“Echo chamber” refers to a group of people with the same view who lock themselves together and therefore receive only information in support of their view. Echo chambers are dangerous for the individuals within them, and for society as a whole. An echo chamber can also be defined as an area where social proof is rampant. The Jonestown mass suicide (or to some, mass murder) is one horrific example of an echo chamber. A settlement called Jonestown, lead by its namesake Jim Jones was located in a remote part of Guyana, so that they could practice their religiosities away from normal society. The problem with this is, when there are no behavioural examples, apart from those being set by authority, it is the only example to emulate. This is caused uncertainty initially and then social proof, as more people follow the leader. Jonestown ended when the residents were instructed to drink poison, and did — though a few people suspected something and escaped.
The danger of being left alone with your opinion is one thing. To be left with a group of other people who all share the same opinion is another. The more people you see that support your way of thinking, the more availability bias and social proof combine in a lollapalooza of confidence.
So, how do you spot an echo chamber?
1. Little to no evidence is given for an affirmative opinion, and a lot of evidence is required for a negative opinion. i.e. Confirmation bias.
This is often combined with ad hominem attacks on some “other sider”. If something is confirming their opinion, they will accept it no matter who it’s from. If, however, you attempt to throw about a dissenting opinion, you better make sure it’s backed by reason. But that’s not enough. Even if you’re a masterful logician (magician?), your opinion will still be disregarded, simply because by expressing your point — which is not aligned with their views (according to them), you have a vested interest in the other side. They will not care about the truth claims, only that you are an enemy. A classic example is the Marxist’s “it’s the bourgeois’s fault”. I’m not saying the bourgeois does everything right, only that a lot of the time there is no evidence of systemic oppression. Arguing such a thing, however, is only to be blind of the power the bourgeois holds. There’s simply no way to express an opposite opinion without you becoming the enemy.
2. Absence of any negative opinion
Related to the above but this is more about censorship. If it’s eerily void of a negative opinion, watch out. Naturally, communities form around common interests and views. In healthy groups, the members root out bad arguments themselves. In an echo chamber you will not see a group member question a single argument in favour of their opinion of choice. Any challenge comes from an outsider and by the same sequence of events as described above, become an enemy. On social media, this may look like receiving hate replies, getting mass down-voted, getting your post removed or even your account banned from the group.
3. Excessive cynicism or optimism
Every echo chamber is excessively cynical or optimistic, but not every excessively cynical or optimistic group is an echo chamber. There are companies like SpaceX who are optimistic, but you would not say SpaceX is an echo chamber. Donald Trump’s fanbase, however, is a different story. They are so optimistic about the future with Trump as leader, you almost want to join in! (Not really). They are also very cynical about the status quo before Trump i.e. Obama, Clintons etc.
What can you do?
The first thing to do is ensure you’re not in any echo chambers yourself. This is pretty easy to do if you abide by “strong opinions, loosely held”. If you don’t feel ashamed to change your opinion, you’re not only more willing to change your opinion, but more likely. You’re more likely to do more research consisting of articles expressing opinions on both sides of the aisle.
The difficult component is getting people to realise they’re in an echo chamber, and get them to do something about it. Fighting fire with fire works here. By this I mean, to apply some of the social proof bias in the opposite direction. More specifically, the bias to authority.
Someone respected within the cause’s chamber needs to stand up for critical thinking. They need to be able to show that doing so is beneficial to their cause, since everyone’s ultimate cause is to improve the world. We need idea meritocracies wherever ideas are present, namely, everywhere.
Attempting to persuade away from, or even just point out errors in reasoning as an outsider is futile. Anecdotally, it has only resulted in fewer internet points :’( . Admittedly, I strayed from reason in favour of emotional hooks to ensure the argument was continued, not abandoned, by the other party. It continued, just unproductively. From this, I’ve learnt it’s better to put forward your best case and leave it to the other person to apply their reasoning rather than attempt to manipulate them and open the possibility of knocking the debate off course.
Ultimately, the best you can do is to avoid being sucked into one yourself. As good as it may feel to feel like you’re right. What’s the point if you’re not actually right, or more applicably, less wrong? If you find yourself arguing inside one, don’t get sucked in by emotional appeals, let reason do the talking, the reasonable people will listen to reason.
Oh, and happy new year!
