Hacker News Reader

Comment by meeuwer | Hacker News Reader

There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum? If not, they’re likely going with “the current thing” of their preferred echo chamber, which may or may not be real.

View on HN

> There’s a simple litmus test for independent-mindedness: does the person in question do the continuous work of collating “news” and narratives from all across the spectrum?

Simple? What if they think the entire range to care about are “my conservative grandfather” and “my liberal in-laws”? In other words this isn’t a litmus test unless the person even knows what the spectrum is.

Which is the point at which you return to Orthodoxy Privilege, or rather Ideology as people other than Paul “Not Invented Here” Graham has been calling it for over a century.

Who said the test has to be self-administered? “This isn’t a litmus test unless the solution even knows what the pH range is”.

Who administers the test does not change the point I was making.

This heuristic would essentially lead one to believe that independent-mindedness is largely not possible would it not (the explicit "probabilistic" claim in the conclusion)?

I meant it in a more technical sense, as in “I start my morning by checking 4-5 news outlets from different corners of the political field and try to figure out what’s really going on by comparing the narratives”. That of course is not sufficient; one has to do their homework on prior history of whatever the contentious issue is.

And yes, probably it’s not an activity most people engage in.

That is certainly a fine practice, but my disagreement is with the claim that doing this is necessary for open-mindedness, and that those who do not are "probably" doing something highly silly.

There was a website aimed at something similar called “the factual” but they never really got the algorithm off the ground before they were bought - by yahoo news by all things.

Hello! I work in local politics as a side-hustle/volunteer effort. This litmus test is absolute bullshit because it ignores the massive swaths of issues that are party orthogonal and don't make headlines. When actually pressed the liberalest liberal who's ever liberaled with a car bumper full of stickers will actually have a unique set of political views once you move past the like six wedge issues and vice versa. And the more interesting one is the reasons behind a view vary wildly. I was taken aback when I talked to a very conservative gay veteran who said that trans people shouldn't be in the military because, "they won't get the care they need" and that people should all have guns to shoot crooked cops.

And the other problem is that those "unrelated" views on both sides of the spectrum are actually way more related than people assume and those common threads define the group so it's not at all surprising that you can see a theme and make predictions based on it.

An easy one for liberals, asymmetric power dynamics are bad. You can follow this theme to lgbt rights, blm, general anti-corporation, defund the police, drug decriminalization, generally anti-prison, supporting Ukraine, supporting Palestine against Israel, but also supporting Jewish populations at home, reducing the size of the American military, strong labor laws, unions, immigration, defunding ICE, civil rights, anti-insurance/single-payer healthcare, breaking up monopolies, taxing billionaires they all stem from this. You show me a sympathetic underdog and I'll tell you who the liberals will support lol.

Leaving aside your focus on political views (even though the test I proposed is more about getting better informed than diversifying one’s beliefs and prejudices), what’s the typical case you’re getting at: do people have unique sets of political views or are those views more clustered “than people assume”? You sort of started arguing for the former and then pivoted.

There are two groups of issues, ones that stem from the core defining beliefs of the groups that cause individuals to self-label as members in the first place and everything else. You'll see a lot of unity on the former and surprisingly little unity on the latter outside of transient political coalitions of convenience. Once you stray from things that are rooted in the core values of a group you'll find huge amounts of disagreement and that individuals have extremely varied views taken holistically.

Why does news even have a spectrum? In an ideal world, it shouldn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com