Ꮢ๐ϲoᴄo Ⅿoԁem Ᏼasіlisk is a user on mastodon.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.

Ꮢ๐ϲoᴄo Ⅿoԁem Ᏼasіlisk @enkiv2

Bad idea of the day: a space opera told through the medium of epic poetry.


In other words, the expansion to the mental model caused by mere exposure to an idea might be totally tangential to the idea itself.


Going back to accelerationism as an example, it's something that is ambiguous to somebody who thinks in terms of right versus left. It's an essentially marxist idea that justifies far-right behavior. So, just being aware that it exists makes someone need to reject the idea of a clean left-right spectrum.

Right. I'm not defending shallow understanding as anything other than a first step.

I think it's better for someone to think "some people believe X and isn't that strange" than to have no mental model of X at all. So, I'm in favor of pure, shallow, awareness-building for people who don't know the enormity of variance in ideas.

Partly because it changes the nature of polarization, since so many of those ideas defy easy classification even to a shallow observer.

Basically, my argument is:

* Before you can expand your toolbox, you need to expand your idea of what's even a possible view to have.

* Lots of people have a cramped idea of what people even can believe.

* Exposure to a variety of extremes is better for remedying that than extra details about familiar ideas.

I run into people with very warped ideas about the political landscape (for instance, who believe that taxpayer-funded health care is a far-left position rather than a centrist one), stemming from lack of exposure to a breadth of viewpoints.

I.e., a small overton window stemming from a small filter bubble.

(Such people *literally* can't conceive of ideas outside a neoliberal capitalist framework. Reading Marx wouldn't fix that for them, but Zizek might.)

To consider an idea acceptable as a tool (i.e., for it to be within the overton window), it must be familiar (i.e., it must be in the filter bubble). Not all familiar ideas are acceptable, but all acceptable ideas are familiar.

The biggest deciding factor for overton windows here *is* filter bubbles.

I just don't think Bush reading Marx is a good example of that.

Marxism is outside the overton window for blanket adoption for most people who don't identify as marxists, but people who are familiar with it are generally not opposed to employing specific marxist-derived ideas to solve or analyse particular social problems. I.e., dialectic materialism is pretty mainstream, as is the idea of class struggle. This puts the components of marxism within the overton window.

I.e., Bush reading Marx wouldn't change his responses, although it might give him a couple surprises.

Exploding your filter bubble means your praxis has changed, even if it changes in different vector than the stuff you're reading.

(Ex., hearing about accelerationism for the first time gave me a different perspective of marxism.)

On the scale of all human knowledge, sure, any perspective is small. But I'm talking about the scale with regard to what's already there.

Someone who learns a little more about a political position they're already aware of is just filling in details.

I see the utility of this as being where the filter bubble meets the overton window: lots of ideas have application in fringe cases, & where filter bubble is awareness overton window is the size of the toolbox.

Well, for the sake of an only slightly larger one.

I mean, Bush knows what communism is, & modern economics under capitalism owes more to Marx than any single other figure, so while he would be surprised at Marx's rigor & the similarity to stuff he's familiar with, it wouldn't blow his mind -- merely expand it. And he's a fairly extreme case.

In order to count as getting out of your filter bubble, the information delta needs to be substantial.

With news of Unroll.me selling user inbox info to Uber, lots of people are repeating "if you're not paying for it, you're the product."

I've said before, and will continue to say, that that is the wrong formulation. Sometimes you pay for it and you're still the product – look at US ISPs. Sometimes you don't pay for it and you're not the product – free software.

The real question is whether a software or service empowers users, which can't be boiled down to whether you paid.

I mean, actually bursting your filter bubble means reaching into political movements you didn't know existed -- not a neoliberal reading neoconservative stuff, but a neoliberal deep-diving into the heart of darkness that is NRX & left-accelerationism, then chasing it with The Conquest of Bread and TAZ. (Someone more savvy can substitute more obscure stuff.)

Knowing the limits of one's own knowledge is hard, though.

I think it's just that, as complaining about filter bubbles has become more popular, it has necessarily become a preoccupation of centrists?

I mean, back when we called it "the daily me", it was the preoccupation of the kind of gnarly civil-libertarian types that argued about sociology on usenet.

In the US, people in the general politial mainstream don't seem to realize how much is beyond it.

@ninjawedding I don't know, I'm thinking about the trouble I have introducing say, mainstream Democrats to the anarcho-communist ideas. In my experience they actually have more sympathy for a Rand Paul style Republican hyperconservatism. Though maybe that says something about where they truly lie on the (mostly useless) left/right spectrum

@tinysubversions burst the filter bubble
read heavily into Marx
find out what a leftist really is
learn Swedish

convinced a friend to use a picture of Luigi as a protective sigil, I am doing good

TFW you begin to debug the ancient angle.