The Case for Discomfort
A common complaint about the Web is that although it is possible now for people to learn more about a diverse group of opinions and facts than ever before, they tend to simply run to ground and only visit Web sites that reinforce whatever they currently believe or are familiar with. This, however, is not a complaint about the Web so much as it is a complaint about human behavior.
Long before the Web, it was human nature to seek out evidence to reinforce currently held belief. This always raised two questions for me. One, how did that evolve? In what way was it evolutionarily advantageous to simply reinforce what you believe rather than diversify your set of facts or make judgments based on new information rather than manipulate (or ignore) new information to fit your judgment?
Two, what makes the difference between people who seek shelter in common belief and those who make an effort to learn more about people and ideas with whom they disagree, or haven’t even heard of? Though I do plenty of both, I like to think that I fall more into the latter category, given that early on, when making my first list of bookmarks, I made sure to include Talking Points Memo and Instapundit. Not the most extreme set of Web sites on that particular axis, but not buddies, either.
What I learned by doing that, though, was that these sites didn’t cover different sides of the same story so much as they covered completely different stories that I never would have heard about had I simply subscribed to one of them. It’s that notion of possibly missing out on information that helps drive me to continue that habit, probably moreso than some ideal of being “well-rounded.”
And maybe that’s one of the differences in the personality type that will use the Web to diversify as opposed to nest. The diversifying Web surfer always feels like there’s some site she hasn’t seen yet that includes some nugget of information she would find invaluable and might never see if she doesn’t keep looking outside of her comfort zone, where as the nesting surfer might feel that they’ve carved out just the right set of bookmarks that are hard enough to keep up with as it is, thank you very much.
Interested in hearing people’s thoughts about this, as it’s an argument I’ve heard plenty of times without much analysis as to the roots of this kind of behavior.
By the way, this behavior has a physical manifestation as well, at least according to this guy.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I think people have alway sought out like-minded people – for their survival. You seek those that will support your own beliefs. It is the basis of organized religion, of some communities, of so many different things. I’m not sure if it is right or wrong, really — in some ways, there is a comfort factor there, and you can defend your own beliefs more easily if you can point to others that hold the same.
That said, I completely agree with you that it is healthy to associate with those that don’t hold the same beliefs, and that it can lead you to new things that you might not have otherwise discovered. Again, I don’t think this is new to the web. Think of all the innovators throughout the centuries that probably did the same thing?
I like to try to diversify. I like to read blogs I might otherwise miss. However, I’ve also reached the point of information overload. There is simply too much out there. And when that happens, I go back to my familiar place. Not just people that agree with me, but mainly just people that I know. And then I expand outwards again.
I like coming to the web when I need a different point of view though – it really does make that easy.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
From what I have seen, the majority of us tend to seek out like-minded people. Like Christine said, maybe it’s about survival, an extension of human nature. But for some reason, there is also a subset of folks who diversify for similar reasons.
Everyone is just trying to get by, to act out their true nature, but for some people that means flocking and for others that means exploring. Both are proven “survival” tactics.
But even more accurately, I think everyone has something they’re “exploring.” Maybe people who “flock” or “nest” about politics are actually diversifying in other aspects of their lives by traveling, constantly trying new foods, or always seeking out new people. It’s as if we all have some exploration to do, but not everyone is interested in exploring the realm of thoughts or ideas.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
You might find this interesting:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art36/
Some say religion must have been an evolutionary advantage, in that it takes an unpredictable and volatile world and imposes some sense of order and rules upon it. Maybe attitude-confirming behaviors are the same…seeking out contradictory evidence leads to confusion and uncertainty while seeking out confirmatory evidence leads to complacency and security. Do you think there’s an evolutionary advantage for “peace of mind” versus “intellectual stimulation”?
Or is it just that when you surround yourselves with similarly-minded individuals you’re more likely to be a cohesive community, while a gathering of diversely-minded individuals are less able to work in concert to overcome threats? There must be some ideal balance of diversity of knowledge but commonality of attitudes that help people function best as a community.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I was actually trying to articulate this point myself a few weeks ago at work. Great minds and all the rest…
For me, it always seems like it takes a certain person to push themselves out of their comfort zone and discover something that they’ve never considered before. No matter how much information is available, there are always those who just don’t want to accept that other views exist, or, to put it less dramatically, those who just hadn’t considered that there might be a broader discourse available on any given subject.
I’d never thought about it from a survival of the fittest sort of perspective before (look, there goes that internet, giving me new ideas again!), but it’s an interesting argument. There’s a comfort in having your ideas validated and in creating a community of like-minded souls, but there’s also a need to know what the “other side” is thinking too. Even if it doesn’t change your mind, it might make you consider your own beliefs even more and make them stronger.
Okay, feels like a rant now, so I’ll stop. Interesting topic, Dave!