What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
144 Comments
- warp99, on 07/01/2009, -3/+45Nothing new, it's called cognitive dissonance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
So the result is to seek those with like-mindedness to avoid this feeling. - mikbunn, on 07/01/2009, -0/+27Hence the success of pundits in the media.
- JFitzpatrick, on 07/01/2009, -7/+34Indeed. Facing down the truth is painful business.
When I was a kid I believed...
There was a God.
My Government was just.
People were inherently good.
Suffering, Poverty, and Starvation were distant problems to my prosperous country.
People were rational.
... among many other things that I have since found to be completely false. And let me tell you... if you can wake up the day you realize there is no god, your governement is run by corrupt ***** who serve their own interests and multinational conglomerations over those of the public, and that their behavior is not an aberration merely that of the everyman given immense power... if you manage not to sigh, then you good sir are even more jaded than I. - Iwantawii, on 07/01/2009, -0/+19"If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things."
... Discourse On The Method, René Descarte - ThsGuyRightHere, on 07/01/2009, -4/+21That's why I routinely make it a point to seek out opinions contrary to my own, going so far as to listen to Rush and Hannity from time to time. Even though it makes me want to punch a baby.
- Liability, on 07/01/2009, -0/+16I heard that people who are unsure of their beliefs tend to feel emotionally threatened by opposing views.
- CanadianRealist, on 07/01/2009, -0/+15I'd say it's more confirmation bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
No surprise, generally people would rather hear that other people agree with them, rather than disagree. It saves them the trouble and discomfort of having to think about whether they're right or not. - pathouston22, on 07/01/2009, -1/+15Explains a lot of the political opinions on Digg - espesially during the run up to the election.
- odkin, on 07/01/2009, -1/+14This "truth is relative" rap will be the downfall of mankind. I'm not talking about religious "truth", that's just faith. But many many things are absolutely uneqivocably true, and others are subsequently false. Establishment of the scientific method and the power of Reason makes the difference between the Dark Ages and the Enlightenment.
Unfortunately, the people who refuse to acknowledge truth and facts tend to be the loudest and most politically active. - SpazAttack5000, on 07/01/2009, -0/+13Isn't this the entire reason most of us congregate here on Digg? We all feed off of each other!
- rinote, on 07/01/2009, -0/+13My theory about ideas is much like playing a hand of cards. If you find an idea that betters your hand, discard your old ones. People become too identified with their ideas to the point that they feel personally threatened when you suggest that their ideas are silly or illogical.
- warp99, on 07/01/2009, -1/+11Cognitive dissonance is the reason while conformation bias is the result. Of course with psychology there's overlap everywhere so in reality you can never pinpoint only one thing as the underlining cause.
- whorunbartertwn, on 07/01/2009, -0/+10It works both ways... some people certainly filter everything they hear looking for conspiracy angles. You could tell them the sky is blue they'd somehow figure out that aliens/government/Israel are involved.
- Presbyterian, on 07/01/2009, -1/+10Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason....
- steelersfan7roe, on 07/01/2009, -0/+8The only way to change the world is to change yourself.
- drmangrum, on 07/01/2009, -0/+8Nowhere is this more obvious then on Digg.
If there is an article about the RIAA and you say ANYTHING that doesn't say RIAA is evil, you're buried. Say the opposite, you're dugg.
If there is an article about religion, say something pro-atheist, buried. Say something anti-christian or anti-islamic, dugg.
environmentalism: pro-global warming, dugg. Say anything other than that, buried.
Abortion: pro-choice, dugg. anti-choice ( i hate the term pro-life), buried.
Anything dealing with America: Bash America, dugg. Defend America, buried. - Presbyterian, on 07/01/2009, -6/+14So that's why we always see huffpo and dailykos articles on digg.
- Fragged58, on 07/01/2009, -0/+8Oh so you mean like the people on digg?
- Myztry, on 07/01/2009, -0/+7I like it when people disagree with me. I like it when people raise points that I would not due to having a different perspective. Often the difference between right and wrong is merely perspective. My opinion is often only true for myself.
People who agree with me bore me for nothing is contributed for I already know (essentially) what they think. That doesn't stimulate me. Hell would be being surrounded with clones of oneself as much as they would be theoretically agreeable to your ideas.
Expect me to disagree with you. Even if what you say is right from your perspective. I am not speaking from your perspective. You may change my opinion on a certain matter but you will only do so with insight and good arguments. - Zarchon, on 07/01/2009, -1/+8Crazed, dude, you are. Crazed that is. Mythbusters did a show on the Kennedy assignation and showed that Kennedy was shot from the back. They also explained the "magic bullet" that hit the guy i the front seat. You prove Smacksaw's point by being that one guy who refuses the truth no matter the evidence. I once believed it was possible we faked the moon landing until I saw a sight that scientifically refuted the all the reasons that made it appear the landing was a fake.
- Mnementh2230, on 07/01/2009, -1/+8"You must, therefore, *look* for a conspiracy in order to find one"
And when you look for something, you're more likely to interpret anything you see as a sign of it. It's called a confirmation bias.
How's the old saying go? "Everything looks like a nail when you're a hammer"
"Motive, opportunity and means point conclusively to every criminal."
Actually, they don't. It's inconclusive except when there is an OVERWHELMING majority, and even then you need a jury to say so... - Zarchon, on 07/01/2009, -0/+7I saw the title and I came here to post exactly what you did. Good going Fragged58
Crunch, nowhere did it say ALL people. The vast majority of Digg users spew hate and anger towards those who do not share their opinion. This isn't really a place to share opinions. It's more of a place to bolster your own world view.
BTW, I come here to read everything that is wrong with my political affiliation regardless of the lies contained in much of those opinions. I like to know what the other side "as a whole" feel about my political views. Know thine enemy. - Talphin, on 07/01/2009, -1/+8I think in some (maybe many) cases, it only takes just one small bit of information to completely change someones mind.
For example, I used to be a devout evangelical Christian. I went to church several times a week, all of my friends were from the church, and when we hung out, we always talked about how glorious the lord was, and so on. My entire life revolved around "God".
But then one day I was browsing around some dating sites, and one of them had a "What religion are you" drop down menu, with hundreds of options. At the time, I had no idea of how many different religions there really were. I thought maybe 4 or 5, I really didn't know. But after seeing that drop down list chock-full of different religions, it was like a splash of water in my face. I went to search to find out just how many there actually were. When I discovered that there are literally over 10,000 completely different religions (excluding denominations) , I instantly began questioning the validity of my own belief. And so it began.
It took me about a year to go from Evangelical Christian, to trying out other religions, to spiritual, to Agnostic and then on to 100% Atheist.
To this day, I have been an Atheist for over 13 years, and after what I have seen and learned over the years, there is no possible way for me to turn back. But I will never forget the moment of my "enlightenment". - davdev, on 07/01/2009, -0/+7I am the same way. I know what my opinions are, I don't need the reinforced, I want them challenged. That way I know the reason I feel something is based on actual research, not opinion. Though nothing can get me to watch Hannity. It's one thing to seek out contradicting opinions, it quite another to listen to the ramblings of an Imbecile. I tend to listen to someone closer to Lou Doubs, at least he typically forms cogent arguments, even if I often disagree
- Santad, on 07/01/2009, -0/+7Cognitive dissonance would require the individual to actually process views that oppose what they currently believe, and not simply filter out those ideas without giving them any thought. I guess one solution is to "seek those with like-mindedness", but it seems better to let the opposing ideas battle each other until the best one prevails.
- bdbr, on 07/01/2009, -1/+7Yep. People do post conservative opinions on Digg from time to time, but you have to click on them to view them because they're heavily buried. Even if they do have a point, it doesn't really matter because no one wants to hear it.
- vaylor, on 07/01/2009, -0/+6I don't believe them. Who's with me?
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2009, -1/+7"There is no "irrefutable proof" that 9/11 went down the way the government said. In fact, there is no proof at all."
Except for, you know, all that stuff that they went through during the investigations that show that yes, it did happen the way the government said, as their conclusions were based on that evidence that you deny exists. - ApokalypseNow, on 07/01/2009, -1/+7Rationally, you'd need to have evidence of a conspiracy in order to start looking - if you're looking without evidence, then you're just participating in an exercise of confirmation bias.
- CoD4, on 07/01/2009, -1/+6That reminds me, gotta visit some conservative forums
- drmangrum, on 07/01/2009, -0/+5You don't think the same thing happens with Liberals and MSNBC? Seriously?
- Mnementh2230, on 07/01/2009, -1/+6Goofed up my reply earlier...
"You must, therefore, *look* for a conspiracy in order to find one"
And when you look for something, you're more likely to interpret anything you see as a sign of it. It's called a confirmation bias.
How's the old saying go? "Everything looks like a nail when you're a hammer"
"Motive, opportunity and means point conclusively to every criminal."
Actually, they don't. It's inconclusive except when there is an OVERWHELMING majority, and even then you need a jury to say so... - PecanHead, on 07/01/2009, -0/+5Ding - we have a winner. This phenomenon is all too prevalent on Digg/reddit.
- ReyX, on 07/01/2009, -0/+5I agree with you, even though I tend to side with most of the "dugg" opinions. I use digg and I learn a lot from the submissions. That said, there is definitely a lot of group-think on it, which makes me nervous. The most dugg stories end up highlighting problems that are very partisan in their takes, which polarizes the world and creates further conflict, I fear...
- smacksaw, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4The great thing about Digg is that you can get buried. There's all the confirmation you need. I think it's cool when I or others have controversial comments. I'd rather be +30/-55 than +20/-1 because the controversial things challenge people to think and not just agree or disagree.
- steelersfan7roe, on 07/01/2009, -1/+5Down with all media that presents a bias.
How about that? - divinediva, on 07/01/2009, -1/+5They wanted to view or read information supporting their own or an opposing point of view.
- inactive, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4This is surely to offend people here on Digg.
- crunchdigg, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4yeah, hardly ever any disagreement here,
especially after moderators were added, and
real identification was needed to make an account. - Mnementh2230, on 07/02/2009, -1/+5"What if there really is a conspiracy!?! Will you really shrug it off every time?"
No. But extraordinary claims like those you make require at least SOME shred of credible evidence. You've shown me a few videos that were thuroghly unconvincing, filled with unevidenced accusations, gingoism, and subliminal messages. All you have are A and M, you're assuming B through L, and then you conclude Z. It's the most pathetic attempt at rationalization for a cause I think I've ever seen, but you're also the person with the most faith in that kind of lunacy I've ever seen.
"Is it really so rare that 2 or more people will secretly agree to a course of action which is immoral, illegal or both?"
No, but a conspiracy of the scale you're talking about would involve so many people that keeping it a secret would be beyond difficult - it would be downright impossible.
"If ever I end up a defendant, I so hope you're not on the jury."
Innocent until proven guilty. I'd require the same kind of evidence to convict you - you'd want me on the jury.
"Yet nails exist and hammers do have a purpose. Your apparent belief that *real* nails are those that are found fastening two objects means you'd probably suck at carpentry. Also."
You sure did extrapolate a lot from that a quote I used, didn't you? You also assumed a lot. I guess I shouldn't expect any different - you're good at unevidenced extrapolation and assumptions.
"M.O.M has no relevance to a crime? What investigator who is worth his salt wouldn't look for these 3 things?"
It has relevance, but it is not the only thing you must use. Plenty of people may have Motive, Opportunity, and Means, but that doesn't mean they did the deed.
"How could motive, opportunity and means NOT point at the perpetrator of a given crime?"
When multiple people have them. Use your critical thinking skills. When a dozen people have MOM, does that mean that they all killed someone? Or does it mean that one of them killed a person, or could it be that the person just died from an unfortunate accident? You're jumping to conclusions again - something that I've noticed and commented on before. - smacksaw, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4You're not really "wrong" if you seek the truth. You're just poorly informed or misinformed. There's no emotional tie to being right or wrong if you seek the best answers possible. Then you're not wrong, you just became more educated and better informed.
- 1o23r, on 07/01/2009, -1/+5I am jaded as hell. Never believed in God. That never really mattered to me. It was when I lost my faith in human intelligence and decency (myself not excluded) that the world seemed uninteresting. "Finding the truth" became impossible and irrelevant.
- kingnova, on 07/01/2009, -0/+4A look at my "fans" list here on Digg sure backs that up. Depending on the day and the issue, I get friended by uber far right and uber far left people at about the same rate.
All it takes is one comment being read that makes them think I am "like-minded". Of course, it only takes a few days before both sides are pissed at me over not being willing to blindly follow along.
Such is Digg, such is life. - kingnova, on 07/01/2009, -0/+3@Zarcon
This thread doesn't call for an opinion. My opinions politically don't fit either party. Pro 2nd amendment, pro Universal health care, concerned about radical Islam, non religious, fiscal conservative on most issues other than health care to name a few. That outlook doesn't fit either party (which is where many in America sit, IMO: outside strict party dogma). - smacksaw, on 07/01/2009, -0/+3I disagree. Because the people who are convinced there is something shady going on tend to give too much importance to circumstantial evidence and then blow things out of proportion.
Case in point: Those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I'd bet that 1% of them would ever change their mind. Even if you offered them irrefutable proof, they are not going to change their mind. Whereas people who don't think 9/11 is an inside job would change their mind if presented enough compelling evidence.
Think about the movie JFK. For a long of people, the theories presented in the movie were absurd. But at the time, many reviewers and patrons said it did make them reconsider what they thought. - Liability, on 07/01/2009, -1/+4
Let's get drunk and screw - 1o23r, on 07/01/2009, -0/+3I can't believe you are being dugg down. I agree 100 percent. Truth is relative. All current data is based on sets of pre-defined notions that may or may not be "true". Truth is an impossibility. Arrogance follows "truth". One must understand that truth is based solely upon perception which is always changing.
- christoast, on 07/01/2009, -0/+3In other words, skepticism. Greatest tool ever.
- Mnementh2230, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3"If it weren't, moon landings would have continued until this day and other nations would have gone, too"
Why would they go?
Why should we have continued to go?
There's no reason - there's little to learn there anymore, and no economic reasons to go... what would be the point? -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is