I've been working on this theory for a while and it's starting to crystalize. Echo chambers and identity politics might not be the villain you think they are.
"Scientists, for instance, typically hold that empirical measurements and scientific consensus over bodies of evidence serve as valid sources of truth."
I don't think the consensus part is accurate, einstein overcame the consensus on the bodies of evidence to displace newton.
I think you're pushing too hard into the genetic fallacy, the referent doesn't really matter, the algorithm by which you're collecting evidence is what matters for having map-territory correspondence version of truth.
You're just rediscovering kuhn, I think you're pushing too far in the direction of epistemic relativism, which can be a conclusion of kuhnian thinking which kuhn despises.
I would disagree that scientific community aside from the top 5-7% have strongest epistemic grounding, there are paper mills etc etc. as you move lower down the status game. Even at higher status people still fake things.
I view epistemic tribes and echo chambers not just as products of information ecosystems or cognitive biases, but as deeply rooted in material conditions.
Our basic needs shape our cognitive engagement, including our ability to recognize and reconcile cognitive dissonance (Maslow: needs must be met to engage in higher orders of thinking).
Scarcity, and even the threat of scarcity, creates a specific mindset, tunneling our focus onto immediate needs and making it harder to consider long-term consequences or engage in abstract thinking. Scarcity of basic resources consumes mental bandwidth, leaving less cognitive capacity to consider opposing viewpoints. This "lack" can erode trust in others, making individuals less likely to engage with or welcome outsiders.
To use a common political example: the resource-rich "liberal left" often engages in abstract social debates, overlooking immediate concerns of the resource-scarce. This illustrates the gap between theoretical discourse and practical needs stemming from their own abundance—an important chasm to consider.
I can see where detoxifying "tribes" can have value. Not so sure about "echo chambers" and "identity politics", though.
If I try to paraphrase: On one hand, it is necessary for us as social being to belong to groups/tribes, and these are defined by some group/tribal identity, which has an epistemic component. And this tribal logic should be detoxified, because it is natural, as opposed to the ways many people connotate it (as very negative).
On the other hand , it is dangerous to be too narrow, and reduce things to belonging to one tribe exclusively, one set of epistemic sources, rejecting everything else.
As humans, we need to balance that, but contradictions are inevitable. We need to hold those where possible, and reconcile them where needed. As tribes, we need to "dynamically interact", as you say. To question, reflect, reconcile, adjust also as groups, because group membership is natural.
Correct?
If so: I am not sure about your use of "echo chambers" and "identity politics". Are you using these as you consider them generally used, or do you consciously want to redefine them, too?
Example echo chamber: I would have defined echo chamber as an epistemic tribe with one or few referents. I think that is what you call "toxic echo chamber".
What you call "healthy echo chamber", I would have called... well, reflected and healthy. You get your "truths" from various sources, you do notice that it does not all fit together, for a variety of reasons, and you reconcile as you can. Or from a group perspective, the group does not reject other sources of truth, but takes different perspectives, and constructively interacts with that. Why call that "healthy echo chamber"? Or what am I missing?
When I ask Claude (open question "What is an echo chamber", and subsequent discussion), it does seem to concur, emphasizing that echo chambers exactly do exclude other truths/views, and do not attempt to reconcile. With that, I can understand how Claude may have insistend that echo chambers (in its and my definition) are pathological.
A totally analogous argument can be made for "identity politics", I just skip it here for brevity.
So, I agree with detoxyfying "tribal", but I think that trying to detoxfy the other two may be both difficult/confusing to people, and unnecessary. Maybe better to coin new terms for how the healthy variants could be called?
I personally, for example, find "identity" not outright toxic, but difficult/loaded for many people. I therefore try to use other words and concepts(role, perspective,...) when I want to interact constructively, as opposed to trying to overwrite what is in peoples heads about "identity".
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your engagement with these ideas, but I believe there's a fundamental misunderstanding I'd like to address.
Tribalism is natural and intrinsic to the human condition. This includes the formation of groups around shared beliefs, identities, and information sources. What we often call "echo chambers" are also natural phenomena. They're not inherently toxic or benign, but exist on a spectrum.
My argument is that we should stop using the term "echo chamber" to describe what is often a natural and healthy phenomenon. Pathologizing something natural and healthy is problematic – it's akin to pathologizing homosexuality. Similarly, your criticism of identity politics overlooks the fact that all humans have identities, and these inevitably shape our political views. Again, I'm advocating for us to stop using pejorative terms for normal, natural phenomena, as it hinders constructive conversation.
"Epistemic tribes" is intended as a neutral, umbrella term (a hypernym) for what we often pejoratively call "echo chambers" or "identity politics". This neutral framing can unlock more constructive discussions by avoiding the immediate negative connotations of these loaded terms. When we pathologize something as an 'echo chamber', we create a "thought-stopping" effect, categorically dismissing entire schools of thought by dehumanizing and pathologizing them. This stymies discourse and prevents us from engaging with ideas in a meaningful way.
The goal here isn't to argue that all manifestations of these phenomena are positive, but to provide a framework for discussing them without immediate judgment. By recognizing the natural basis of these tendencies, we can have more nuanced conversations about how to foster healthy epistemic communities while mitigating potential negative effects.
I hope this clarifies my position and the importance of reframing these concepts. Thank you again for engaging with these ideas – it's through such discussions that we can refine our understanding and approach to these complex social phenomena.
Interesting. I understand your comment as if we are basically agreeing, not as if there was a misunderstanding :-). I could not get Claude to identify a basic misunderstanding either. I definitely agree with your use of "epistemic tribes", and its neutrality.
Looks to me we are agreeing on the goal, and your strategy is to detoxify certain terms, where I would avoid some of them. Both are of course valid strategies, generally speaking, we just seem to use different approaches in this case, based on our different life experiences or whatever. No need from my side to go deeper.
I would be interested in hearing more about how you see this theory being applied in practice. For instance, how might community leaders or educators use this framework to foster more robust and healthier epistemic tribes? How could it be used to address some of the challenges we face in our increasingly polarized society?
Additionally, while you touch on the potential impact of AI on epistemic tribes, this seems like an area ripe for further exploration. As AI continues to shape how we access and interpret information, how might it influence the formation and evolution of epistemic tribes?
"Scientists, for instance, typically hold that empirical measurements and scientific consensus over bodies of evidence serve as valid sources of truth."
I don't think the consensus part is accurate, einstein overcame the consensus on the bodies of evidence to displace newton.
I think you're pushing too hard into the genetic fallacy, the referent doesn't really matter, the algorithm by which you're collecting evidence is what matters for having map-territory correspondence version of truth.
You're just rediscovering kuhn, I think you're pushing too far in the direction of epistemic relativism, which can be a conclusion of kuhnian thinking which kuhn despises.
I would disagree that scientific community aside from the top 5-7% have strongest epistemic grounding, there are paper mills etc etc. as you move lower down the status game. Even at higher status people still fake things.
Have you read Peter Limberg's memetic tribes? Really cool collection, but might be a little dated
I view epistemic tribes and echo chambers not just as products of information ecosystems or cognitive biases, but as deeply rooted in material conditions.
Our basic needs shape our cognitive engagement, including our ability to recognize and reconcile cognitive dissonance (Maslow: needs must be met to engage in higher orders of thinking).
Scarcity, and even the threat of scarcity, creates a specific mindset, tunneling our focus onto immediate needs and making it harder to consider long-term consequences or engage in abstract thinking. Scarcity of basic resources consumes mental bandwidth, leaving less cognitive capacity to consider opposing viewpoints. This "lack" can erode trust in others, making individuals less likely to engage with or welcome outsiders.
To use a common political example: the resource-rich "liberal left" often engages in abstract social debates, overlooking immediate concerns of the resource-scarce. This illustrates the gap between theoretical discourse and practical needs stemming from their own abundance—an important chasm to consider.
Yeah this is the "surviving to thriving" paradigm shift, but we've only just barely evolved to engage in win-win thinking
I can see where detoxifying "tribes" can have value. Not so sure about "echo chambers" and "identity politics", though.
If I try to paraphrase: On one hand, it is necessary for us as social being to belong to groups/tribes, and these are defined by some group/tribal identity, which has an epistemic component. And this tribal logic should be detoxified, because it is natural, as opposed to the ways many people connotate it (as very negative).
On the other hand , it is dangerous to be too narrow, and reduce things to belonging to one tribe exclusively, one set of epistemic sources, rejecting everything else.
As humans, we need to balance that, but contradictions are inevitable. We need to hold those where possible, and reconcile them where needed. As tribes, we need to "dynamically interact", as you say. To question, reflect, reconcile, adjust also as groups, because group membership is natural.
Correct?
If so: I am not sure about your use of "echo chambers" and "identity politics". Are you using these as you consider them generally used, or do you consciously want to redefine them, too?
Example echo chamber: I would have defined echo chamber as an epistemic tribe with one or few referents. I think that is what you call "toxic echo chamber".
What you call "healthy echo chamber", I would have called... well, reflected and healthy. You get your "truths" from various sources, you do notice that it does not all fit together, for a variety of reasons, and you reconcile as you can. Or from a group perspective, the group does not reject other sources of truth, but takes different perspectives, and constructively interacts with that. Why call that "healthy echo chamber"? Or what am I missing?
When I ask Claude (open question "What is an echo chamber", and subsequent discussion), it does seem to concur, emphasizing that echo chambers exactly do exclude other truths/views, and do not attempt to reconcile. With that, I can understand how Claude may have insistend that echo chambers (in its and my definition) are pathological.
A totally analogous argument can be made for "identity politics", I just skip it here for brevity.
So, I agree with detoxyfying "tribal", but I think that trying to detoxfy the other two may be both difficult/confusing to people, and unnecessary. Maybe better to coin new terms for how the healthy variants could be called?
I personally, for example, find "identity" not outright toxic, but difficult/loaded for many people. I therefore try to use other words and concepts(role, perspective,...) when I want to interact constructively, as opposed to trying to overwrite what is in peoples heads about "identity".
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate your engagement with these ideas, but I believe there's a fundamental misunderstanding I'd like to address.
Tribalism is natural and intrinsic to the human condition. This includes the formation of groups around shared beliefs, identities, and information sources. What we often call "echo chambers" are also natural phenomena. They're not inherently toxic or benign, but exist on a spectrum.
My argument is that we should stop using the term "echo chamber" to describe what is often a natural and healthy phenomenon. Pathologizing something natural and healthy is problematic – it's akin to pathologizing homosexuality. Similarly, your criticism of identity politics overlooks the fact that all humans have identities, and these inevitably shape our political views. Again, I'm advocating for us to stop using pejorative terms for normal, natural phenomena, as it hinders constructive conversation.
"Epistemic tribes" is intended as a neutral, umbrella term (a hypernym) for what we often pejoratively call "echo chambers" or "identity politics". This neutral framing can unlock more constructive discussions by avoiding the immediate negative connotations of these loaded terms. When we pathologize something as an 'echo chamber', we create a "thought-stopping" effect, categorically dismissing entire schools of thought by dehumanizing and pathologizing them. This stymies discourse and prevents us from engaging with ideas in a meaningful way.
The goal here isn't to argue that all manifestations of these phenomena are positive, but to provide a framework for discussing them without immediate judgment. By recognizing the natural basis of these tendencies, we can have more nuanced conversations about how to foster healthy epistemic communities while mitigating potential negative effects.
I hope this clarifies my position and the importance of reframing these concepts. Thank you again for engaging with these ideas – it's through such discussions that we can refine our understanding and approach to these complex social phenomena.
Interesting. I understand your comment as if we are basically agreeing, not as if there was a misunderstanding :-). I could not get Claude to identify a basic misunderstanding either. I definitely agree with your use of "epistemic tribes", and its neutrality.
Looks to me we are agreeing on the goal, and your strategy is to detoxify certain terms, where I would avoid some of them. Both are of course valid strategies, generally speaking, we just seem to use different approaches in this case, based on our different life experiences or whatever. No need from my side to go deeper.
Thanks for responding, and best wishes!
I would be interested in hearing more about how you see this theory being applied in practice. For instance, how might community leaders or educators use this framework to foster more robust and healthier epistemic tribes? How could it be used to address some of the challenges we face in our increasingly polarized society?
Additionally, while you touch on the potential impact of AI on epistemic tribes, this seems like an area ripe for further exploration. As AI continues to shape how we access and interpret information, how might it influence the formation and evolution of epistemic tribes?
Good idea. Probably can address in a future post