (because it argues that one racial group is genetically inferior to another racial group), no matter how much intellectual argument is presented or how gently it is stated. Perhaps you use the word differently, and believe that something is only racist if the author hates people on the basis of race.
It could be argued that they use it precisely because of the ambiguity. The word retains an aura of taboo and evil and one of the worst things a person can be. Then you redefine it to use it against a broader set of people but continue to harvest the power of the previous connotation. A variant of the euphemism treadmill. Instead of dropping a tarnished word and transitioning to a clean fresh one to describe the same thing, you keep using the tarnished word but for a different thing.
Closely related is the "motte and bailey" tactic: depending on the situation you sometimes use the word in an milder sense (new meaning of racist, "we are all a little bit racist", it's just unconscious biases or beliefs about any difference between races), but when people aren't looking you switch definitions (old definition, worst possible thing, "some races must be subjugated and kept away from our social circles as they are subhuman and incapable of participation by their nature and will poison our bloodline").
Indeed many critics of the new social justice movements would have this as the main argument: that SJ uses equivocation in this way as the rule, not the exception.
Closely related is the "motte and bailey" tactic: depending on the situation you sometimes use the word in an milder sense (new meaning of racist, "we are all a little bit racist", it's just unconscious biases or beliefs about any difference between races), but when people aren't looking you switch definitions (old definition, worst possible thing, "some races must be subjugated and kept away from our social circles as they are subhuman and incapable of participation by their nature and will poison our bloodline").
Indeed many critics of the new social justice movements would have this as the main argument: that SJ uses equivocation in this way as the rule, not the exception.
This seems to all hinge on an overly specific definition of 'overt'.... while it's definition is something done openly with no attempt to hide, sometimes it is used for effect, to say something unintended is actually so apparent that it almost seems like it must have been done intentionally.
You might want words to be narrowly defined and used, but that isn't how language works.
You might want words to be narrowly defined and used, but that isn't how language works.
It's redefining words to retain "the punch", while being able to use it widely.
This is how Google now ended up being called "white supremacist" for firing a black AI ethicist (it was retweeted by a director of AI at Nvidia).
You can say (with a straight face?) that's just how language evolves, but I would find that deeply cynical.
This is how Google now ended up being called "white supremacist" for firing a black AI ethicist (it was retweeted by a director of AI at Nvidia).
You can say (with a straight face?) that's just how language evolves, but I would find that deeply cynical.
> So I tried to read the tripe, but the arguments are not persuasive unless you already believe what they are trying to convince you of.
What the gp describes only works if you are tolerant of other people's errors to some extent. You can't let a few things like you describe derail you. Remember your own beliefs, it may be the case that you are right and the inaccuracy you discovered is a linchpin in their incorrect system of ideas. Or it might be some little piece of information that is accepted as a truism in their bubble so people throw it around when it seems appropriate, but its not an essential part of their argument.
The main thing is that you want to understand the author's perspective. why did they consider the bell curve to be overtly racist? perhaps they are defining racism differently than you (this is almost certainly the case [0]).
It does you no good to read books by people you disagree with in order to understand them better if you're gonna get derailed when they say something that seems obviously false to you.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
What the gp describes only works if you are tolerant of other people's errors to some extent. You can't let a few things like you describe derail you. Remember your own beliefs, it may be the case that you are right and the inaccuracy you discovered is a linchpin in their incorrect system of ideas. Or it might be some little piece of information that is accepted as a truism in their bubble so people throw it around when it seems appropriate, but its not an essential part of their argument.
The main thing is that you want to understand the author's perspective. why did they consider the bell curve to be overtly racist? perhaps they are defining racism differently than you (this is almost certainly the case [0]).
It does you no good to read books by people you disagree with in order to understand them better if you're gonna get derailed when they say something that seems obviously false to you.
[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
The more I read such works and try to abstract away from their exaggetared use of words, the more I find it to be like those inflatable air "houses" or potemkin villages. Once you take away the punch, the urgency and the strength of the words themselves, there's little left.
The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with.
You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.
The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with.
You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.
> The thing is, you can try to project something sensible onto them, ie steelman them, but you will end up with something the authors would disagree with.
I agree with this. However you have then arrived at the basic truth that underlies the distorted version you were originally exposed to. So then you can discuss the issue with the person using a set of shared assumptions and perhaps bring them around to the steel manned version. Now you have changed their mind. If they then say "what about this <more preferred, less supportable version> that I started out with" they are more open to your summarized dismissal "that doesn't work because of w, x, y, and z"
> The more I read such works
You're not justified in labeling a work as this kind of work until the process here has been done. You may have been exposed to a weaker version and dismissed that because of fallacies, while a stronger version exists. You can't dismiss the stronger version without examination merely because it reaches the same conclusions as the weaker version you were exposed to.
> You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.
I think my independent study of scientology was fruitful for my understanding of how someone becomes possessed by ideology. Studying scientology under the supervision of scientologists is dangerous because they prevent you from critically examining the ideas.
I agree with this. However you have then arrived at the basic truth that underlies the distorted version you were originally exposed to. So then you can discuss the issue with the person using a set of shared assumptions and perhaps bring them around to the steel manned version. Now you have changed their mind. If they then say "what about this <more preferred, less supportable version> that I started out with" they are more open to your summarized dismissal "that doesn't work because of w, x, y, and z"
> The more I read such works
You're not justified in labeling a work as this kind of work until the process here has been done. You may have been exposed to a weaker version and dismissed that because of fallacies, while a stronger version exists. You can't dismiss the stronger version without examination merely because it reaches the same conclusions as the weaker version you were exposed to.
> You may just as well say you should read Scientology, and you will surely find common points to agree on etc. I mean, it's perhaps still useful to try that, I've read some Scientology materials myself and left with more knowledge about the specifics of Scientology, but I didn't get closer to believing it. Perhaps I can empathize with why it can hook people, we could call that understanding in a sense.
I think my independent study of scientology was fruitful for my understanding of how someone becomes possessed by ideology. Studying scientology under the supervision of scientologists is dangerous because they prevent you from critically examining the ideas.
The Bell Curve is filled to the brim with shoddy pseudoscience and clearly supports racist ideas that have been thoroughly debunked as summarized here https://youtu.be/UBc7qBS1Ujo. If you want to nitpick on how “overt” it was, fine, but that’s not a charitable way to read an argument you disagree with at all. It honestly sounds like you just found one detail that you disagreed with to call the book tripe.
Isn't the core conceit of The Bell Curve that Black people have lower IQs than white people?
It's not the core conceit. Black/white IQ differences were discussed in one chapter. The core conceit is that IQ is real, and it really matters for life outcomes.
This is true in every representative sample of iq test scores (or proxies for iq) in the USA. The debate is over what causes this difference.
That’s not racist according to HN though :/
I know very little to nothing of the works you cite, so my ideas are to be taken with a grain of salt, but...
I don't think the author was born thinking those complex thoughts, so clearly they were persuaded by something that didn't rely on previous belief. What could that be? Why isn't that persuasive to you? What sort of person does it persuade and why? Are there other arguments that could persuade you of the same thing? Or of something similar?
Intellectual exchange requires constructing the steel man argument of your counterpart, as impossible as it may seem at times. Underneath, we're all humans, longing for food, shelter, companionship, and stability.
I don't think the author was born thinking those complex thoughts, so clearly they were persuaded by something that didn't rely on previous belief. What could that be? Why isn't that persuasive to you? What sort of person does it persuade and why? Are there other arguments that could persuade you of the same thing? Or of something similar?
Intellectual exchange requires constructing the steel man argument of your counterpart, as impossible as it may seem at times. Underneath, we're all humans, longing for food, shelter, companionship, and stability.
> I don't think the author was born thinking those complex thoughts, so clearly they were persuaded by something that didn't rely on previous belief. What could that be?
Very often the answer is mundane; 'It's what my parents taught me.' Particularly in the most contentious cases, like religion and politics. It seems like 'born thinking it' vs 'was persuaded' is a false dichotomy, unless you count being steeped in a culture as a child to be a form of persuasion.
Very often the answer is mundane; 'It's what my parents taught me.' Particularly in the most contentious cases, like religion and politics. It seems like 'born thinking it' vs 'was persuaded' is a false dichotomy, unless you count being steeped in a culture as a child to be a form of persuasion.
It is generally good to try seeing things from the other person's perspective, but it is also possible that sometimes the other person is simply wrong. Just because an idea is wrong, that doesn't magically prevent millions of people from following it.
the idea here is to understand why people believe something that is (consider by you to be) wrong.
That can have lots of reasons,like they grew up with it, were indoctrinated in school/college when they had little experience or critical thinking skills and stay due to sunk cost fallacy or tribalism, or it satisfies some deep psychological need to feel superior or virtuous etc. Plenty of reasons besides them analytically arriving at a position through a lot of thinking.
This is all true for everyone. The point is to get a better understanding of those reasons and why those reasons led this person to these beliefs. Plenty of people grow up and change their minds and then have different opinions than their parents indoctrinated them with. Plenty of people rely on the reasons you mentioned above to dismiss other people's views without critically examining their own views, which are subject to the exact same reasoning process.
Sure, but all of those things could apply to your thinking too, maybe even just as much. Figuring out who suffers more from those kinds of biases is often harder than just saying, "yeah, it's definitely the other guy."
The problem with delusional belief systems is that they tend to be coherent and self-supporting, just not rooted in reality.
Statistical aggregates make this worse. You can argue that on average X is more than Y, or you can cherrypick all the examples where Y is greater than X to make your point.
Statistical aggregates make this worse. You can argue that on average X is more than Y, or you can cherrypick all the examples where Y is greater than X to make your point.
Lots of people call stuff they dont like "delusional belief systems" while ignoring the truths, even if nuggets, behind those systems...
But don’t confuse that tendency with the idea that there are no delusional belief systems.
Oh of course, wasn't saying that at all. It's just that I have noticed an uptick in using this kind of phrasing when trying to dismiss other positions on things as a version of the "thought terminating cliche". Not trying to say there are no delusion belief systems.
That said, the bar should be very high for calling other peoples beliefs as such. I disagree with lots of people on lots of things, but one of the things I've learned is that by approaching topics with such a judgemental, holier-than-though attitude, one puts on blinders to truly understanding a persons position, and more importantly, how they got there. The power of empathy is strong in giving the brain more information to work with, but the power of harsh judgement is that it stifles the flow of information prematurely.
That said, the bar should be very high for calling other peoples beliefs as such. I disagree with lots of people on lots of things, but one of the things I've learned is that by approaching topics with such a judgemental, holier-than-though attitude, one puts on blinders to truly understanding a persons position, and more importantly, how they got there. The power of empathy is strong in giving the brain more information to work with, but the power of harsh judgement is that it stifles the flow of information prematurely.
> and more importantly, how they got there
That's the most important part, isn't it? Beliefs of humans are path-dependent. Nobody can perfectly rationally re-evaluate all evidence they've encountered and compute a belief to hold. We always start with a belief, and adjust it over time. Some more eagerly than others, some more correctly than others, but it's always an additive shift. Integration of evidence, if you like. That's why when I see someone believing something that's clearly (to me) absurd, I'm mostly interested in how did they get there - something must have convinced them, and I found it useful to discover what it was, because often it's a piece of real evidence I haven't encountered before.
That's the most important part, isn't it? Beliefs of humans are path-dependent. Nobody can perfectly rationally re-evaluate all evidence they've encountered and compute a belief to hold. We always start with a belief, and adjust it over time. Some more eagerly than others, some more correctly than others, but it's always an additive shift. Integration of evidence, if you like. That's why when I see someone believing something that's clearly (to me) absurd, I'm mostly interested in how did they get there - something must have convinced them, and I found it useful to discover what it was, because often it's a piece of real evidence I haven't encountered before.
> Beliefs of humans are path-dependent.
Thats such simple yet profound statement to me. Thank you for the response, it has definitely given me something to ponder. Ugg. Now I'm imagine companies/govs doing path dependent profiling of people for their minority report-esque systems.
Thats such simple yet profound statement to me. Thank you for the response, it has definitely given me something to ponder. Ugg. Now I'm imagine companies/govs doing path dependent profiling of people for their minority report-esque systems.
I don't know man?
People don't like, a lot of things, they don't call them delusional. We call things delusional because they are, in fact, delusional. What makes it dangerous is that people deeply believe that their delusions are "truth". Belief to the point of fundamentalism, where they will kill non-believers in their delusions.
People don't like, a lot of things, they don't call them delusional. We call things delusional because they are, in fact, delusional. What makes it dangerous is that people deeply believe that their delusions are "truth". Belief to the point of fundamentalism, where they will kill non-believers in their delusions.
Both obviously happen. The “delusional” label is used (rightly) to dismiss certain claims, but then of course people use the same label incorrectly when attempting to dismiss claims they don’t like.
Averages are one kind of truth though, and if your worldview is based on averages it has some amount of accuracy to it. The trick is that there are more averages than just the mean, such as standard deviation, so to have a correct view you must care about all averages.
> Averages are one kind of truth though, and if your worldview is based on averages it has some amount of accuracy to it.
I think that is a fallacy. Just because some standpoint is in between two other standpoints, does not make it correct. Each side might look at some facts from a different perspective and might be correct but at the same time contradicting (at least at the first glance), but the 'average' could still be wrong.
I think that is a fallacy. Just because some standpoint is in between two other standpoints, does not make it correct. Each side might look at some facts from a different perspective and might be correct but at the same time contradicting (at least at the first glance), but the 'average' could still be wrong.
Here is the way I think of it, if a cylinder passed through two perpendicular planes, flatlanders living on those two planes, with different perspectives on life, might call each other to discuss their observations. One flatlander might report the observation of a circle, while the other might say they saw a rectangle. Both have observed part of the truth, but different parts of it, and to a flatlander it may seem these observations are irreconcilable. A third flatlander who decides to simply average the observations together into a rounded rectangle is more wrong than either of the others. The key to resolving the apparent contradiction is recognizing that the truth exists in a dimensional space higher than the flatlander is capable of perceiving.
Well what I'm claiming is not that averages can be used to arrive at all truth, or to observe all things. Many things however are distributions and averages can be accurately used to characterize them in a way that works. In that example, one might say that the mean viewpoint is correct within the error bars that encompass the two observations, which could be quite large if they are opposite observations.
Sounds like you two are saying nearly the exact same thing, using different words.
> I think there is a genuine need for escaping echo chambers but every attempt is usually aimed just showing the opposite side/narrative.
I think the idea that there only exists a single spectrum sorted into sides is itself a sort of meta echo chamber shared by people in echo chambers even as they disagree about everything else. In modern politics, even the idea that the opposed party holds opposite views (versus just opposed) is a meta echo chamber idea. In many left/right topics, the disagreement isn't 'pro/anti', but often more fundamental.
Some examples: While conservatives might be anti-abortion, liberals aren't pro abortion, they're pro-choice and that's not just a rhetorical device. While liberals are anti-racism and see conservatives as pro-racism, a conservative rejects the idea out of hand because of a difference in definitions. A third, more nuanced view might even see the average conservative as non-racist (as opposed to anti-racist) which many would still argue is not enough, but it's not 'the opposite' at all.
I don't think recommendations need to necessarily go to the extremes, but I don't think 'a shade to the left' is enough either, because without understanding the fundamental differences, you have a you-can't-get-there-from-here problem.
I think the idea that there only exists a single spectrum sorted into sides is itself a sort of meta echo chamber shared by people in echo chambers even as they disagree about everything else. In modern politics, even the idea that the opposed party holds opposite views (versus just opposed) is a meta echo chamber idea. In many left/right topics, the disagreement isn't 'pro/anti', but often more fundamental.
Some examples: While conservatives might be anti-abortion, liberals aren't pro abortion, they're pro-choice and that's not just a rhetorical device. While liberals are anti-racism and see conservatives as pro-racism, a conservative rejects the idea out of hand because of a difference in definitions. A third, more nuanced view might even see the average conservative as non-racist (as opposed to anti-racist) which many would still argue is not enough, but it's not 'the opposite' at all.
I don't think recommendations need to necessarily go to the extremes, but I don't think 'a shade to the left' is enough either, because without understanding the fundamental differences, you have a you-can't-get-there-from-here problem.
> A third, more nuanced view might even see the average conservative as non-racist
What if due to their isolation and the lack of diversity in rural areas actually leads to outcomes where certain parts of our country have more racist beliefs than people who grew up surrounded by people of all different colors and religions? Why do we have to keep ignoring studies and evidence in order to ascribe values to conservatives they never demonstrate? What if this isn't a both sides issue, and one side is definitely more wrong? Hint, the side marching with Neo Nazis chanting "The Jews Will Not Replace Us" is the side which is wrong here.
What if due to their isolation and the lack of diversity in rural areas actually leads to outcomes where certain parts of our country have more racist beliefs than people who grew up surrounded by people of all different colors and religions? Why do we have to keep ignoring studies and evidence in order to ascribe values to conservatives they never demonstrate? What if this isn't a both sides issue, and one side is definitely more wrong? Hint, the side marching with Neo Nazis chanting "The Jews Will Not Replace Us" is the side which is wrong here.
It's not up to me to break you out of your bubble. Your comments are deeply out of touch with reality and I know that nothing I say will convince you.
Yes, it's my belief in data that's the problem here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/06/racia...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/06/racia...
I haven’t analyzed your source at all. But even if I stipulate the data was correctly gathered and the conclusions made are reasonable, it doesn’t support your comments.
Data is not the reason you are in a bubble. Data is your excuse. Your view doesn’t gravitate toward data. You gravitate toward data that supports your view. When you find it, I’m rather convinced you’re not particularly critical about it. You seem to be trying to use that data as a club rather than as a tool to fix problems.
Data is not the reason you are in a bubble. Data is your excuse. Your view doesn’t gravitate toward data. You gravitate toward data that supports your view. When you find it, I’m rather convinced you’re not particularly critical about it. You seem to be trying to use that data as a club rather than as a tool to fix problems.
Both the data and my personal observations growing up in a conservative family in rural Oklahoma and Iowa back up my position. You say I'm in a bubble, but I've been surrounded by conservatives 31 out of the 37 years I've been alive. It's not that I don't understand their motivations, or arguments, or sentiments. My father believes every Muslim wants to kill or convert us. He has never met a Muslim. My mother believes welfare queens pick up their welfare checks in Cadillacs. My sister believes Donald Trump was delivered by God to save this country. My brother believes transwomen just want to molest his daughters. This is just my immediate family. My extended family gets even more colorful and overtly bigoted. Quite frankly, I'm tired of being told I just don't understand conservatives when I've been dealing with these people my entire life. Perhaps it's your perception of conservatives which needs to be adjusted.
I'm genuinely sorry about your experiences. I know there are people who think that way. I have had some in my own family. I believe their numbers have grown and they are certainly vocal. I think those numbers have grown as a consequence of people living in bubbles; both because their own bubbles encourage it, but also because the presence of other bubbles incentivizes people to choose a side an hunker down regardless of what they would otherwise believe. I also think the media is hugely responsible here for pushing total bologna.
Imagine being a conservative who doesn't hold any of those views being told they are essentially a Neo Nazi; or a liberal who is compared with the most violent so-called member of Antifa. My dad is conservative, but doesn't believe any of the things your family members believe, even the bit about welfare queens. This is ironic, because my mother (divorced from my father) used every trick in the book to get money from the government and did it quite well. She did it because she realized it meant she didn't have to work. She claims (to this day) that she did it because she wanted to be home for me and my siblings, but let's just say all four of us will tell you that's a laugh. She was absolutely a welfare queen. Despite that, and although I can certainly find numbers somewhere to back up such a claim, I do not believe this is the case for a meaningful number of welfare recipients. (I do, however, recognize that such people exist.)
(FWIW, my mom—no longer able to claim a lot of the welfare stuff due in large part to her children all becoming adults—hit me up for money. I cut her a check to bail her out of her immediate problems and give her a little runway. I made the 'one-time-thing' part very clear. I also made it conditional on her getting a job. She's just... a much happier person now and is more-or-less supporting herself just fine.)
This is the core of how these bubbles formed:
1. Group all people who disagree with certain ways of thinking in one group. (These ways of thinking need not be at all related.)
2. Assign all people in that group the qualities of the worst elements in that group.
The non-monsters in each group are alienated from each other. They can't ever convince each other of their way of thinking or find a reasonable compromise because each group is convinced they already know what every individual in the other group thinks. It is impossible to disclaim the monsters in your group because you didn't make the group, the other guys made the group. This thinking isn't even completely wrong, since being in a bubble means you're expected to think a certain way.
It's not an effective means of change. It's really quite dehumanizing to everyone involved. It concentrates power at the expense of individuals and allows a handful of people to determine what is proper discourse. This framing colors not only every view, but also every interaction individuals between these bubbles have with each other.
Membership in a such a bubble is obvious from the outside. There are frequent accusations that you belong in the other bubble. There are extreme statements that aren't born out by experience or facts. There are house of cards based sometimes on solid foundations. There are witch hunts for any type of heresy to figure out who to exclude next. The wagons get circle at even a whiff of conflict. Any thought it doesn't recognize as belonging to it immediately gets the label "that other bubble." It honestly must be both exciting and exhausting to be in one.
Popping that bubble I think is an ethical mandate, but it's one that I think people need to do for themselves. Even though the bubble I mostly agree with is right about the problems, and mostly right about solutions, it's not right about everything. It's frequently wrong about people outside itself (myself included) and it's also very very wrong in its approach.
As I said in the beginning, I can't convince you you're in a bubble. I know that. It's something that everyone has to consider for themselves.
Edit: Removed duplicated paragraph.
Imagine being a conservative who doesn't hold any of those views being told they are essentially a Neo Nazi; or a liberal who is compared with the most violent so-called member of Antifa. My dad is conservative, but doesn't believe any of the things your family members believe, even the bit about welfare queens. This is ironic, because my mother (divorced from my father) used every trick in the book to get money from the government and did it quite well. She did it because she realized it meant she didn't have to work. She claims (to this day) that she did it because she wanted to be home for me and my siblings, but let's just say all four of us will tell you that's a laugh. She was absolutely a welfare queen. Despite that, and although I can certainly find numbers somewhere to back up such a claim, I do not believe this is the case for a meaningful number of welfare recipients. (I do, however, recognize that such people exist.)
(FWIW, my mom—no longer able to claim a lot of the welfare stuff due in large part to her children all becoming adults—hit me up for money. I cut her a check to bail her out of her immediate problems and give her a little runway. I made the 'one-time-thing' part very clear. I also made it conditional on her getting a job. She's just... a much happier person now and is more-or-less supporting herself just fine.)
This is the core of how these bubbles formed:
1. Group all people who disagree with certain ways of thinking in one group. (These ways of thinking need not be at all related.)
2. Assign all people in that group the qualities of the worst elements in that group.
The non-monsters in each group are alienated from each other. They can't ever convince each other of their way of thinking or find a reasonable compromise because each group is convinced they already know what every individual in the other group thinks. It is impossible to disclaim the monsters in your group because you didn't make the group, the other guys made the group. This thinking isn't even completely wrong, since being in a bubble means you're expected to think a certain way.
It's not an effective means of change. It's really quite dehumanizing to everyone involved. It concentrates power at the expense of individuals and allows a handful of people to determine what is proper discourse. This framing colors not only every view, but also every interaction individuals between these bubbles have with each other.
Membership in a such a bubble is obvious from the outside. There are frequent accusations that you belong in the other bubble. There are extreme statements that aren't born out by experience or facts. There are house of cards based sometimes on solid foundations. There are witch hunts for any type of heresy to figure out who to exclude next. The wagons get circle at even a whiff of conflict. Any thought it doesn't recognize as belonging to it immediately gets the label "that other bubble." It honestly must be both exciting and exhausting to be in one.
Popping that bubble I think is an ethical mandate, but it's one that I think people need to do for themselves. Even though the bubble I mostly agree with is right about the problems, and mostly right about solutions, it's not right about everything. It's frequently wrong about people outside itself (myself included) and it's also very very wrong in its approach.
As I said in the beginning, I can't convince you you're in a bubble. I know that. It's something that everyone has to consider for themselves.
Edit: Removed duplicated paragraph.
Not all conservatives are racist bigots. Not all racist bigots are conservative. The vast majority of racist bigots are conservative and conservatives haven no problem supporting racist bigots. I'm struggling to understand what about the above statements you'd actually disagree with. It all follows logically.
* Conservatives are mostly from rural areas
* Rural areas are 90% white
* In group / out group dynamics are determined largely by upbringing
* Rural white folk have far less opportunity to have PoC in their in-groups
* Out-group vs in-group is a major factor in discrimination and bias
> Why is it so hard for you to accept that people who spend the first 18 years of their life surrounded by other white Christians are more likely harbor racist beliefs than someone who grows up surrounded by people of many different colors and religions?
I spent the first 18 years of my life surrounded by other white Christians and had a completely different experience. It's still not hard for me to accept that happens. What's hard for me to accept is the complete lack of nuance in your reasoning. There's really no room left for discussion after you're through painting a picture, but that picture does not jibe with reality. That's aside from the siege mentality that isn't supported even by the picture but goes along with it.
> From my "outside" perspective, you're obviously stuck in a bubble in which people must go out of their way to pretend both sides of every issue are equally valid.
"Both sides." "Valid." You're framing the argument in terms of your bubble. It's not true, by the way, that I think every argument is equally valid. There's plenty enough bullshit in the world.
I spent the first 18 years of my life surrounded by other white Christians and had a completely different experience. It's still not hard for me to accept that happens. What's hard for me to accept is the complete lack of nuance in your reasoning. There's really no room left for discussion after you're through painting a picture, but that picture does not jibe with reality. That's aside from the siege mentality that isn't supported even by the picture but goes along with it.
> From my "outside" perspective, you're obviously stuck in a bubble in which people must go out of their way to pretend both sides of every issue are equally valid.
"Both sides." "Valid." You're framing the argument in terms of your bubble. It's not true, by the way, that I think every argument is equally valid. There's plenty enough bullshit in the world.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't find a guy from white rural Christian America's claim that white rural Christians don't have a problem with racism very compelling. In addition to ranting about welfare queens, my mom is quite happy to assert that she "doesn't see color" and she "doesn't have a racist bone in her body". Racists will never admit to being racist. You also completely fail to address the actual data showing the correlation between conservative beliefs and racism. I guess all the scientists who study race and politics, and all of the people of color I interact with are in the same bubble as me. Meanwhile in centrist land, you're both bubble and data free.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281664414_The_Relat...
> Numerous studies suggest that political conservatism significantly correlates with modern racist attitudes. The current findings are consistent with previous studies.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281664414_The_Relat...
> Numerous studies suggest that political conservatism significantly correlates with modern racist attitudes. The current findings are consistent with previous studies.
It seems like no matter what books I key off of, the results appear to be pretty nuanced and not even necessarily absolutely opposing. This is really cool.
I think part of the problem with just swinging to the absolute other end is, unless you're just interested in psychology, reading the "other side" is only of real value if you're reading quality, or at least good arguments made in good faith.
At the extremes there seems to be a much higher tendency for the authors themselves to be deep in the echo chambers of their respective ideologies, as well as a higher likelyhood that its target audience is more forgiving of poor content as long as it hits close enough to the mark. Blindly selecting content by a strict point of view would seem to result in lower value overall.
Not to say there isn't good reading out there in the extremes, but the level of chaff to sort through to find a decent seed is just too damn high.
The value is ultimately in finding good content and not just an opposing point of view. Whenever I can find both at the same time, those are the real keepers.
I think part of the problem with just swinging to the absolute other end is, unless you're just interested in psychology, reading the "other side" is only of real value if you're reading quality, or at least good arguments made in good faith.
At the extremes there seems to be a much higher tendency for the authors themselves to be deep in the echo chambers of their respective ideologies, as well as a higher likelyhood that its target audience is more forgiving of poor content as long as it hits close enough to the mark. Blindly selecting content by a strict point of view would seem to result in lower value overall.
Not to say there isn't good reading out there in the extremes, but the level of chaff to sort through to find a decent seed is just too damn high.
The value is ultimately in finding good content and not just an opposing point of view. Whenever I can find both at the same time, those are the real keepers.
I think that it is hard to beat r/ChangeMyView (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/), as the arguments are usually much more detailed than "left vs right".
However, there is one crucial prerequisite - someone needs to have an open mind, and courage to at least doubt one's own point of view. Compare and contrast with Change my View by Steven Crowder, which is full of fake openness + trolling, not genuine curiosity.
However, there is one crucial prerequisite - someone needs to have an open mind, and courage to at least doubt one's own point of view. Compare and contrast with Change my View by Steven Crowder, which is full of fake openness + trolling, not genuine curiosity.
We have quite a few conversations here about how some issues aren’t on a continuum but on a plane. Maybe the thing to map out here is the extra dimension where things aren’t black and white. This person has read four books on the dark end of the scale? Let’s show them something in a forest green.
Actually this tool seems to solve that problem by showing you multiple books, and not just direct opposites in terms of content. If you don't believe me search for 'Mein Kampf' and something similar, it doesn't spit out books you would consider opponents of Hitler's worldview necessarily.
Now whether the books it spits out are even going to help you break out of your worldview, who knows, but I'm sure reading Shakespeare is going to loosen up a fascist to other ideas at least a little bit.
Now whether the books it spits out are even going to help you break out of your worldview, who knows, but I'm sure reading Shakespeare is going to loosen up a fascist to other ideas at least a little bit.
you're right, I edited my comment to reflect I was being slightly OT.
My own experience is that it works quite well for a certain kind of person: on Reddit I was simultaneously subbed to /r/The_Donald, /r/politics, /r/ChapoTrapHouse, /r/Libertarian, etc (while those were still around). I'd also drop by voat occasionally to get my weekly sample of virulently antisemitic takes.
I think looking at extremes is the most realistic path. Purportedly balanced sources are dangerous because their bias is subtle; extreme sources typically have very clear bias that is easy to keep in mind as you. You can read many extreme sources and sort of take the intersection of what they show you to guess at some minimal amount of what must be really true.
I think looking at extremes is the most realistic path. Purportedly balanced sources are dangerous because their bias is subtle; extreme sources typically have very clear bias that is easy to keep in mind as you. You can read many extreme sources and sort of take the intersection of what they show you to guess at some minimal amount of what must be really true.
Balanced sources tend to give you what the extremes don't, which is nuance.
Does your approach not gloss over the nuance? Or are you able to surface the complexities of a given topic simply by examining the extremes?
Does your approach not gloss over the nuance? Or are you able to surface the complexities of a given topic simply by examining the extremes?
It does often gloss over the nuance. I ultimately try to estimate how bad I am at assessing the veracity of arguments concerning the topic at hand, which I think is most valuable.
For example, I read many conflicting predictions concerning the last US election, saw that I could not distinguish bad predictions from good ones, and concluded that I have to remain unconvinced. I was vindicated by it being a very tight race. This doesn't always happen.
On the other hand, I read the recent Texas filing [0] and found that I could confidently argue against it, and the best opposing arguments I could find did not convince me. To my SO, I confidently voiced the prediction that this lawsuit will fail, and articulated why the probability argument in the attached Cicchetti Declaration is misguided. This is arguably a very easy task, so this correct prediction does me little credit, but I think that's the point: even if I only become convinced of things which are obvious, it is important to not accidentally become convinced of things which are not obvious.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/2020...
For example, I read many conflicting predictions concerning the last US election, saw that I could not distinguish bad predictions from good ones, and concluded that I have to remain unconvinced. I was vindicated by it being a very tight race. This doesn't always happen.
On the other hand, I read the recent Texas filing [0] and found that I could confidently argue against it, and the best opposing arguments I could find did not convince me. To my SO, I confidently voiced the prediction that this lawsuit will fail, and articulated why the probability argument in the attached Cicchetti Declaration is misguided. This is arguably a very easy task, so this correct prediction does me little credit, but I think that's the point: even if I only become convinced of things which are obvious, it is important to not accidentally become convinced of things which are not obvious.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/2020...
[deleted]
I don’t understand the basis by which you think this election was “tight”.
The number of overall votes it would take to change the outcome of the election, compared to the total size of the electorate, is small.
The votes would need to be very precisely distributed, though.
The votes would need to be very precisely distributed, though.
> The number of overall votes it would take to change the outcome of the election, compared to the total size of the electorate, is small.
Sure, with a geographically optimum shift of votes to maximally leverage the anti-democratic nature of the electoral college, it would take about ~125k votes (37 EVs need flipped, ~40k gets PA for 20, ~31.5k gets GA for 16, and ~3.5k gets ME-1 for 1; at least I think that's the lowest-vote-change scenario, and assumes reversals of votes where every change reduces the margin by 2.)
Of course, that would also be by far the biggest popular vote loss by an electoral college winner since the election of 1824, which had four candidates clearing over 10% of the vote, and the only electoral college defeat of the majority (not merely plurality) winner of the popular vote in US history.
Sure, with a geographically optimum shift of votes to maximally leverage the anti-democratic nature of the electoral college, it would take about ~125k votes (37 EVs need flipped, ~40k gets PA for 20, ~31.5k gets GA for 16, and ~3.5k gets ME-1 for 1; at least I think that's the lowest-vote-change scenario, and assumes reversals of votes where every change reduces the margin by 2.)
Of course, that would also be by far the biggest popular vote loss by an electoral college winner since the election of 1824, which had four candidates clearing over 10% of the vote, and the only electoral college defeat of the majority (not merely plurality) winner of the popular vote in US history.
Donald Trump won 2016 because he had a 70k vote majority across three states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
What was the minimum number of votes across the minimum number of states needed for him to win in 2020? Again, nobody has actually provided a reason this vote was close - it wasn’t close at all, it was a humiliating rejection, especially for an incumbent.
What was the minimum number of votes across the minimum number of states needed for him to win in 2020? Again, nobody has actually provided a reason this vote was close - it wasn’t close at all, it was a humiliating rejection, especially for an incumbent.
> What was the minimum number of votes across the minimum number of states needed for him to win in 2020?
I don't know the exact number, but afaik less than 1 million. Compared to the size of the electorate, a few hundred thousand votes here or there is really not that much. It only seems so to Americans because they have historically low participation and high polarisation.
I don't know the exact number, but afaik less than 1 million. Compared to the size of the electorate, a few hundred thousand votes here or there is really not that much. It only seems so to Americans because they have historically low participation and high polarisation.
So he won by 70k in a “landslide”, but losing by 7 million in the popular vote, and 1 million in minimum votes an election where 80 million is “close”.
Also, turnout set a 50 year high in percentage of eligible population to vote.
The only people who think this election was “close” are the same ones who keep saying that shocking new evidence will be released tomorrow by Giuliani, but only if I send in a check to the committee to save America.
Losing as an incumbent is humiliating, doubly so when you get rejected by so much of your own party. Trump’s loss was a humiliation, particularly because it was because he was such an incompetent president.
Also, turnout set a 50 year high in percentage of eligible population to vote.
The only people who think this election was “close” are the same ones who keep saying that shocking new evidence will be released tomorrow by Giuliani, but only if I send in a check to the committee to save America.
Losing as an incumbent is humiliating, doubly so when you get rejected by so much of your own party. Trump’s loss was a humiliation, particularly because it was because he was such an incompetent president.
Either op means that going into it, a lof of America was not firm in their predictions - people were firm last time, and a of them were wrong, so were weary to do it again.
It could also likely be that some states were small margins, and some districts even smaller. Overall, though, I agree with you.
It could also likely be that some states were small margins, and some districts even smaller. Overall, though, I agree with you.
You may think it a very easy task, but it is one that a large proportion of our elected officials failed, or possibly pretended to fail for their own political gain.
[deleted]
My experience is surely anecdotal, but I feel your POV applies more to open minded people, while close minded people are more inclined to feel threatened by opposite perspectives.
Sometimes those opposite perspectives really are threatening, though.
True enough. And the response that I think should appeal even to the close-minded: those perspectives don’t go away just because you’re not exposed to them, and you won’t understand enough to push back if you never study then.
> on Reddit I was simultaneously subbed to /r/The_Donald, /r/politics, /r/ChapoTrapHouse, /r/Libertarian, etc
Maybe you were just enjoying reading shitposts? Nothing wrong with that, everyone has their version of tabloids they enjoy, but these are mostly barely thought through hot takes posted to get a reaction (and surfaced because they were successful at it). There's no reason to think their intersection is going to be anywhere near something "true" (let alone usefully true).
Maybe you were just enjoying reading shitposts? Nothing wrong with that, everyone has their version of tabloids they enjoy, but these are mostly barely thought through hot takes posted to get a reaction (and surfaced because they were successful at it). There's no reason to think their intersection is going to be anywhere near something "true" (let alone usefully true).
^ A person studying their daily bowel movements for political commentary would be better informed than someone who read those subreddits looking for accurate political news, and they’d have a more honest assessment about the worth of their news sources.
I can list plenty of subreddits with worthwhile political discussion, but none of that matters if a persons idea of “balanced” is to find the dregs of fringe and extreme political movements and use them as the basis of said balance. I’d wager that those subreddits represent less than 10% of the views of most Americans.
I can list plenty of subreddits with worthwhile political discussion, but none of that matters if a persons idea of “balanced” is to find the dregs of fringe and extreme political movements and use them as the basis of said balance. I’d wager that those subreddits represent less than 10% of the views of most Americans.
Would you mind sharing those subreddits with constructive political discussions?
/r/NeutralPolitics tries pretty hard.
The hard part is that reddit is majority liberal, so it's very very hard to find a good balance.
Any random non-political subreddit is going to be liberal slanted. In order to find a conservative slant you have to go specifically to a political conservative subreddit.
The hard part is that reddit is majority liberal, so it's very very hard to find a good balance.
Any random non-political subreddit is going to be liberal slanted. In order to find a conservative slant you have to go specifically to a political conservative subreddit.
Left:
/r/progressives
Center left: /r/neoliberal
Right: /r/neoconnwo
Center right: /r/tuesday
Neutral: /r/neutralpolitics /r/geopolitics /r/politicalfactchecking /r/truepolitics
A spectrum of subreddits across ideological views, all with discussions you may actually learn something from. You’ll notice that none of those subreddits have been suspended because their members and moderators are repeatedly calling for violence against their political opponents, nor are they just recruiting boards for Stormfront. Again, finding the fringe conspiracy theorists repeatedly calling for violence doesn’t actually give you a well informed or balanced perspective.
Center left: /r/neoliberal
Right: /r/neoconnwo
Center right: /r/tuesday
Neutral: /r/neutralpolitics /r/geopolitics /r/politicalfactchecking /r/truepolitics
A spectrum of subreddits across ideological views, all with discussions you may actually learn something from. You’ll notice that none of those subreddits have been suspended because their members and moderators are repeatedly calling for violence against their political opponents, nor are they just recruiting boards for Stormfront. Again, finding the fringe conspiracy theorists repeatedly calling for violence doesn’t actually give you a well informed or balanced perspective.
Aren't you just subscribing to an USA bubble now? Is there a way to add e.g. chinese, indian or islamic reddits to the mix?
That's true. I should add /r/Sino to that list. I also subscribe to ChinaTalk, but I'm not sure how valuable a it is for really gauging what goes on in that part of the net. Unfortunately, I can't read Chinese, so I have to trust someone to translate and aggregate that content in the end.
I haven't tried anything outside of US, China (these two being the two major geopolitical players), and Russia (because I am from there and understand the language). I would love to expand that list, but my time is limited.
Another factor is that reading American commentary is entertaining because I live here and am immersed in the culture. The same goes for Russia. I haven't been able to make this work with China: there is a mass of cultural material that I'm not "in" on, so it feels much more like work.
I haven't tried anything outside of US, China (these two being the two major geopolitical players), and Russia (because I am from there and understand the language). I would love to expand that list, but my time is limited.
Another factor is that reading American commentary is entertaining because I live here and am immersed in the culture. The same goes for Russia. I haven't been able to make this work with China: there is a mass of cultural material that I'm not "in" on, so it feels much more like work.
Aren't you just subscribing to the geopolitical bubble now? Is there a way to add quilting, farming, and spelunking?
Tongue in cheek, but I bring this up to point out that while it might be good to expand one's knowledge, it can become a virtue. When that happens, we're all condemned because it'll never be broad enough.
Tongue in cheek, but I bring this up to point out that while it might be good to expand one's knowledge, it can become a virtue. When that happens, we're all condemned because it'll never be broad enough.
That's an interesting idea! I could see it being good training for simultaneously holding two opposing thoughts in your head at any given time.
What do you hope to gain out of going to the effort of consuming media like this? Why not just go on an information diet altogether?
What do you hope to gain out of going to the effort of consuming media like this? Why not just go on an information diet altogether?
I think it is valuable to read a hundred convincingly-written arguments in favor of one point of view, become convinced, and then read a hundred opposing arguments and again become convinced. This maintains my awareness of the fact that I'm a terrible judge of veracity of arguments. Since I want to know what happens in the world, I must be exposed to arguments, so I think it's very important to be viscerally aware that I'm an idiot and should use a lot of care.
As for why I want to know what happens in the world and particularly where I live (i.e. North America), it is because those events affect me. If I were on an information diet, then I would probably miss, for example, the recent passing of S.386 [0] by the US Senate, which is intimately relevant to me as my long-term goal is to immigrate to the US.
[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/386...
As for why I want to know what happens in the world and particularly where I live (i.e. North America), it is because those events affect me. If I were on an information diet, then I would probably miss, for example, the recent passing of S.386 [0] by the US Senate, which is intimately relevant to me as my long-term goal is to immigrate to the US.
[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/386...
That’s very perceptive. Have you been surprised at all, after reading both arguments, which side of the fence you wind up on?
This seems to presume that these points of view you’re talking about have no objective truth value, and that the only worthwhile exercise is constructing “convincingly-written” rhetoric to support one side or another.
I don't take that from the gp at all. My perspective is that he seems to be saying you're not going to understand a position on an issue until you internalize it "as if" it was your own belief. By internalizing one belief and then another that contradicts it, you can truly compare them on the merits and perhaps become aware of the objective reality that they both share.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis
I consume media the sane way as OP, here are my answers:
1. Being able to hold conversations with people from all political persuasions (eg. Knowing how to reach agreement on things and knowing what pushes their buttons) 2. Entertainment
1. Being able to hold conversations with people from all political persuasions (eg. Knowing how to reach agreement on things and knowing what pushes their buttons) 2. Entertainment
Agreed. I have long wanted to see a social network or recommendation engine that generated those arguments most likely to appeal to those who disagree. What Julia Galef calls steelmanning.
[deleted]
I think it works: I put in "Zero to One", "The Idea Factory" and "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" -- one of the top results was "We Are Never Meeting in Real Life." This was reviewed on Amazon as "Not For a White Male Forty-Year-Old Software Engineer."
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1WB4G83DRI8PV/re...
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1WB4G83DRI8PV/re...
The problem is, there's a line between "things I don't consider because they're out of my comfort zone / I don't even know they exist" and "things I don't consider because I consider them to not have quality".
You give me a novel from a niche author from the middle East, I'm game; you give me a cash grab book signed by a teen youtuber and I'm probably out.
I'm not sure this site can tell the difference.
You give me a novel from a niche author from the middle East, I'm game; you give me a cash grab book signed by a teen youtuber and I'm probably out.
I'm not sure this site can tell the difference.
I guess one question is if you can tell the difference. Without reading the book from the youtuber, how would you know you wouldn't like it and it's not just prejudices getting in the way of you giving it a chance? If we can't tell then I'm not sure whether the site being able to makes any difference.
I think it would make a difference, in that if the user is somewhat convinced that the site is able to handle that issue then they will be more willing to take a leap of faith.
My point being, I'm perfectly capable of finding books I'd never read by myself - I just have to enter a library or bookshop and grab the first title that makes me frown.
There's only value in giving me books out of my circle of comfort if there's an implication that I might like the book or get something out of it, with more likelihood than mere chance, isn't it?
My point being, I'm perfectly capable of finding books I'd never read by myself - I just have to enter a library or bookshop and grab the first title that makes me frown.
There's only value in giving me books out of my circle of comfort if there's an implication that I might like the book or get something out of it, with more likelihood than mere chance, isn't it?
It does not seem to work well IMO. If you start over and type in the books that it recommends for readers of the books that the dev obviously thinks are "bad", it still recommends more of the books that the devs think are "good" instead of giving you the "opposite" of those.
I think it would be more effective for the devs to manually put together a recommended reading list of progressive literature and explain why they feel each book is worth investing time into. I would find that really helpful because even though I'm not part of their target demographic of extremely conservative people, I wouldn't really know which progressive works of literature are considered essential reading.
I think it would be more effective for the devs to manually put together a recommended reading list of progressive literature and explain why they feel each book is worth investing time into. I would find that really helpful because even though I'm not part of their target demographic of extremely conservative people, I wouldn't really know which progressive works of literature are considered essential reading.
I tried various combinations of the books I’ve read over the last couple of years[1]. And either I got stuff already on my bookshelf or sphere of reference[2], or a lot of Calvin and Hobbes (seriously every result had at least one, sometimes several), or children’s books, or adult comic books. Which I guess is by some definition the opposite of adult novels. But a fun and interesting tool to play around with either way.
[1] Underworld, Blood Meridian, The Bluest Eye, Milkman, Pale Fire, Borges, etc...
[2] Chekhov, Ursula Le Guin, Proust, Umberto Eco, etc.
Edit: I scrolled down and read the creators summary of how the search works. And now believe my results really nailed his description: rarest but highly rated by readers of the same books. Which also explains all the Calvin and Hobbes, which I think have a universal appeal.
[1] Underworld, Blood Meridian, The Bluest Eye, Milkman, Pale Fire, Borges, etc...
[2] Chekhov, Ursula Le Guin, Proust, Umberto Eco, etc.
Edit: I scrolled down and read the creators summary of how the search works. And now believe my results really nailed his description: rarest but highly rated by readers of the same books. Which also explains all the Calvin and Hobbes, which I think have a universal appeal.
I see the same; Neuromancer,Anathem gives me a Far Side comic anthology. If I add The Name of the Rose then I get Scrooge McDuck and Game of Thrones. For The Name of the Rose and Cat's Cradle, 9 of the first 12 suggestions seem to be kids books.
It's an interesting project, but so far I don't think many of the suggestions are useful for me.
It's an interesting project, but so far I don't think many of the suggestions are useful for me.
I would point out, that there are also many positive reviews of the same book on the exact same amazon. As in, this guy gave it two stars, but the books overall rating is much much higher.
So it seems that you picked outlier review here.
So it seems that you picked outlier review here.
Yes, because I thought the review title was so apropos that it was funny.
Cantos, Bros Karamazov, Gibbon, Junger, Norwich .... I get suggestions for crummy business self help books, a biography of Elton John, something about crazy ladies talking to their crazy therapists, and something on vegetarianism I had already read and found laughably insane and ill researched. I'll stick with my literary bubble.
Hi HN. I made a tool that allows you to discover what books you are least likely to have come across or enjoyed, but are nonetheless highly rated. These books will likely challenge you if you tend to read quite narrowly. Briefly, for each book entered we find the rarest but highest rated intersections and provide those to you. The query can be summarised as: which highly rated books are least read (and enjoyed) by people who've also read the books entered?
Yes, we need more engines like yours.
Instead, Amazon, Spotify, etc. simply steer me toward the more mainstream genre-media that I already know about.
Oh you like Grandaddy? You'll like the Pixies.
Oh you like the Pixies? You'll like Radiohead.
Oh you like the Radiohead? You'll like Nirvana.
Please, I want to go the opposite direction.
Instead, Amazon, Spotify, etc. simply steer me toward the more mainstream genre-media that I already know about.
Oh you like Grandaddy? You'll like the Pixies.
Oh you like the Pixies? You'll like Radiohead.
Oh you like the Radiohead? You'll like Nirvana.
Please, I want to go the opposite direction.
I listened to over 500 totally different genres on spotify lately, it's not difficult, it just means you have to do slightly more work than blindly listening to whatever spotify shoves you? The trick is to pick a specific genre of music -- soul, rock, whatever. Use spotify's playlists to get a rough idea of the genre and then use the radio feature to suggest more. There are good genre explorers, too -- i seem to remember one posted here that introduced me to tanci/pingtan, and managed to find some example works to listen to.
Maybe you're thinking of everynoise.com -- probably one of my favorite sites on the net.
Last.fm recommendations are great for this.
Yeah, last.fm remains significantly better than Spotify for listening reccs. Better yearly stats too.
I like the idea a lot, and the interface is very easy to use. However, I entered a Neil Gaiman Sandman book in my first four, and it showed me another Neil Gaiman book, which seems odd? But then again I didn't recognize it, so maybe the statistics really do point that way. But excluding books by the same authors you've entered might make sense.
Seems like a cool idea! Did you think about referral sales (Amazon Associates) as a way to fund the project instead of Patreon?
I have no affiliation or experience with either, just genuinely curious if you chose one over the other. Affiliate sales seems like a good fit for this kind of service.
I have no affiliation or experience with either, just genuinely curious if you chose one over the other. Affiliate sales seems like a good fit for this kind of service.
I'm trying out Amazon affiliates yeh, tho no commissions as yet .. :/ I'm also exploring commercial licensing and API access possibilities.
I fell in love with this straight away. I'd love to be able to add my whole library tho.
Thank you for this service. What database are you using when looking for intersections?
It's a large graph database that I've prepared myself over two years, as a kind of part-time hobby. It's largely an automated scrape of metadata available on wikipedia, goodreads, ISBNdb etc.
Intersections are sourced from public ratings and reviews across the web. E.g. these books are all liked by one person so are can be made to intersect in the db - https://radicalreads.com/noname-favorite-books/
Intersections are sourced from public ratings and reviews across the web. E.g. these books are all liked by one person so are can be made to intersect in the db - https://radicalreads.com/noname-favorite-books/
Fantastic effort, thank you very much!
Loved it, but I felt a large proportion of the 'bubble breakers for software engineers' are actually referenced quite often on hacker news. Not 'Taking charge of your fertility' though.
“Taking charge of your fertility” is basically about how to gather and analyze data about your body’s functioning, in order to achieve a desired health outcome (specifically, pregnancy).
Yeh -- I do agree, though I suppose that shows that the HN demographic is broader than the stereotype of software. The fertility one's quite fun.
Which two books did you add?
I got that recommendation too.
I got that recommendation too.
That’s really great! Congrats.
If you can do an Amazon/Audible integration, that would be awesome (and will let you build your recommendation system?).
From experience, I like to read the most populars/iconics books outside my perspective/pov, even though, if I had to grade them, it wouldn't be 5/5.
Maybe though, the most problematic of theses "ideological bubbles" is that people don't generally want to escape it.
If you can do an Amazon/Audible integration, that would be awesome (and will let you build your recommendation system?).
From experience, I like to read the most populars/iconics books outside my perspective/pov, even though, if I had to grade them, it wouldn't be 5/5.
Maybe though, the most problematic of theses "ideological bubbles" is that people don't generally want to escape it.
Thanks! - When you say 'Amazon integration' do you mean like an import of books read so far? I think that's a great idea. I've been exploring doing that with Goodreads. Re: escaping ideological bubbles, I do agree, though I think that curiosity and gentle exposure can expand peoples' bubbles in a small enough way that it doesn't evoke ideological dissonance (especially in the realm of politics. Maybe there's a way that I can make it a gentler exposure to new ideas.
Anecdote : I put in the three first books of the Stormlight Archive series and it showed me many fantasy books, comics & BD, and mangas, I already read (I'd say 60 to 70%). I don't know what it should output for things not inherently political.
Very nice! Liked seeing Chomsky, Fromm, Tolle and Postman when I clicked the "software engineering" link. Will check out some of the other recommendations.
I added a few of my favorite books (mostly 20th century lit) and depending on the set got mostly children's books or non-English books. Not terribly helpful.
I added Ernst Jünger's Storm of Steel and Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West -- not because I like them but rather because I was curious what would come up as result --, it showed me mostly religious books as suggestion (He Chose the Nails: What God Did to Win Your Heart) and The C Programming Language by Brian W. Kernighan.
Had a similar experience, most of my recommendations are childrens books.
Ditto here. Mostly children’s books.
Neat, thanks for making this! Another tool I would like: find books that I am unlikely to read, but, if I did read them, likely to rate highly.
I like it, even though it doesn't have my two books.
How about a browser extension that tracks the articles, videos, discussion boards, HN threads, etc one reads and in real time suggests other anti-bubble ones?
Not sure if your engine would support it, but I'd use it.
How about a browser extension that tracks the articles, videos, discussion boards, HN threads, etc one reads and in real time suggests other anti-bubble ones?
Not sure if your engine would support it, but I'd use it.
hi! What service did you use to search the books? where'd you get your data from? cool project!
I realize, the site's aim is to help you escape the "echo chamber". But I've recently been mulling over this other idea from Seneca (writing 2000 years ago!) on limiting the number of books you read, hard as it is, for an avid reader:
[...] Be careful, though, about your reading in many authors and every type of book. It may be that there is something wayward and unstable in it. You must stay with a limited number of writers and be fed by them if you mean to derive anything that will dwell reliably with you. One who is everywhere is nowhere. Those who travel all the time find that they have many places to stay, but no friendships. The same thing happens to those who do not become intimate with any one author, but let everything rush right through them. Food does not benefit or become part of the body when it is eaten and immediately expelled. Nothing impedes healing as much as frequent change of medications. A wound does not close up when one is always trying out different dressings on it; a seedling that is transplanted repeatedly will never grow strong. [...]
"But I want to read different books at different times," you say. The person of delicate digestion nibbles at this and that; when the diet is too varied, though, food does not nourish but only upsets the stomach. [...]
[...] Be careful, though, about your reading in many authors and every type of book. It may be that there is something wayward and unstable in it. You must stay with a limited number of writers and be fed by them if you mean to derive anything that will dwell reliably with you. One who is everywhere is nowhere. Those who travel all the time find that they have many places to stay, but no friendships. The same thing happens to those who do not become intimate with any one author, but let everything rush right through them. Food does not benefit or become part of the body when it is eaten and immediately expelled. Nothing impedes healing as much as frequent change of medications. A wound does not close up when one is always trying out different dressings on it; a seedling that is transplanted repeatedly will never grow strong. [...]
"But I want to read different books at different times," you say. The person of delicate digestion nibbles at this and that; when the diet is too varied, though, food does not nourish but only upsets the stomach. [...]
— Letter 2 ("A beneficial reading program"); translation by Long and GraverIf you want to follow the spirit of the advice, you should certainly cut down on internet forums before you cut down on books.
Good news—I'm jubiliated to report that I haven't used any "traditional" social media in nearly eight years. Astonishing as it is, HN is the only internet forum that I occasionally frequent, for its palatable signal-to-noise ratio; please don't rob me of it. :-) Most of my leisure time, when I'm not out and about walking in nature or seeing real humans, is dedicated to offline (i.e. dead wood books) reading.
On a similar note in Seneca's letter to Serenus (On the Tranquillity of Mind):
"Even in our studies, where expenditure is most worth while, its justification depends on its moderation. What is the point of having countless books and libraries whose titles the owner could scarcely read through in his whole lifetime? The mass of books burdens the student without instructing him, and it is far better to devote yourself to a few authors than to get lost among many."
I think it can be very valuable to go down the rabbit hole sometimes and study the author and read their less popular works. But of course, after a while you will get diminishing returns.
"Even in our studies, where expenditure is most worth while, its justification depends on its moderation. What is the point of having countless books and libraries whose titles the owner could scarcely read through in his whole lifetime? The mass of books burdens the student without instructing him, and it is far better to devote yourself to a few authors than to get lost among many."
I think it can be very valuable to go down the rabbit hole sometimes and study the author and read their less popular works. But of course, after a while you will get diminishing returns.
Yes! On the Tranquility of Mind is a marvellous essay. Also it is the only essay of Seneca's that has an interlocutor, a certain Serenus, who begins the essay with an excellent description of conflicting mental states he's experiencing. As a teaser for those lurking, here's a fragment of what he writes to Seneca:
"[...] I am aware that these mental disturbances I suffer from are not dangerous and bring no threat of a storm; to express to you in a true analogy the source of my complaint, it is not a storm I labour under but seasickness: relieve me, then, of this malady, whatever it be, and hurry to aid one who struggles with land in his sight. [...]"
---
Seneca's response to it is equally astounding. (The above quote is from "Dialogues and Essays", Oxford World's Classics; translation by John Davie.)
One of my personal highlights this year: I've spent six contiguous months reading all of 124 letters of Seneca (the University of Chicago Press edition is the way to go) and several of his dialogues and essays. It's amazing how many of his letters try to shape our reading habits.
"[...] I am aware that these mental disturbances I suffer from are not dangerous and bring no threat of a storm; to express to you in a true analogy the source of my complaint, it is not a storm I labour under but seasickness: relieve me, then, of this malady, whatever it be, and hurry to aid one who struggles with land in his sight. [...]"
---
Seneca's response to it is equally astounding. (The above quote is from "Dialogues and Essays", Oxford World's Classics; translation by John Davie.)
One of my personal highlights this year: I've spent six contiguous months reading all of 124 letters of Seneca (the University of Chicago Press edition is the way to go) and several of his dialogues and essays. It's amazing how many of his letters try to shape our reading habits.
This is directional advice. Some read too diverse, scattered stuff, and some read just the same thing and lock themselves into confirmation bias and echo chambers.
The first need to focus more, the second need to focus less.
I could write a wide paragraph on how one needs to consume more than one kind of thing, how it's healthy to to challenge oneself, like the unknowable forces in the wild nature, etc etc. Something majestic and grandiose like that.
Point is, wise advice is directional, and you cannot know from it which side you are on. It doesn't give you a target, it gives you a direction. Which may not apply to you.
The first need to focus more, the second need to focus less.
I could write a wide paragraph on how one needs to consume more than one kind of thing, how it's healthy to to challenge oneself, like the unknowable forces in the wild nature, etc etc. Something majestic and grandiose like that.
Point is, wise advice is directional, and you cannot know from it which side you are on. It doesn't give you a target, it gives you a direction. Which may not apply to you.
I read that more as advice on focusing your reading. Maybe instead of reading all books on astrophysics, cooking, and interpersonal communications you read a few books on one of the subjects. I don’t think it’s in conflict with breaking your bubble with this site.
[deleted]
I'll give you this, I had no idea how much Christian self-help literature I was missing out on.
I’ve pretty actively read stuff in that vein for years trying to connect the religious tie to right in America. It’s fascinating
How familiar are you with religious-right people in real life? I can't stand reading about it b/c I grew up in the thick of it: brings back bad memories.
I somewhat grew up around it and escaped it before I had the chance to understand it. Now that I’m older and effectively live in an echo chamber it’s so foreign
For myself at least where I live, they tend to be targeted at older men and women trying to reconnect with religion when they're vulnerable around the midlife crisis age. Most "religious right" are purely single choice voters that just happen to care about money the exact same way a libertarian would. The only difference is they think a God divinely gods them as opposed to an atheist who does not.
Almost all of these books are written by a lay person who basically parrots back interpretations or speeches from bishops, preachers, etc. They literally add no value to the system. They just milk an audience to be frank. You wouldn't read "The simple of of not giving a Fuck" would you? Likewise now, if you say on the title "Turning the other cheek" and put a picture of Jesus walking with a child on a beach and now you've got 99.99% of the christian self help books.
The funniest thing that comes to mind is it's no different than the South Park episode "Christian Rock Hard" where Cartman starts a christian rock band. All he does is rewrite already made songs but add some christianic sayings or phrases. That is entirely that industry. They don't tell you anything new or something you can't just search on some forums anymore.
Almost all of these books are written by a lay person who basically parrots back interpretations or speeches from bishops, preachers, etc. They literally add no value to the system. They just milk an audience to be frank. You wouldn't read "The simple of of not giving a Fuck" would you? Likewise now, if you say on the title "Turning the other cheek" and put a picture of Jesus walking with a child on a beach and now you've got 99.99% of the christian self help books.
The funniest thing that comes to mind is it's no different than the South Park episode "Christian Rock Hard" where Cartman starts a christian rock band. All he does is rewrite already made songs but add some christianic sayings or phrases. That is entirely that industry. They don't tell you anything new or something you can't just search on some forums anymore.
Very interesting—I certainly wouldn't have expected the antithesis of Mein Kampf and Revolt Against the Modern World to be Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat: Mastering the Elements of Good Cooking. Honourable mentions include the Bible (NIV) and The C Programming Language.
The results remind me of wordtovec examples where the opposite of Hitler, -1*Hilter, is Plantar fascia.
Which is the total opposite but it might be perfect for not just getting out of an echo chamber but just entirely taking a break from the topics we obsess about.
Which is the total opposite but it might be perfect for not just getting out of an echo chamber but just entirely taking a break from the topics we obsess about.
I tried Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto, got Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men as the third result, which I also got as the second result when I tried the King James Bible and The Satanic Bible
I made this point elsewhere, but honestly I think if a fascist reads Salt Fat Acid Heat (a book made by a woman, btw) they will probably become a little more in touch with reality.
Love the idea! My one suggestion would be to add the ability to filter out children's books from the results. After I added Hitchhiker's Guide, Children of Time, and the Iliad, the majority of my recommendations were children's books. Or, maybe the tool is telling me something...
Agreed I would like to somehow do that. At the moment it's a bit tricky as some books we might classify as for children are more broadly enjoyed (e.g. The Little Prince). One way, I suppose, would be to use a dozen very explicitly children's books as "anchors" and assume other books that intersect a lot with those anchors must therefore be children's books as well. Then I can create a filter. Shall investigate :)
I remember attending a presentation from Pandroa many years ago and one thing struck me as very interesting. I am rephraizin from memory: "It is of little value to recommend obvious things. For example if you like Duke Ellington there is no point to recommend you Ella Fitzgeral d. You probably already aware of her. But if we recommend you a song by Madonna, whom you would not normaly consider listening, which happens to be very much in jazzy style you like, you will be pleasantly surprised." This is how you break a bubble.
Weirdly, I keep getting books I like in the search. It would be nice if I could add more than three authors because my reading is already extremely diverse, like music listening there is very little that I dislike (According to spotify, I listened to over 500 genres of music this year -- although I'm not really sure how useful that is because of how every piece of music seems to be categorized into it's own genre).
For example, I put in:
The rest, mostly consisting of PG Wodehouse and Oscar Wilde, are works that I consider myself interested in yet unexposed to, but they are hardly opposites of the books I put in?
So I'm not really convinced of the utility of this tool as it stands.
Perhaps it is tailored to a single type of reader that only reads books within their purview (Perhaps, political history books, or purely science fiction books) to the exclusion of many other interesting and worthwhile genres?
----------------------------
Edit : What is especially interesting about this is that when I enter only
I'm not sure how Sappho is directly in opposition to Nagata's work, and it strikes me that anyone who has read both Nagata and Butler would also be familiar with the works of Sappho?
For example, I put in:
Mort - Terry Pratchett
Mortal Engines - Stanisław Lem
My Lesbian Experience With
Loneliness - Kabi Nagata
Mort - Terry Pratchett
My Lesbian Experience With
Loneliness - Kabi Nagata
Gender Trouble - Judith Butler
The Far Side comics
"This Book Is Full of Spiders"
Douglas Adams
Kurt Vonnegut
Brian Lee O'Mally
Calvin and Hobbes
The rest, mostly consisting of PG Wodehouse and Oscar Wilde, are works that I consider myself interested in yet unexposed to, but they are hardly opposites of the books I put in?
So I'm not really convinced of the utility of this tool as it stands.
Perhaps it is tailored to a single type of reader that only reads books within their purview (Perhaps, political history books, or purely science fiction books) to the exclusion of many other interesting and worthwhile genres?
----------------------------
Edit : What is especially interesting about this is that when I enter only
My Lesbian Experience With
Loneliness - Kabi Nagata
Gender Trouble - Judith Butler
I'm not sure how Sappho is directly in opposition to Nagata's work, and it strikes me that anyone who has read both Nagata and Butler would also be familiar with the works of Sappho?
This tool seems a bit nonsensical for anything that isn't as blatantly politically one-sided and polarized as Ayn Rand.
Just a random couple of highly appreciated titles from my collection:
And it suggests The Farside (well yeah, if you want something completely on the opposite side of well-written prose), Tintin, and Shakespeare (huh?).
As for breaking any bubble I might live in: I grew up reading Tintin.
Interestingly enough it throws up Preacher as well, a comic written by Garth Ennis. Again not really breaking any bubble there: I love his works and have read Preacher, The Boys, Battlefields, and all his Punisher stories (that man is the only comic writer who truly groks Frank Castle).
Just a random couple of highly appreciated titles from my collection:
Hyperion, Gormenghast, Lolita
And it suggests The Farside (well yeah, if you want something completely on the opposite side of well-written prose), Tintin, and Shakespeare (huh?).
As for breaking any bubble I might live in: I grew up reading Tintin.
Interestingly enough it throws up Preacher as well, a comic written by Garth Ennis. Again not really breaking any bubble there: I love his works and have read Preacher, The Boys, Battlefields, and all his Punisher stories (that man is the only comic writer who truly groks Frank Castle).
Interesting. I picked the software engineer sample link. Added the 2 books I have right next to me. And it's recommending my wife's taste in books.
Slightly unrelated but a little bit related.
Been looking for a similar tool but for music. I love Spotify's recommendations for the most part, but sometimes I want to dive out of my music bubble and explore new genres or new anything really. Basically what I'm looking for is a tool that can give me recommendations of the music that is the opposite of what I usually listen to, or something like that. Anyone know of any?
Been looking for a similar tool but for music. I love Spotify's recommendations for the most part, but sometimes I want to dive out of my music bubble and explore new genres or new anything really. Basically what I'm looking for is a tool that can give me recommendations of the music that is the opposite of what I usually listen to, or something like that. Anyone know of any?
That's good! I'd love to see something like that.
Would also like something similar but for _knowledge_. Take a look at my knowledge graph and interests, and fill in the gaps.
In the meantime, I always recommend The Quietus [0] for music recommendations—always 'out there', but always quality.
[0] https://thequietus.com/
Would also like something similar but for _knowledge_. Take a look at my knowledge graph and interests, and fill in the gaps.
In the meantime, I always recommend The Quietus [0] for music recommendations—always 'out there', but always quality.
[0] https://thequietus.com/
This is quite fun actually! Tried different philosopher combinations. Get Alcoholics Anonymous recommendations for quite a few until I add Schopenhauer. And if you are a Rand, Rowling reading techie, apparently, you should read more Eddo-Lodge, Baldwin and Chomsky... Brightened my day, thnx.
P.S. Are you sure this thing isn't pushing people from one echo chamber to another?
P.S. Are you sure this thing isn't pushing people from one echo chamber to another?
Glad it's brightened your day! Baldwin is wonderful to experience. Re: moving people from one chamber to another, one hopes that enough chamber-hopping might give people the broad perspective we hope for. Tribal ideology is always a trap but maybe it becomes less tempting as you experience more diverse echo chambers.
If tribal ideology is all you are fighting then maybe. But it's a big maybe. Crap is crap. It will not get any less crappier if you get more diverse crap. If a person is not developing intellectually he'll take on some other BS that will be equally stupid. All effort in vain (unless that was the actual goal all the time).
I enjoyed playing around with this and I got real value out of it as a discovery tool when I filtered to showing aclaimed fiction. I know its survivor bias, but I dont want to waste my time on something both terribly written and outside my echo chamber.
One usability tweak based on how I interacted with it would be to add a 'I already like this' button to suggested books to save me from re-adding them. It also suggested another H.P. Lovecraft novel despite me already marking At the Mountains of Madness as a liked book, I'm pretty sure that if you like one Lovecraft book, you'd like the rest.
The one recommendation I had a strong negative reaction to was by Jeffrey Archer which I guess means that its the book I should read next.
One usability tweak based on how I interacted with it would be to add a 'I already like this' button to suggested books to save me from re-adding them. It also suggested another H.P. Lovecraft novel despite me already marking At the Mountains of Madness as a liked book, I'm pretty sure that if you like one Lovecraft book, you'd like the rest.
The one recommendation I had a strong negative reaction to was by Jeffrey Archer which I guess means that its the book I should read next.
As an experiment, I gave it The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss, a Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin, and the silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien. A pretty standard selection of well-known books in the Fantasy genre.
Out of the 90 books I get, 53 either have the word "Dragon" in the title, or a dragon on the cover of the book. Clearly, a majority of the results also fall in the Fantasy genre, so have my doubts this counts as escaping the echo chamber.
On the other hand, there are a lot of books in that list that I have never heard about, and that look interesting (insofar as you can judge a book by its cover). When I'm done with my current series of books, I'll have a good look at this :-)
Out of the 90 books I get, 53 either have the word "Dragon" in the title, or a dragon on the cover of the book. Clearly, a majority of the results also fall in the Fantasy genre, so have my doubts this counts as escaping the echo chamber.
On the other hand, there are a lot of books in that list that I have never heard about, and that look interesting (insofar as you can judge a book by its cover). When I'm done with my current series of books, I'll have a good look at this :-)
This is interesting. I put in a handful of books on my shelf that I have read and enjoyed, and the results that it returned seem to be largely: a) religion of all kinds but largely Christian apology, and b) civil rights and apartheid. Both topics I wouldn't go out of my way to read about but I might if it the book seemed particularly interesting and was well reviewed (so pretty much the point of this project).
One interesting note is that there are several books on the list I absolutely would read, I just didn't know they existed or hadn't sought them out. One of Stephen Hawking's books, some American military books, a few biographies, etc.
One interesting note is that there are several books on the list I absolutely would read, I just didn't know they existed or hadn't sought them out. One of Stephen Hawking's books, some American military books, a few biographies, etc.
I put in The Foundation by Isaac Asimov, The Test of the Twins by Margaret Weis, and On Libert by Mills. I got back a collection of literature by women of color and books about colonialism. I had no idea my book preferences were so conservative.
I'm not sure it works well for fiction. I put in a few different sets of science fiction works ranging from Heinlein to Atwood and it returns about half comic books, a significant number of fantasy/sci-fi works, and a smatter of other things. Oddly, it includes children's books I've read to my kid.
My bubble very much includes both Dune and The Far Side and I'm not certain how these are supposed to be in different bubbles. Are most Dune readers snobs who wouldn't stoop to reading a cartoon?
My bubble very much includes both Dune and The Far Side and I'm not certain how these are supposed to be in different bubbles. Are most Dune readers snobs who wouldn't stoop to reading a cartoon?
I think in this case it probably ends up suggesting random books that were read by your 'cluster' at different periods of their life (i.e. when they were a child) that they may not necessarily like to read now (I loved this book when I was a kid: 5 stars)
I put in SevenEves (my favour book) by Neal Stephenson and Leviathan Wakes by JSA Corey and the recommendations include:
Game of thrones, Bernard Corwell books Isaac Asimov
I've read these and I would put them in the same camp as the input books so I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to be doing.
Nice idea but, unless I'm missing something, not the expected behaviour.
I would more have expected "the old man who climbed out the window and disappeared", Clarkson's biography and maybe a Jack Reacher type stuff (which I also enjoy but on the other end of the spectrum from the input books)
Game of thrones, Bernard Corwell books Isaac Asimov
I've read these and I would put them in the same camp as the input books so I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to be doing.
Nice idea but, unless I'm missing something, not the expected behaviour.
I would more have expected "the old man who climbed out the window and disappeared", Clarkson's biography and maybe a Jack Reacher type stuff (which I also enjoy but on the other end of the spectrum from the input books)
Apropro of nothing but started to read Seveneves for the first time this year and had to tap out - decidedly a poor book to read for escapism from being trapped inside while the world burns and people die around you.
Ah man, don't read that book until the pandemic is over and you're in a good place. I encourage you to go back to it when you can though, I love it, the only book I have read twice.
Yeah, I had to quit during Part 2. Just... too depressing. My friend kept telling me Part 3 is really interesting but the world will need to be a lot happier of a place to jump back in. I've considered just skipping the rest of Part 2 and going to 3 but seems like cheating.
This site always works well for me to broaden my literary horizon:
https://www.literature-map.com
I found some of my all time favorite authors this way.
https://www.literature-map.com
I found some of my all time favorite authors this way.
That looks like a cool tool (would be cooler if it didn't start freezing up after 15 seconds). But I have a complaint, how is Bill Nye on the same tree as Richard Feynman?
https://www.literature-map.com/richard+feynman
https://www.literature-map.com/richard+feynman
I think this could be more impactful if it focused on short form/summary/critique recommendations.
Recommending someone from the left to read a book by Solzhenitsyn, or someone from the right to read a book by Maya Angelou is a hefty time commitment with little promise of proportionate intellectual gain for the time invested.
But to have recommendations on good counterpoint short form content (short stories, journal articles, essays) might get someone who is busy with life and career to spend a few minutes. Harder to ultimately monetize, since the business model for the online book market is pretty mature at this point but no one directly directly pays for that single essay. So where are micro transactions?
Anyone who has been in the position where their time was truly valuable instinctively protects their free time from “long form” intrusions. It the book is worthwhile, the essays on the essence of the ideas will be even more valuable (per minute). Most pop books or ideological rants might only need a paragraph. Condensing into short form might lead to the embarrassing disclosure that the emperor has no clothes.
The idea that you have to read a long form text to understand a different perspective sets off alarm bells in my head. I seem to remember that cults would always want prospective recruits to stay at the Center the whole weekend.
Recommending someone from the left to read a book by Solzhenitsyn, or someone from the right to read a book by Maya Angelou is a hefty time commitment with little promise of proportionate intellectual gain for the time invested.
But to have recommendations on good counterpoint short form content (short stories, journal articles, essays) might get someone who is busy with life and career to spend a few minutes. Harder to ultimately monetize, since the business model for the online book market is pretty mature at this point but no one directly directly pays for that single essay. So where are micro transactions?
Anyone who has been in the position where their time was truly valuable instinctively protects their free time from “long form” intrusions. It the book is worthwhile, the essays on the essence of the ideas will be even more valuable (per minute). Most pop books or ideological rants might only need a paragraph. Condensing into short form might lead to the embarrassing disclosure that the emperor has no clothes.
The idea that you have to read a long form text to understand a different perspective sets off alarm bells in my head. I seem to remember that cults would always want prospective recruits to stay at the Center the whole weekend.
> But to have recommendations on good counterpoint short form content (short stories, journal articles, essays) might get someone who is busy with life and career to spend a few minutes.
It's one book.
It's one book.
Great to see a new type of recommenders (long overdue).
A related problem is of exploitation vs exploration (being recommended something one likes vs recommended new but with high uncertainty if it will be enjoyable or not)
some of my work on this related topic of active learning in recommender systems:
presentation: https://www2.slideshare.net/nrubens/active-learning-in-recom...
book chapter: http://machinelearning202.pbworks.com/f/Rubens-Active-Learni...
a more basic primer (aimed at startups) https://www2.slideshare.net/nrubens/1-of-40-recommender-syst...
am happy to answer any questions
A related problem is of exploitation vs exploration (being recommended something one likes vs recommended new but with high uncertainty if it will be enjoyable or not)
some of my work on this related topic of active learning in recommender systems:
presentation: https://www2.slideshare.net/nrubens/active-learning-in-recom...
book chapter: http://machinelearning202.pbworks.com/f/Rubens-Active-Learni...
a more basic primer (aimed at startups) https://www2.slideshare.net/nrubens/1-of-40-recommender-syst...
am happy to answer any questions
One great way to find books to read is to see what people you look up to recommend. I've built a service that scans twitter for book recommendations from ~2000 thought leaders. https://www.readthistwice.com/people
Thanks for sharing, I hadn't seen this project before. It's great!!
Tangential, but I’m on the far left of the American political spectrum and recently learned about https://www.newsmax.com/ and have been actively reading it to try to understand the current political schism because fox wasn’t cutting it anymore
Good for you. I'm also somebody of the left who's spent a lot of time in the last few years in places that would lose me my right-on badges.
It's been eye-opening at times, disturbing at others; but often educational and useful for my intellectual health and development.
It's been eye-opening at times, disturbing at others; but often educational and useful for my intellectual health and development.
[deleted]
Interesting tool.
I put Intro to Algorithms by Cormen & Surely You're joking Mr. Feynman and got lots of autobiographical books that I wouldn't really pick up :).
Though there are others which pique my interest somewhat.
Out of curiosity, what kind of recommendation system has been used here?
Out of curiosity, what kind of recommendation system has been used here?
I dunno. I seem to see a lot of the same titles for different searches. Non-fiction books are also more difficult to read than fiction; so these types of books tend to be a big time investment (a lot of them feel like extended essays).
There are a couple of books I've read in the past few years that I actually didn't fully agree with. Sometimes they were badly sourced or made some arguments I didn't think were sound, but there was also a ton of interesting and good material in them; which I think made some good points. Based on that, I guess my recommendations for breaking bubbles would be:
"The Strange Death of Europe" (Murray, Davies, et al.)
"The War Against Boys" (Sommers)
"The Fountainhead" (Ryand)
There are a couple of books I've read in the past few years that I actually didn't fully agree with. Sometimes they were badly sourced or made some arguments I didn't think were sound, but there was also a ton of interesting and good material in them; which I think made some good points. Based on that, I guess my recommendations for breaking bubbles would be:
"The Strange Death of Europe" (Murray, Davies, et al.)
"The War Against Boys" (Sommers)
"The Fountainhead" (Ryand)
Also for me it didn't seem to work well.
I entered "Bell Curve" by Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray and "12 rules for life" by Peterson ...
I would have expected something of the likes of "Superior: The Return of Race Science by Angela Saini" or "How to argue with a racist by Adam Rutherford" to pop up, as both of them present well reasoned arguments against the world view depicted in the previous ones. (Reading recommendation for both btw. ).
Yet, I got Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley" and a lot of religious books. I can understand why this happens. Yet, a bit disappointing.
Yet, I got Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley" and a lot of religious books. I can understand why this happens. Yet, a bit disappointing.
The concept is intriguing. One thing I would do is trying to find books orthogonal to my tastes rather than opposites.
I do not want to find books I know I will hate, I want to find books around axis I have not even considered.
I do not want to find books I know I will hate, I want to find books around axis I have not even considered.
I like the idea a lot. In terms of the results, it seems to me that many more data points are needed. My bubble escape route contained a lot of authors and titles I know of, I've read, or I'm very familiar with.
FWIW my sample trio were Dune/Starship Troopers/Sword of Destiny and results included a bunch of graphic novels (Preacher mostly) and mangas that I consumed in the past, a Harry potter series and a bunch of crime books that I also tried (and, often, didn't find interesting). But there were some genuinely interesting picks too so, again, more data will probably help.
FWIW my sample trio were Dune/Starship Troopers/Sword of Destiny and results included a bunch of graphic novels (Preacher mostly) and mangas that I consumed in the past, a Harry potter series and a bunch of crime books that I also tried (and, often, didn't find interesting). But there were some genuinely interesting picks too so, again, more data will probably help.
I always thought that recommendation engines should be customized and adjusted by the user. It seems that social platforms are forcing what they think is relevant on me, and I have stopped using some social platforms for this reason. In some cases, I wrote scripts to fetch content (e.g. tweets, rss feeds) and apply my own methods to track topics, or bust the bubble. When the timeline started to show irrelevant topics to my interest (that changed over time), or non-eye opener topics, I usually start leaving the platform as a user.
I like this tool a lot. I wouldn’t mind having a similar concept applied to YouTube. If you actively try and watch videos from a different viewpoint then your recommendations are all over the place.
Well, apparently the Bible is going to help me break out of my bubble.
I provided two books as requested - an old favourite (The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams) and a recent fantasy novel (The Fifth Season by N. K. Jemisin). My recommendations were... unhelpful? Lots of children’s books and comics (including Calvin & Hobbes), peppered with the occasional P. G. Wodehouse.
The latter is particularly strange to me, since Douglas Adams was a huge fan of Wodehouse, used very similar humour, and even wrote forewords for Wodehouse re-printings.
The latter is particularly strange to me, since Douglas Adams was a huge fan of Wodehouse, used very similar humour, and even wrote forewords for Wodehouse re-printings.
Heya I've been working on ensuring that the results reflect the age-range of the queries, so hopefully you'll now get slightly less children's books. In terms of your latter point, it may just be a kink in the dataset, shall have a look.
What if self-help (or "personal development") is itself an echo chamber? Seems it's not helping to get our of this one.
This keeping recommending books I have read or books very similar to books I have read. I've added some of the books that show up to try to force that kind of book out, but it brings in more things that are proximate to my reading.
I don't know if I've just confused it or I don't have an echo chamber.
I did find some proximate reading that I hadn't heard of that sounds interesting, though!
I don't know if I've just confused it or I don't have an echo chamber.
I did find some proximate reading that I hadn't heard of that sounds interesting, though!
I've always thought that recommendation services would be better of this logic were layered in. E.g. I'm on YouTube and 1 in 10 recommendations are popular/trending videos that the algorithm doesn't think I'll enjoy.
Aside from the obvious necessity of bubble-breaking, it has the nice side effect of retraining the recommendation engine without rampant confirmation bias.
Aside from the obvious necessity of bubble-breaking, it has the nice side effect of retraining the recommendation engine without rampant confirmation bias.
Hi, thanks for this website, I'm goinng to use it a lot I think!
I'd like to add a suggestion, when we pick a book, you propose two links, one is Amazon and the other one is Goggle. Could you replace those links by DuckDuckGo and maybe Goodreads (or any other website that doesn't almost control the market)? It's just to avoid those big companies.
I'd like to add a suggestion, when we pick a book, you propose two links, one is Amazon and the other one is Goggle. Could you replace those links by DuckDuckGo and maybe Goodreads (or any other website that doesn't almost control the market)? It's just to avoid those big companies.
Interesting idea.
Assuming this is still under development, I thought my experience might be of use.
I input The Three-Body Problem (Cixin), Sapiens (Harari), Leonardo da Vinci (Isaacson), For Whom the Bell Tolls (Hemingway), Bluebeard (Vonnegut), and On the Shortness of Life (Seneca) and received in return...children's books!
Age-gating the recommendations might be something to look into.
Assuming this is still under development, I thought my experience might be of use.
I input The Three-Body Problem (Cixin), Sapiens (Harari), Leonardo da Vinci (Isaacson), For Whom the Bell Tolls (Hemingway), Bluebeard (Vonnegut), and On the Shortness of Life (Seneca) and received in return...children's books!
Age-gating the recommendations might be something to look into.
Hi Sam. Thanks for pointing out this oddity. I've now implemented a "children's book" anchoring score which I can now promote or demote results based on. Please try your search again and see the difference. Here's the URL: http://abooklikefoo.com/escape?q=Rl0ZOz,Q6g65q,LY5PZp,PVK1,j...
"The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure"
This book perfectly describes what caused radical leftism to seep into Bay Area (Portland, Seattle, etc.) software culture. If you have leftist activist employees or coworkers, I highly suggest this book for them.
This book perfectly describes what caused radical leftism to seep into Bay Area (Portland, Seattle, etc.) software culture. If you have leftist activist employees or coworkers, I highly suggest this book for them.
So my initial thought when it said anti-recomendation was the idea that you give it a list of books and then it removes the ones that are "too mainstream", or "written by a journalist" or "proven false". In a way kind of want that more than what's proposed.
[deleted]
When I put:
- "The Sovereign Individual" by James D. Davidson
- "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne
I got suggested The Bible NIV and a bunch of other Christian books. Is it trying to tell me that the western totalitarian tendencies come from their Christian heritage or am I reading too much into it?
- "The Sovereign Individual" by James D. Davidson
- "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne
I got suggested The Bible NIV and a bunch of other Christian books. Is it trying to tell me that the western totalitarian tendencies come from their Christian heritage or am I reading too much into it?
[deleted]
If you put in real books about history written by historians, it recommends "restauration agriculture" and "gospel according to harry potter" and "magic school bus" and I think I am fine to stay in my bubble.
How do you evaluate recommenders? You enter 5-10 entries, and see whether recommendations are relevant. (e.g see a few books I've read and liked)
So I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any in this one.
Nice UI though.
What source do you use for books and cover images? I’m building a project around book covers and currently looking at open library API. Google’s is good but the terms don’t allow charging for anything. Goodreads is deprecating theirs.
I've been recommending Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach. Very few under 30s have heard of it. A classic of the 1970s New Left. Yet stunningly predicts the current secessionist mindset of the Alt Right. Plus ca change ;)
This is a great idea! Thanks for making it.
Is there any way you could bring in a synopsis without me having to leave the site? It would be nice to keep browsing there rather than have to link out to Amazon just based on the title and cover.
Is there any way you could bring in a synopsis without me having to leave the site? It would be nice to keep browsing there rather than have to link out to Amazon just based on the title and cover.
It's something I'd really like to do yes, though was not sure where to source the synopsis from. I wasn't sure on the copyright ramifications of scraping from the likes of Amazon/Goodreads, and only very few books are listed on public domain sites like wikipedia :/ But I am going to explore this more. Thank you for trying it out -- and glad you liked it!
The idea is good but the execution leaves much to be desired: I entered two political books on economics and the climate and got a list of cookbooks and a few political books that agreed with the original two books.
True. I am definitely breaking out of my echo chamber (Cannery Row / For Whom the Bell Tolls) if I read a bunch of romantic fiction and Calvin and Hobbes comics. Those genres were the bulk of my suggestions, But I don't want to stray that far...
I tried three authors:
Mary E. Lowd
Kyell Gold / Tim Susman
Rukis Croax
Does this database not have books from small/independent publishers?
edit: One of Kyell Gold's books pops up when I type his name in search after I clicked one of the examples. Still nothing on the others.
Mary E. Lowd
Kyell Gold / Tim Susman
Rukis Croax
Does this database not have books from small/independent publishers?
edit: One of Kyell Gold's books pops up when I type his name in search after I clicked one of the examples. Still nothing on the others.
Unfortunately there will be some books missing, either because of lacking data on them or lacking intersections with other books, or because they're too new. There's also a difficulty in where to draw the line as every book added can slow down querying (each query traverses a database of over ten million relationships and around 400,000 books). This is a point of improvement that I'd like to work on though.
That's interesting, I thought you'd just look for books in an opposite field - maybe with matching stylistic characteristics - then choose a highly recommended book within that parameter space.
You could ask people to provide the metadata if their book/author isn't present.
You could ask people to provide the metadata if their book/author isn't present.
It would be great to see a summary of the book when you click on it!
Is it down? I am stuck at:
Your query is taking a while. Sorry about that, but it's not long now! We're leaving no book unturned in order to find you your perfect matches.
Heya, can you try refreshing? If it still fails would you mind pasting the URL here? The DB is struggling a bit under the strain but it should be back to normal now, fingers crossed.
Apparently I don't have a literary bubble, because even with eight books listed it is still recommending books that are high on my list of books that I've read and liked.
"Carl Sagan"
Unable to find that title
"Demon-Haunted World" Unable to find that title
"Richard Dawkins" Unable to find that title
"The Selfish Gene" Unable to find that title
I think it needs some work.
"Demon-Haunted World" Unable to find that title
"Richard Dawkins" Unable to find that title
"The Selfish Gene" Unable to find that title
I think it needs some work.
Maybe you tried it when it was down?
I put "The Selfish Gene" and "The Demon-Haunted World" and I got "Women, Race and Class" by Angela Davis and "The Feynman Lectures".
I put "The Selfish Gene" and "The Demon-Haunted World" and I got "Women, Race and Class" by Angela Davis and "The Feynman Lectures".
I really like this idea but I think it would be nice to the recommendations to a specific language. After adding
- The Brothers Karamazov
- Infinite Jest
- Asterix the Gaul
I get a bunch recommendations for Spanish books (which I can't read).
- The Brothers Karamazov
- Infinite Jest
- Asterix the Gaul
I get a bunch recommendations for Spanish books (which I can't read).
Ah yes I'm working on a fix for this right now : )
Great tool! Apparently I need to read about Knitting "Catering Moss", which honestly sounds like the most relaxing book I would have never thought to read.
True software engineers don't read the US Constitution.
Now I am very confused. In theory it sounds like a very good idea.
But when I tried this site what I got is a lot of books about religion. And I don't want to know anything about religion. I just can't bring myself to have intellectual respect for it.
"Open your mind" can be healthy if you are stuck in dumbness but can be a bad advice if you have sound and valid core beliefs as in "a mind too open doesn't hold anything of value". In which of these states am I?
But when I tried this site what I got is a lot of books about religion. And I don't want to know anything about religion. I just can't bring myself to have intellectual respect for it.
"Open your mind" can be healthy if you are stuck in dumbness but can be a bad advice if you have sound and valid core beliefs as in "a mind too open doesn't hold anything of value". In which of these states am I?
I really hope the irony of this comment isn’t lost on you
Of course not. The irony is intentional.
Unlike what most people do in social networks I am not preaching or doing advocacy for a belief. I am just expressing my confusion and contradiction.
Unlike what most people do in social networks I am not preaching or doing advocacy for a belief. I am just expressing my confusion and contradiction.
Wow this is some impressive "you should open your mind, provided you disagree with me."
The whole point of this is to show you stuff you wouldn't normally read. You don't need to have "intellectual respect" (whatever that means) for a topic to read a book about it.
The whole point of this is to show you stuff you wouldn't normally read. You don't need to have "intellectual respect" (whatever that means) for a topic to read a book about it.
The OP states elsewhere in the discussion:
>I made a tool that allows you to discover what books you are least likely to have come across or enjoyed, but are nonetheless highly rated.
I think this is a natural result of the system as designed. There may be some value in understanding what other people like, even if you don't enjoy it yourself. Personally, I wouldn't buy any (or even check out from the library) 95% of the books it listed for me, but I think that means it is working correctly. I guess one issue is that it I really like non-fiction, so I get mostly fiction or personal memoirs -- it's a genre thing that has nothing to do with viewpoint.
>I made a tool that allows you to discover what books you are least likely to have come across or enjoyed, but are nonetheless highly rated.
I think this is a natural result of the system as designed. There may be some value in understanding what other people like, even if you don't enjoy it yourself. Personally, I wouldn't buy any (or even check out from the library) 95% of the books it listed for me, but I think that means it is working correctly. I guess one issue is that it I really like non-fiction, so I get mostly fiction or personal memoirs -- it's a genre thing that has nothing to do with viewpoint.
You need to find opposing views that are just on the edge of your current comfort zone, I think. Of course, the whole exercise of having an open mind doesn’t reward one that much, as having a sound worldview has diminishing returns.
Yeah, this is very meaningful. I agree with you.
Usually, when you exercise careful judgement and have a broad culture you don't jump from one belief system to it's complete opposite. Usually you slowly evolve it along time.
Usually, when you exercise careful judgement and have a broad culture you don't jump from one belief system to it's complete opposite. Usually you slowly evolve it along time.
I tried a couple of math titles and got a ton of suggestions to read historical and political non-fiction.
Tried the first 6 books I could think of that I liked, none of them appeared in the search :/
Since each book has an Amazon link, an additional Good Reads link would be very useful.
The search seems down. No matter what I input the result is "Unable to find that title"
Terms used:
- 1984
- Zero to one
- A Promised Land
Terms used:
- 1984
- Zero to one
- A Promised Land
Well, my very first recommendation was the Bible.
So, I guess I've got that going for me.
So, I guess I've got that going for me.
The opposite of that is probably the Bible, or maybe Art of the Deal ...
Seriously though, I think the Bible is a bad book recommendation given its a diverse collection of books (statutes [eg Leviticus], erotic poetry [Song of Songs], apocalyptic predictions, communist idealism, segregationist supremacy, creation, etc.) written across a couple of millennia.
Seriously though, I think the Bible is a bad book recommendation given its a diverse collection of books (statutes [eg Leviticus], erotic poetry [Song of Songs], apocalyptic predictions, communist idealism, segregationist supremacy, creation, etc.) written across a couple of millennia.
It did a good job! I utterly loathe the authors, themes and genres of the books it anti-recommended. Well done!
I've genuinely tried to find one which I think I could read to broaden my horizons, but I can't bring myself to buy any of them.
I've genuinely tried to find one which I think I could read to broaden my horizons, but I can't bring myself to buy any of them.
Can I integrate it somehow with my goodreads account?
Ok, this is fascinating. Even beyond escaping my own echo chamber, it's really neat to escape other echo chambers.
Let's escape the woke bubble:
Or how about the Trump bubble:
I think... I've got a lot of reading to do. I LOVE this tool.
Let's escape the woke bubble:
1. How to Be an Antiracist
2. White Fagility
3. Between the World and Me
Or how about the Trump bubble:
1. Time to Get Tough
2. Righteous Indignation
3. Going Rogue
1. Letter to a Christian Nation
2. God is Not Great
3. The God Delusion
I think... I've got a lot of reading to do. I LOVE this tool.
John Dies At The End + Permutation City = Hunger Games
Am I the only one getting a 403 on the XHR POST?
Ah that may be related to an expired CSRF token. Could you try refreshing? Hope that works!
I guess I needed to allow cookies.
But apparently I need to read Twelve Steps. That's rather disconcerting.
But apparently I need to read Twelve Steps. That's rather disconcerting.
Would love to have this for Twitter follows.
I really want this for youtube
I put about 18 titles into it.
cricket
Did I win or what?
cricket
Did I win or what?
I don't want books based on POV; I want authors that think and analyze well.
I got Mother Goose.
I tried for Ayn Rand and about 30% of the books were precisely the kind of book fans of Rand adore, stuff like productivity,self-help, sales. The other 20% or so were books written by black authors, because apparently according to the author being a Randite is being a racist, that is not the case, the problem with Randites was nailed by John Rogers years ago: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
The real 'bubble-breaker' for Ayn Rand would be something from Dostoyevsky or Tolstoy.
Not "Secret lives of Millionaires". C’mon man.
Not "Secret lives of Millionaires". C’mon man.
lol
I added Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and got Shakespeare.
10/10
I added Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and got Shakespeare.
10/10
Put some of my own favourite books (maths, business and Japanese fiction) onto the engine and got recommended african-american and feminist literature (and a cookbook.)
Then I sampled three of these recommendations and put them into the engine (Martin Luther King, Maya Angelou and Carol Anderson) and again got recommended feminist, african-american and anti-capitalist literature.
One does not simply escape the leftist bubble it seems.
Then I sampled three of these recommendations and put them into the engine (Martin Luther King, Maya Angelou and Carol Anderson) and again got recommended feminist, african-american and anti-capitalist literature.
One does not simply escape the leftist bubble it seems.
Indeed. It's a real struggle as the nature of how this operates on intersections ("people who like Foo also like Baz") mean that escaping a "bubble" really just means moving to its fringes. The more inward and consolidated a bubble is, the harder it will be to escape it (with the current approach) because there'll be almost no intersections that reach beyond its borders. :/ And grabbing random books from beyond its borders is as useful as walking into a bookstore and pointing blindfolded at a shelf.
Ah, that might explain some strange behaviour I had. I entered a few fairly disparate books including "Red Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson and was recommended an Asimov compilation, which is not worlds apart.
Though I guess if one iteratively reads at "the fringes" and uses this tool they'll gradually move out of the bubble?
Cool tool though, I think I might try doing just that ^
Cool tool though, I think I might try doing just that ^
Martin Luther King was quite sexist himself. So feminist literature would antithesis to some of his convictions.
If I am conservative I won’t be open to be shown the most leftist content, and viceversa, while instead I might be open to be shown more balanced views that might gradually carry me out of my echo chamber instead of reinforcing it.
edit: this an OT comment more related to the echo chamber topic than the submission itself. Interesting project, OP.