Left Center Left

A commenter at Blue Mass Group wonders about "blog bubbles":

So how do we avoid the bubble effect? How to we make sure that we’re actually connecting with the real world and not just reinforcing what’s already in our own heads?

I think that it’s great that the founders of BMG have different opinions and perspectives, and that will help prevent what I’m talking about, but seeing today’s forum with a relatively large sample of the Mass. blogging community present, I couldn’t help but get the sense that we’re going to have to really work to make sure that we don’t get stuck in a cycle of self-perpetuated reinforcement,

Charley has a good response (including the admonition that we should talk with others, not at them)and I’d mostly agree with him, but I want to interrogate further: Why is being in a blog bubble bad? How can we avoid being in a bubble?

I don’t mean these rhetorically.

First, we should recognize that in some respects we’re all in a bubble. We need analytical frames to understand the world and to make political choices. If we’re completely open to interpretive frameworks and multiple perspectives, we’re paralyzed to do anything, to make any claim yea or nay. Then there’s the fact of sociological determination: "a group of people with a shared set of assumptions, who talk only to themselves" is itself a crude but workable definition of "culture."

But perhaps it’s a matter of degree. Some subcultures are more cordoned off than others. Some political circles self-consciously suppress conflicting perspectives and facts more than others. Some individuals evince a stronger psychic need for in-group belonging than others.

Why does this matter? There are a few possible scenarios:

• Your political strategy relies on knowing what a broader section of the population thinks and how it thinks. If you’re working on a campaign, or trying to convince neighbors, or just trying to vote for a primary candidate who will do well in a general election, it will matter not just what other supporters think but people who aren’t supporters, people who voted for the other guy but whom you want to persuade.
• You are formulating or adopting policy choices that suffer from lack of falsification and counterargument. I can think of a recent example: Jonathan Cohn’s point that single-payer health care will involve disruption to the national economy is a complication that a conversation of nonskeptics alone might easily overlook.
• You believe in some kind of cultural relativism or acknowledge epistemological uncertainty. What are the chances that I, lone blogger, or my political allies know every thing about an issue? If I observe one religion, how do I know that another doesn’t hold the truth? People who take seriously the question "what if I’m wrong" will clearly see more value in taking in other perspectives.
• You see blogs as part of a public sphere that is universal in scope. Just as political deliberations and elections need input from the whole population, a conversation among liberals or conservative, libertarians or socialists, alone is not a full conversation.
• You value expertise, yet experts often have a different outlook than nonexperts.
• Your political stance or cultural position itself straddles the usual dividing lines. If you’re a gay Republican or an American ex-pat abroad, you’ll probably be pushed outside the comfort of a bubble, at least until your niche gets critical mass of its own.
• You see rhetorical value in meeting the opponent halfway. An old debate club exercise is to advocate the side you disagree with. Afterward, the knowledge you gain in how the other side thinks helps you in countering it. If you want to see a master at this, listen to Andrew Sullivan talk about gay marriage.

As I alluded, there are perhaps good reasons for bubbles, too. Time is precious, even with RSS readers. Shared assumptions can allow second-order debate that’s more productive and friendlier to boot. A libertarian and a socialist will likely rehash a primary debate about the rights of government and the individual, whereas a conversation among libertarians can weigh the applicability of "toy markets" to public policy. Discussions are emotional in addition to logical and most people prefer to talk with friends rather than those outside their circle.

But say we decide that we want to break out of the echo chamber, at least a little. Charley suggests the real world as an antidote. But people are in bubbles in the real world, too. At least I do. Besides, there are measures we can take as bloggers.

• Widen your reading. Start using an RSS reader if you don’t already, and subscribe to tons more than you do already. Take in other political perspectives, other cultural perspectives, and other approaches to blogging (if you’re a political blogger, read more personal blogs; if you’re frivolous, find some policy blogs).
• Look for the best examples of the political opponent or cultural other. It’s easy to find something dumb or offensive and hold it up as representative. It’s far harder to listen to other perspectives in good faith.
• Even as an occasional exercise, try writing your blog with the audiences of another blogs in mind. In other words, don’t assume a friendly audience who shares your assumptions. There’s a limit on how far you can take that of course, but most bloggers haven’t hit that limit.
• Link to blogs with other perspectives and engage in dialogue with them. Easier said than done, as some dialogues are more productive and personally rewarding than others.
• Follow Jewish Atheist’s example and have an opposite day, in his case arguing for Christianity. Tyler Cowen is ready to follow his lead by arguing for minimum wage laws.

I’m not sure any of these is a sure fix for the larger problems I listed above, but I do think my blog, and local blogosphere more generally, would be better off taking what they represent seriously.