I'm tired, so we'll see what comes out of this. Probably a lot of typos, if nothing else.
In this month's
Tiede, there is an
article (you don't have access to it unless you're ordering the magazine, but I figured I could link it here anyway) about this new search engine called SciNet. It has been developed in Finland, as a project between university of Helsinki and Aalto university, and right now it isn't actually in use outside scientific research.
Anyway, the article talk a lot about how Google (the bit of it that does the searching) works, because SciNet works differently. When you insert a search word into it (SciNet, not Google), it gives you a sort of a circle, with what it assumes from the word you put in is the thing that you're looking for. Around it gathers a bunch of other links, that are also related, but kind of less what it thinks you're looking for. Then, if the thing in the middle isn't exactly what you're looking for, you can just grab one of the other links from the sides and pull it to the middle, and the thing adjusts again, with the new thing in the middle, and things related to that exact topic around it. So you can find the place where the field looks like it has the things you're looking for, and then you have the useful links all there. But like I said, this has been created at a university to use in research, and isn't in public use yet, but they're going to make it an open software and just put the code (or what ever, I'm not good at computer terms) out there, if some company wants to start to develop it into something the public could actually use.
Anyway, back to Google.
So, what Google does, is simpler, but also a little dumb. The order of the links it gives you when you search for a certain things is a combination of a few things. First, being the obvious, Google is a company. If someone pays them, their page is in the beginning. Though it tells you which ones are paid ads. I suppose. At least it tells a few that are paid ads.
But there are more interesting ways Google decides the order of the results it gives you. For example, it checks where pages that contain the word or phrase you searched for are referencing to. If there is a page (for example Wikipedia), that there is a link to on a lot of the pages that it finds with the search word, then that page is higher up the list. So basically, the more popular the page has been in the past, the higher up in the list it is shown.
Also, being an intelligent system, it learns about you. It collects data about when you use it, and then shows you results that you would probably be interested in, based on what you've looked for before, and what you've done before.
(I'm starting to feel like I'm telling you something, but really, so far I've only been summarizing the article, so if Google actually doesn't stalk all of us all the time, it's their mistake, not mine.)
So Google learns about you. Now, the problem with that is this: the more it shows you content it thinks you might be interested in, the more it shows you content that you already agree with, that fits your world view, and basically feeds you things that you are already interested in. The problem with that is, that by doing this, it reinforces the way you already think about things, while not letting you know about everything else there is out there, about other points of views, or the other knowledge that is out there that you might be very interested about, but don't even know there is anything to know about it. So basically, it makes you more bias.
And that is what I think is interesting.
Facebook does it too, really. You probably haven't noticed this, since you use facebook so little, but lately (or maybe not so lately, but I've only started noticing it a few months ago) it has started to filter the feed it automatically shows you to show you the things it thinks you are interested in. It doesn't show you everything all your friends post: it shows you the ones that friends you are most in contact with (via facebook), or have the most friends, or seem to otherwise have most in common have posted. It shows you what it thinks you want to see the most.
This is when we get to something that has actually been discussed in one of my communication classes - just can't remember, which. And I'm not actually a hundred percent sure that that is where I know this. The knowledge has started to just form a lump of knowledge, from where I can find stuff but of which origin I am not entirely sure anymore.
The problem with facebook only showing you things that you probably like and about friends you are in most contact with is the same as with Google showing you stuff it thinks you want to see; the information you receive that way is pretty homogeneous. Obviously the you hang out and communicate with probably share a pretty much same kind views, and ideas, and opinions. Which means you hardly ever receive information or opinions outside your own comfort zone, or your
latitude of acceptance.
The latitude of acceptance is actually a term I can place, and it is from a book I had to read for a communication class, a term having to do with
social judgement theory (since I am sure you care what the name of the theory is). Basically it refers to the range of statements about a certain subject that you agree with. There are also latitudes of rejection (statements or points of views you don't agree with having to do with the subject) and of noncommitment (statements you don't really have an opinion about). The more important the issue is for you, the smaller the latitudes of acceptance and noncommitment are, and the wider the latitude of rejection is. Basically, you have a clear, strict opinion about that thing.
Now think about something you feel very strongly about.
Now think about how you'd feel if someone came along and said "Hey, you have some really good points." and offered you a piece of information about the matter that you didn't know yet, but that makes sense to you.
Probably not much like much, right? Someone just came and agreed with you, sure, it's nice, but probably isn't something that would bring emotions to the surface. It's just nice to know something more.
Now think about what you would feel, if someone came and tried to convince you of just the opposite thing, about something that is clearly in your latitude of rejection with this topic.
You'd be annoyed, right? You'd think they are trying to brainwash you, that they are wrong, and they are stupid.
Well, that may be an exaggeration.
But the point is, that people are bias towards information that back up what they already know, and what they already think and how they see the world. They are bias against information that contradicts that. (Also, people are bias towards themselves, in for example thinking that their own behaviour is perfectly acceptable, where as someone else behaving the same way is being a jerk, but let's not get into that.) We easily ignore information that doesn't fit into the way we already think. Or course if we're talking about a matter that you don't really have a strong a opinion about, then any information has a better chance to be ok. Then, once we make up our mind, that level of openness is gone.
This turned out to be a pretty long post, but I think this is an important thing. I think the world would be a little better, if we acknowledged, that the information we get off the internet has a good chance of being filtered so that it is information we already agree with, and even if it isn't, we, as human beings, are quick to dismiss things that we don't agree with as nonsense, or manipulation, or brainwashing. The point is, that people should pay more attention to the information and opinions that they find easy to dismiss, and avoid letting the information that they are fed get them stuck with an opinion; the internet might might very well just be telling them what they want to hear, and strengthening their bias. They should
notice when they ignore something simply because it doesn't fit the way they think at the moment.
One more tiny thing, to lighten up this heavy post. As to our conversation (not quite a debate, I think?) about whether
The Hunger Games is scifi or not, let me represent you Wikipedia:
"
The Hunger Games is a 2008 science fiction novel by the American writer Suzanne Collins."
The first sentence of the page. I say that if fantasy and scifi authors
and Wikipedia say The Hunger Games is scifi, it's scifi.
I win.
~matu
PS. Please, disagree with me. Not about The Hunger Games.