Truth, no matter how inconvenient, is more beautiful than fiction. An Echo Chamber is a community based around a subjective set of assumptions, which never questions those assumptions, and twists everything into supporting those assumptions. It can be useful and profitable to spend some time in such a community, because of the unique lens they see the world through. Combined with other outlooks, every new outlook makes for a richer and more accurate view of the world: the more lenses, the better. The danger is falling into the trap of using one lens to the exclusion of all others. That’s what happens to people who are Trapped in an Echo Chamber. Here’s how to break out.
Recognize the Echo Chamber for what it is
The first step is to break free of denial, and acknowledge that the community in question is one. Here are the telltale signs of a community which is stubbornly fixed in its assumptions:
Every Development Supports Us
Consider the political parties in the U.S., two prime examples of echo chambers. If Republicans control the legislature, and ram through some horrid law banning puppies, then the Democrats cry: “See how horrible our opponents are! This proves we’re right!” But if the Repubs do the exact opposite, if they let the old puppy ban expire, then the cry on the left is: “See, even the Republicans are gradually coming around to agreeing with us!” Either way, the development is twisted into supporting Dems. Similarly if the roles are reversed: if Dems outlaw kittens, then such a vile act proves how right Repubs were all along; if Dems let the kitten ban expire, it shows how even they are coming around and seeing the light the Pubs have been preaching.
This phenomenon is common in advocacy groups of all stripes. Take feminists for example. If a new study comes out showing that men make more money than women, feminists will say: “See, this proves everything we’ve been saying!” and pop open the champagne. But if that same study shows the opposite, that women make more money than men, then they say: “See, our efforts are starting to pay off, this is a move in the right direction!” and pop open the champagne. Either way, the news is twisted in their favor, and champagne is (figuratively) opened. It doesn’t even matter if two studies come out on the same day, with contradictory findings: each will be twisted into victory.
All of this is, of course, good news for John McCain.
Under what circumstances would the group change its mind?
As a mental exercise, once you know the group and its various members a little bit, ask yourself what it would take to make them question their assumptions. If an academic paper were published which called the assumptions into question, would that be enough? If so, then this might not be an echo chamber after all. But in many cases, the paper would be ignored, or its authors maligned. Then you’ve got an echo chamber.
How extreme a situation must you imagine, before the community would question its assumptions? Would it require a massive public scandal in which the leader was revealed to be a fraud? A mathematical proof that the assumptions were contradictory? A message directly from God? The more extreme refutations you imagine the group weathering, the more likely it’s a ‘chamber. Readers can draw comparisons with the notion of falsifiability in science. What hypothetical situation would it take in order for astrologers to question astrology? What hypothetical situation would it take in order for capitalists to question capitalism?
Some groups go so far as to explicitly forbid the questioning of the assumptions. Certain religions come to mind.
Observe with an Objective Mind
Having realized a hivemind you’re in is an echo chamber, the next step is to turn your critical thinking skills back on. When a relevant news story hits the New York Times, and the group starts discussing it, inevitably finding it supports pre-existing beliefs, try to evaluate it as a neutral judge. The ability to twist the article and read what the group wants out of it, is actually kind of useful, since it lets you analyze the article from that perspective, you just don’t want to make that the only perspective you can analyze it from.
Predict Them
After you’ve been observing with an objective mind for awhile, start trying to make predictions. When your RSS feed shows the group is discussing the new puppy-banning editorial in the New York Times, try to predict what the group is going to say about it before opening the discussion. If it’s an echo chamber, and you’ve been stuck there for awhile, you’ll find it’s shockingly easy to get very accurate predictions about what’ll be said. (HINT: it probably won’t involve questioning the assumptions behind the group!)
Once you can accurately predict what “Citizens for Our Way Of Thinking” is going to say in varying scenarios, then congratulations, you’ve escaped them: you can look down on them from a higher plane, chuckling as you predict their every comment. You’ll no longer have any need to read what they say, since you can predict it all in your head faster than your eyes could take in the words anyway. Now you are ready to move on to other communities, ones you cannot yet predict, and learn the new knowledge they have to offer.
If you still sympathize with the echo chamber for legitimate reasons, then by all means, continue to contribute. You can even use your new-found wisdom to try and nudge the group toward greater self-awareness. Just don’t be surprised, if you ever try to play the devil’s advocate, the echo chamber won’t appreciate a veteran trying to undermine established conventions.
FURTHER READING
Smarter than Teacher
Very Serious People
The English Double Negative
Seven Cheesy Real-Life Cliches