The problem is once people make up their minds about something it's very difficult for them to see the reality and accept that they were wrong when they find new information which is correct but contradicts their belief. Because of Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias they continue to seek more information to reinforce their beliefs and reject the truth
If that where true the walk away movement wouldn't exist and a lot of people, me included where leftist in their teenage years but change to conservative or far right just seeing the changes in the last 10 years or so
Private browsing with VPN helps prevent this. Check your security/privacy settings for everything from your browser, to your phone, to individual apps, etc. The default settings are usually the ones that give you the least security/privacy, and create more of a confirmation bias.
I watched some Jordan petersen videos and then Google Chrome was offering me right wing subjects on its search page. Then RU-vid assumed this meant I wanted to see a rant by neo nazis about immigration - thanks for thinking of me with an algorithm but these assumptions are totally inaccurate . I don't want to live in an echo chamber of personal prejudice and bias that keeps getting offered to me , the big algorithm in the sky is trying to pigeon hole me but I'm not fitting into a profile it recognises.
@@Payote88 I think the people watching JP's videos are ones looking for interesting and fresh ideas about how we live today . I know he does get a bit obsessed about the left but it's about challenging all identity politics whether from the left or right . I'm sure his out put isn't specifically targeted at any one at all , just viewed and appreciated by any one who takes an interest .
Andy Nixon I can get behind the original interests as his perspective and psychology is what caught my attention as well. I’m highly objective yet still feel on a subconscious level he backs the right. But I’m only about a month into his videos so I’ll give it more time. I definitely noticed an uptick in the amount of conservative videos showing on my timeline that’s for sure!
didn't they get someone to kill themselves using just the algorithim and continually feeding them negatives news and posts that were critical about what they valued?
if what you’re thinking is true, you can challenge it.. it will withstand the arguments against it.. if it won’t withstand, you’ve come a little closer to the truth
Isn't this a problem with the human mind? like said in the video people have always done this. I would say the bigger problem than left/right is the up/down, that division is never really pushed or explained in the media.
Well id say its just amplifying polarised societies more than before. So yes essentially a problem with our minds, but pushed towards even bigger extremes than before
It makes sense but people themselves make these bubbles and choose to be friends with like minded people which gives us a false sense of reality already so how much of this syndrome do we blame on things like algorithms vs just person interference?
Why did they select a person to speak on feed algorithms authoritatively -- who doesn't understand what drives the algorithms? There is ultimately one and only one criteria these algorithms look at: *attention* They feed you things you are likely to view to get you to view those things. They select against things you are not likely to view because you are not likely to view them. What makes them so insidious is what makes them so successful.
I'm pretty sure he understands that well, I just think give minute isn't nearly enough to cover most of the thing so he just simplify some aspect, I wish they do a more in-depth explanation video
The biggest problem of the algorithms for me is BOREDOM. They try and get my "attention" by offering the same kinds of things I've clicked before. No novelty.
The issue is people take fake news ( actual fake news) like right wing conspiracies seriously because they dont like anythitn "mainstream" so they go to obscure information that is garbage most of the time like info wars
Unfortunately, the majority of "mainstream" sources have a left or left-center bias according to MediaBias/Fact Check. If more of the mainstream did unbiased reporting, more people would listen.
This should be but isn't, people like us think that it is or should be common sense but that just show that it is difficult to see what other people echo chamber looks like
It seems like common knowledge to you, because you're in the information bubble where this has been said many times. Someone in a different bubble probably never even heard of this.
I think the algorithm is neutral in a sense that what it shows you depends on your own actions/choices. If you click and view a lot of climate change videos then it will show you more climate change videos, if you click on gaming videos it will show you more gaming videos. So the choice is still in the hands of its user. Personally I actively clicks on videos from all kinds of perspective so my list shows videos from differing perspectives. (Like, just as an example, a John Oliver video, next to a Stephen Colbert video, next to a Jordan Peterson video, next to a CNN video, next to a Jonathan Haidt video, next to a Vlog brothers video, next to a Piers Morgan video) If you are more open to differing points of view then it will still give you differing points of view. What it does is perhaps only to amplify the effects your choices.
This is a notable article. A book that connects with this subject is what I'd recommend. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
One thing about the data analizing your events miss is your motivation. They have no clue what you are thinking when you choose to watch anything. Those algorithms can't judge individuals. Data basically judges in average. Not everyone responds to classic stereotypes. Boxing people is harmful, especially to less represented individuals among those taking decisions. It's unfair and anti individual freedom.
From an initial baseline of zero data you’re right. It’s the duration of your engagement that drives the algorithms learning processes. Unless you prune out what you’ve tired of viewing it’ll keep on reinforcing that viewing motivating you to do so. Comments give the illusion of interaction when they’re there to drive the constancy of engagement, supplying the data to manipulate your feed. It’s basic conditioning, stimulus plus reward. What you think as you choose something is fairly quickly assessed by whether it’s personal or forced by events around you, such as world and local news. The illusion is that we have a news and interests feed that’s unique. But in reality it’s broadly no different to choosing a newspaper or broadcast media channel suited to you. All media is biased. That’s why advertisers use it.
I've watched many foreign language offerings in a variety of languages. Last month about half my RU-vid offerings were coming up in Chinese. BUT then you get the same kinds of things in that language. You just move from one bubble to a different one.
I had a dream last night, in which I carried all my enemies and drowned them in the Pacific Ocean for treason as a sacrifice to Poseidon! It was glorious!
Seriously, that bubble is either way made by handicapped ppl or to make ppl handicapped. Honestly, I do receive content narrowed down to a) you liked content A or you liked content b). But in this way social media isn't educational at all, but rather disruptive?! 'Stop_Sc_Trollogy'
Growth stunting. Honestly don't live by deal breaking values or ideals. People in power are more or less prone to act on bias when it suits their interests. That impacts everything. Bias is simply a choice or preference for the average joe to be within his comfort zone. Hopefully,its not a radical departure from the mainstream sphere of influence.
It's the difference between seeking out magazines that you like on a newsstand and having magazines mailed directly to you based on past choices and preferences. Most of the products that you're receiving in this way are simply profit driven, so they really have no journalistic ethics or responsibilities, only an objective to generate revenue, so they'll say whatever it takes to maintain an audience. Algorithms don't look at you as someone who needs to be, or even should be, informed, only as a revenue-generating mail slot. From their perspective, you know everything that you need to know and are now as smart as you ever need to be (for the purposes of their business, because you can click a mouse) and customers then begin to adopt that perspective as a self image which, in turn, forms resistance to any kind of real personal growth or change and, more fundamentally, against the evolving nature of knowledge itself. All algorithms are expressions and creators of bias, while simple denial of any such reality or intent is supposed to absolve the people who use them of responsibility for the results.
That's the problem with pure capitalism. If revenue is the only end goal then everything becomes either a revenue stream or a tool to transform someone in a revenue stream. And that damages always the bottom of the pyramid
Simple, I never click on RU-vid recommendations. I always search. I only read news headlines and then discuss news in forums. I never read the article. That way I see lots of opinions
Confirmation bias is a marketing tool. There should have a big think about self help gurus like Jordan Peterson who weaponize confirmation bias to get all the people from one side to buy books.
@therock343 lol, but don't you think your comment is a form of confirmation bias in itself. I actually do not have an opinion on Jordan Peterson but I am aware he speaks on sensitive topics, perhaps may take a stance on things that some would find offensive. You could take the opinion of anyone that has a wide audience (because they have content for you to consume, books, youtube channel, podcasts, tv show etc. where they make an income). Its easy put the spin on them by discrediting or blocking an opportunity to challange your paradigmn of beliefs by saying that "oh they are full of shit cause they do this to make money etc." to me thats searching for an open door to not listen to something that makes you question yourself and your beliefs.
I appreciate his stance on taking a stance. I don't treat his word as gospel but I respect that someone is willing to give opposition to ideas that I also find to be lacking in fact. Rhetoric gets people nowhere when trying to have an open dialogue.
Hes basically saying that if you try and make a list as neutral as possible, it will still probably not be neutral because of other factors that you might not have accounted for as I understood it. The example he uses is you're making the list based on alphabetical order, as you aim your list to be ethnically neutral, but there are parts of the world which will have more names that start with a specific letter than others and so indirectly, you did end up making a list that is to some degree not neutral at all.
And if you're still sceptical, try reading: "Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think" by Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier. Really worth a read
@@twizzted3656 The example he uses is idiotic - if I make an alphabetically sorted list of all people in the world, by default every ethnicity will be neutrally represented - the bias comes with how you _sample_ the list, not how you _sort_ it And thanks, I don't need to read any particular book to figure this out, or be skeptical 😜
