This channel is great, but I disagree with Lloyd a lot; his videos on the shield wall, warrior societies, chain mail (God, his chainmail video pissed me off!), and of course, his poorly informed ninja-skepticism that I debunked in that sword-drawing video. Yet I agree with this, and I love how elegantly and eloquently he puts it, far better than I can!

He really touches on two issues here. The first, this idea of the echo chamber, is a phenomenon I think we're all aware of. The "smart search" algorithms found in most modern search engines are, of course, major facilitators of this trend towards the narrowing of knowledge and points of view, but it's been a problem with the internet since, well, probably since the beginning. For example, I remember back on poe-Red, a number of people made the observation that fringe groups, like furries and voreaphiles and otakukin, were becoming isolated communities by choice. In the early days of information technology, a lot of optimists believed that the internet was going to be a tool for facilitating the spread of new ideas, encouraging a diversity of opinion and experience that would lead the planet towards some new glorious age of freedom and enlightenment. In some ways, this was true, but just as often you'd find people flocking towards communities that held opinions similar to their own, and, once there, these people would shore up their little corner of the internet, insulating and isolating themselves from the rest of society, resulting in them having a NARROWER range of experiences.

I really liked the terms "circle jerk" and "hug box" to describe this self-ghettoizing process. I also believe that there are a number of other factors contributing to this echo chamber phenomenon - briefly: // the increasing awareness/paranoia around "trolls" and "cyberbullies" // the narrowing of the web experience into fewer channels of information, and the increased enthusiasm for "editorial" censorship on these advertising-driven websites // public complacency towards private censorship ("who cares, just go to another website if you want to say something controversial!") and complicity in the same (Comments awaiting moderator approval). All of these factors help create an intellectual environment where dissenting opinions are viewed as, not just wrong, but in-genuine and worthless. We're getting to the point now where we don't just *disagree with* the Other, we're having a hard time accepting *that the Other even exists*.



The second issue is this alternative approach to knowledge - the idea that we SHOULD disagree with each other, often and loudly. We should challenge ourselves, and we should pay more attention to the things we dislike than the things we like. I can totally relate - I think I'm a fairly argumentative person. I've been called a troll more times than I can count! But I don't think it's because I'm trying to piss people off, it's just that I'm really committed to this notion of the marketplace of ideas, and if no-one is going to play the Devil's Advocate, it might as well be me. This is why, for example, I prefer primary sources on subjects like creationism (The Genesis Movie!) to heavily edited tidbits filtered through a pro-scientific/ pro-atheist channel. I *agree* with the evolutionist crowd, so I don't really care what they say. What I want to hear is the Christian perspective. Maybe they'll make an interesting point that I can't answer, and then I'll get to go and puzzle out why they're wrong. IF they're wrong. You not only get a better understanding of what other people believe, you also get a deeper appreciation for what you believe, and why. (this is also part of the reason why I support "teaching the controversy" in public schools - exposing children to Creationism, side-by-side with evolution, would be a great way to SHOW kids why evolution is such a great theory. It's one thing to simply tell children that evolution is true, but you don't really get a sense for why this is the case until you start to examine the alternatives)

I suspect I'm preaching to the choir here, but I'd much rather be elegantly disproven than find out that I'm right.

The problem with giving all sides an equal voice is that there are, despite what the entire Age of Reason supposed, people to whom only their opinion will ever be correct. The great thing about science is that it has methods not merely to give somebody who expresses an inaccurate theory a way out while still saving face BUT ALSO systematic methods of removing those who abuse the system. It takes time. Real science takes an enormous amount of time that we're not willing to give it, and hence junk science creeps in.

And, in theory, no philosophy or religion that comes at it with a clear understanding should ever have a direct opposition to science itself. And hence the "creationism debate" falsely so-called. Faith cannot be challenged by facts, only false faith dependent upon a larger tribal/societal idiom. "Creationism" is a Christian societal idiom threatened by facts, and generations of tribalists refusing to admit their "faith" is predicated on various hats, dining habits and methods of presentation, rather than any actual philosophical reason to reject science. The facts simply call into question the system and thus are immediately rejected.

THOSE SQUARES ARE MOVING ON THEIR OWN

Ummm... I actually think I know where he got that sweater.

I know this because I bought a blanket from here.

http://www.nordicstore.net

It is a beautiful blanket.

I actually really like their sweaters too.
I'm sorry.

You should be made to wear some sort of marking so that everybody knows to shun you.

An ugly sweater will do.

The thing is, the reason I like these sweaters is because I occasionally have a manic fantasy about running away to a remote fishing village on a Baltic island, in Iceland, or the Hebrides and living as a hermit in total isolation with a stack of books, eating beans out of a can until I die.
The entire idea is seclusion and shunning.
So that works for me.

Omg we're fantasy buddiez!

only started doing that garbage recently. For a little while they just flooded the suggestions with the most popular videos (99% "biggest girl FAILS!!! loLZ!").

google is such garbage recently.

It got worse when I accidentally clicked the wrong thing and somehow tied my login to a Google+ account I've never used. I think I might have to just log out of YT completely to get less-skewed results now.

I also really hate the idea that Google is fucking with what I'm hoping are searches based on things OTHER than my preferences. When I want information, I want fucking information, not what some algorithm thinks would give me warm 'n' fuzzies over the results.

doesnt matter. i have cookies disabled completely and not logged into anything google related, it still does its jackass'd algorithim after the first session for the day. I'm guessing they're recording your IP/MAC address and then using that and/or linking it to your account(s) so they still track you when you're logged off.

You can actually completely disable curated results in your Google settings.

I now just get the most popular hits for whatever I'm searching for, which is often total nonsense. It does return a lot of horseshit, since I am not looking for news or pundit blog items, but peer reviewed research and so on.

I think our whining is about curated results turning to useless horseshit in the last year or so.

i think you misspelled the word "fart".

Okay, yogarfield, you're right, it makes perfect sense to trust inveterate liars.