Different kinds of echo chambers

[ThatRobGuy]

I listened to an interview this past week with author David Pakman (he was being interviewed about his new book called The Echo Machine)

-- it was the first I'd heard of him, I wasn't familiar with any of his prior works beforehand, so I was "going in cold"


He's definitely on the left (and I would say, more than just "center-left"), but I thought he had a very interesting analysis about echo chambers, and how they've impacted our recent election cycles.

In particular, he took his own political tribe to task a bit and pointed out some weaknesses they have in areas where his own opposition (the right) seems to be stronger.


He outlined where, via various echo chambers, the right has been better at building a more diverse "big tent" than the left has in the past decade. And, as the book title gives away, he evaluates that through the lens of evaluating echo chambers.


As a very basic breakdown, he described the right as having 4 different distinct flavors of (3 of which are inclusive) echo chambers, yet they're ones where "All roads lead to Trump" vs. the left having only 2 echo chambers, both being somewhat exclusionary, and only 1 leading to Harris.

Note: "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" isn't referring to race/sex/religion/etc... as it typically is when using those terms, it's referring to the standards of "ideological purity" and what will get you "uninvited"


He noted how when people are "ousted" from one of the 2 left wing echo chambers, there's at least 1 of the 4 echo chambers on the right that can, and will, roll out the welcome mat for them and bring them into the fold, while that pattern simply doesn't exist going in the other direction.

The specific example he cited made a reference to two of the echo chambers mentioned in the book (the evangelical echo chamber, and what he called the "Rogan Bro" echo chamber)

...and he used the example of a person who's perhaps pro drug legalization, is okay with gay marriage, is receptive to the idea of universal healthcare, but perhaps isn't on-board with all of the liberal orthodoxy surrounding abortion and trans issues.

While that person isn't going to be a great fit in the evangelical echo chamber, they'd certainly be a fit in the "Rogan Bro" echo chamber, and even if there's deviation on a few other extraneous issues, the "Rogan Bro" echo chamber will still welcome that person with open arms.

And the author's point was that since all of the right-leaning echo chambers "lead to Trump", there's no functional difference in the overall outcome that leads to. (IE: Trump getting elected)


Another comment/quote he made was that when the (paraphrasing a tad, but I think I'm getting it mostly right)
"Don't cuss, drink, smoke, or chew...or run with those who do" types,
and the
"Let's grab a drink, I got some great Kush, let's blaze up before we go to the Kill Tony comedy show and listen to some dirty jokes" types,

...end up voting for the same person, that's ultimately a failure of the left because, on paper, they should've easily had the latter on their team.

 

[Fantine]

Two comments:
First, echo indicates hearing something over and over.
In terms of campaigns, I can barely listen to the Republican President once. The idea of his verbiage taking residence in my head would surely tax my sanity.
Secondly, you only mentioned divisive social issues--not bread and butter issues. Not democracy. Not character--or the glaring lack thereof.
I think of all of those things first.

 

[FireDragon76]

Two comments:
First, echo indicates hearing something over and over.
In terms of campaigns, I can barely listen to the Republican President once. The idea of his verbiage taking residence in my head would surely tax my sanity.
Secondly, you only mentioned divisive social issues--not bread and butter issues. Not democracy. Not character--or the glaring lack thereof.
I think of all of those things first.

That's Pakman's point, though. People in the 4 echo chambers on the Right mostly don't follow economic news and many aren't that affected by bread and butter issues unless somebody in their echo chamber points it out to them. What they do follow is relatively 'non-political' stuff like Rogan, or religious stuff that has a subtext of politics buried in it as part of their religious identity (sometimes explicitly now days, with the cult like devotion some evangelicals have to Trump).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Two comments:
First, echo indicates hearing something over and over.
In terms of campaigns, I can barely listen to the Republican President once. The idea of his verbiage taking residence in my head would surely tax my sanity.
Secondly, you only mentioned divisive social issues--not bread and butter issues. Not democracy. Not character--or the glaring lack thereof.
I think of all of those things first.

Actually, the contemporary definition of an "echo chamber" is:
an environment where a person only encounters information or opinions that reflect and reinforce their own.

So, while repetition can certainly be a part of that, the critical aspect is that it's merely being insulated from other viewpoints.


So, the overarching point the author was making was that the right wing has a handful of distinct different flavors of echo chambers (and all but 1 will gladly welcome new members with ideological deviation), whereas, the left has fewer echo chambers, and they're rather exclusionary in that they have a higher demand for "ideological purity"

And in the case of our recent elections, the end result was that a few of those echo chambers (despite actually having some overlap with the left) ended up voting for the right.


Perhaps I can use my own "home grown analogy" to describe my interpretation of the effect the author was referring to

Take for instance these various dietary ideologies: Vegan / Vegetarian / Paleo / Keto

Obviously, the Vegans have next to nothing in common with the Paleo or Keto people and would be "rivals" in this scenario.

The "twist", is that despite vegetarians being actually closer to vegans on the "dietary ideology spectrum", people from paleo and keto groups are more likely to be accommodating to a vegetarian, invite them to their party, and perhaps even try to meld the ideologies. "Hey, did you know there's actually a low carb recipe and you can just use eggs in place of chicken and it's still pretty good" or "Hey, there's actually a vegetarian pizza you can make that uses all "paleo-approved" ingredients".

Whereas, the vegans would likely shun them for finding out that they still consume honey and cheese...or at the very least, lecture them for hours on end about their egg consumption.

So, despite the fact that "on paper" the vegetarians should be at the vegan party, they end up at the party with the Paleo and Keto people.


That dynamic is certainly what happened with the "Rogan Bros" group.

That "social circle" was one of economic populists (They were Bernie and Andrew Yang supporters if you recall), in favor of drug decriminalization, critical of religion, okay with gay marriage, receptive to universal healthcare. That group should have been "a lock" for the Democrats.

But because they deviated from the rest of the left on one or two issues, and got the "hey we found this insensitive joke you told 8 years ago" treatment, they were pushed out and maligned.

In essence, some of these additional echo chambers that lead to Trump were the left's own creation. Because they were echo chambers that they had, and kicked to the curb.

I would argue that, perhaps to a lesser degree, something similar happened with the blue collar group. The fact that some unions endorsed Trump (or at the very least, refused to endorse the Democrats after decades of doing so) should've been sounding alarm bells left and right.

 

[Fantine]

Actually, the contemporary definition of an "echo chamber" is:
an environment where a person only encounters information or opinions that reflect and reinforce their own.

So, while repetition can certainly be a part of that, the critical aspect is that it's merely being insulated from other viewpoints.


So, the overarching point the author was making was that the right wing has a handful of distinct different flavors of echo chambers (and all but 1 will gladly welcome new members with ideological deviation), whereas, the left has fewer echo chambers, and they're rather exclusionary in that they have a higher demand for "ideological purity"

And in the case of our recent elections, the end result was that a few of those echo chambers (despite actually having some overlap with the left) ended up voting for the right.


Perhaps I can use my own "home grown analogy" to describe my interpretation of the effect the author was referring to

Take for instance these various dietary ideologies: Vegan / Vegetarian / Paleo / Keto

Obviously, the Vegans have next to nothing in common with the Paleo or Keto people and would be "rivals" in this scenario.

The "twist", is that despite vegetarians being actually closer to vegans on the "dietary ideology spectrum", people from paleo and keto groups are more likely to be accommodating to a vegetarian, invite them to their party, and perhaps even try to meld the ideologies. "Hey, did you know there's actually a low carb recipe and you can just use eggs in place of chicken and it's still pretty good" or "Hey, there's actually a vegetarian pizza you can make that uses all "paleo-approved" ingredients".

Whereas, the vegans would likely shun them for finding out that they still consume honey and cheese...or at the very least, lecture them for hours on end about their egg consumption.

So, despite the fact that "on paper" the vegetarians should be at the vegan party, they end up at the party with the Paleo and Keto people.


That dynamic is certainly what happened with the "Rogan Bros" group.

That "social circle" was one of economic populists (They were Bernie and Andrew Yang supporters if you recall), in favor of drug decriminalization, critical of religion, okay with gay marriage, receptive to universal healthcare. That group should have been "a lock" for the Democrats.

But because they deviated from the rest of the left on one or two issues, and got the "hey we found this insensitive joke you told 8 years ago" treatment, they were pushed out and maligned.

In essence, some of these additional echo chambers that lead to Trump were the left's own creation. Because they were echo chambers that they had, and kicked to the curb.

I would argue that, perhaps to a lesser degree, something similar happened with the blue collar group. The fact that some unions endorsed Trump (or at the very least, refused to endorse the Democrats after decades of doing so) should've been sounding alarm bells left and right.

What a thoughtful response. Thanks.

I had never heard of Joe Rogan, but during the pandemic I attended a Zoom Artist Way class led by a yoga teacher. You can't get more "liberal" than that. Someone mentioned Joe Rogan. I listened to him once and was completely turned off and wondered how Joe R could have come up in a yoga/creativity workshop.
Rather than echo chambers I see the messenger not the message.
I find the messenger so repellent that I would be turned off no matter what the message was.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What a thoughtful response. Thanks.

I had never heard of Joe Rogan, but during the pandemic I attended a Zoom Artist Way class led by a yoga teacher. You can't get more "liberal" than that. Someone mentioned Joe Rogan. I listened to him once and was completely turned off and wondered how Joe R could have come up in a yoga/creativity workshop.
Rather than echo chambers I see the messenger not the message.
I find the messenger so repellent that I would be turned off no matter what the message was.

I think a person can be "not fan of the messenger" without ostracizing everyone do does like them.

In reality, Rogan was pretty popular amount the left prior to 2019.

First, the Fallon Fox controversy happened. It was a trans MMA fighter who didn't disclose their status, and seriously injured a biological female in a sanctioned MMA bout. He, despite being pro gay rights, and supporting most of the trans issues at the time regarding bathrooms and civil protections, took a stance on that, that ran afoul of what a lot on the left were saying on the topic of trans people in sports.

Then, obviously the Robert Malone thing happened (ironically enough, Rogan had hosted 2 pro-vaccine doctors in the week and a half prior to the Malone interview)

Then, someone dug up an old stand-up routine from 9 years prior where he used a slur during a bit.


But what ended up happening is that the left started bashing anyone who liked Joe Rogan, branding them as "anti-intellectual" or bigots, which was a tactical error as naturally, people aren't going to be receptive of that, and it certainly doesn't win anyone over.

That's happened with a lot of these newly created "pro Trump echo chambers" and created some strange bedfellows situations.

People who like to tell dirty jokes while sipping bourbon, smoking weed, and discussing evolution have very little in common with a staunch southern evangelicals who wouldn't be associated with any of those things. Yet both sets of people ultimately ended up voting for the same person.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

People who like to tell dirty jokes while sipping bourbon, smoking weed, and discussing evolution have very little in common with a staunch southern evangelicals who wouldn't be associated with any of those things. Yet both sets of people ultimately ended up voting for the same person.

This part get me, I grew up in the American South in a dry county (no alcohol) and my peers drank, told dirty jokes, discussed evolution, had pre martial sex, listened to rock and roll, gangster rap, and they still managed to make it to church on Sunday and Wednesday. The only difference I see now when I visit my mom in Huntsville is that now they are Republicans instead of Democrats.

 

[Fantine]

I knew nothing about JR, listening to one show.
His style seemed combative. Maybe he was that way with both sides, but his guest that day was more liberal.

 

[FireDragon76]

What a thoughtful response. Thanks.

I had never heard of Joe Rogan, but during the pandemic I attended a Zoom Artist Way class led by a yoga teacher. You can't get more "liberal" than that. Someone mentioned Joe Rogan. I listened to him once and was completely turned off and wondered how Joe R could have come up in a yoga/creativity workshop.
Rather than echo chambers I see the messenger not the message.
I find the messenger so repellent that I would be turned off no matter what the message was.

"Conspirituality". Google it. Rogan talks about all kinds of woo, and he attracts an audience that isn't particularly good at critical thinking.

 

[A2SG]

What a thoughtful response. Thanks.

I had never heard of Joe Rogan, but during the pandemic I attended a Zoom Artist Way class led by a yoga teacher. You can't get more "liberal" than that. Someone mentioned Joe Rogan. I listened to him once and was completely turned off and wondered how Joe R could have come up in a yoga/creativity workshop.
Rather than echo chambers I see the messenger not the message.
I find the messenger so repellent that I would be turned off no matter what the message was.

Joe Rogan has come a long way from playing the handyman on Newsradio.

-- A2SG, who knew Andy Dick wouldn't be the most controversial member of that cast?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Joe Rogan has come a long way from playing the handyman on Newsradio.

View attachment 362916

-- A2SG, who knew Andy Dick wouldn't be the most controversial member of that cast?

Rogan was playing a character that was him, but with a different surname, profession, and written dialog. A lot of stand-ups got TV sitcom deals, but they were writers and creators. "Joe Garelli" was a conspiracy nut who made his own duct tape and could read binary (well, hex actually). The weakest performer on the best sit-com of the late 90s.

 

[A2SG]

Rogan was playing a character that was him, but with a different surname, profession, and written dialog. A lot of stand-ups got TV sitcom deals, but they were writers and creators. "Joe Garelli" was a conspiracy nut who made his own duct tape and could read binary (well, hex actually). The weakest performer on the best sit-com of the late 90s.

I agree he was the weakest. It was an excellent cast, especially Dave Foley, Stephen Root and the late Phil Hartman. Heck, even Andy Dick was funny on occasion. A feat he seems unable to duplicate since.

-- A2SG, even the overly silly Titanic episode was good....