10 signs you’re living in an echo chamber
As politics become ever more and more polarizing and divisive amongst individuals, it’s not the politics that are the problem, it’s the echo chambers that feed into misinformation and into false beliefs. Let’s explore.
Background
More and more I find people who profess openness and critical thinking skills, yet I also find it is these very people are actually holed up and living in local echo chambers, chambers that only serve to reinforce their own beliefs; but whose beliefs have no actual basis in reality or what’s actually happening in or to the world around them. It is these echo chambers which are causing the divisive nature of not only politics, but just about any other belief which can be found in the world. It seems that more and more people are choosing their personal beliefs over using their eyes, ears and most importantly, their brains.
With that said, let’s uncover the 10 signs that prove that it is YOU who may be living in an echo chamber. Before we begin, let’s define…
What is an Echo Chamber?
An echo chamber is simply a space where you tend to converse with people who also tend to believe in the same things as you and/or who are feeding you disinformation that seems as though it is genuine and truthful; but that disinformation supports your beliefs, which makes you want to believe in it. An echo chamber is designed to 1) never contest your current belief system and 2) reinforce your beliefs, supporting your way of thinking… even when your way of thinking is completely based on fantasy, not reality. Echo chambers can be filled with friends and family who converse by using a gossip-like information transmission methodology (word of mouth, texting, etc), but may extend onto social media sites like Facebook.
Basically, instead of watching news programs directly and forming your own objective opinions yourself, you, instead, rely on receiving your news mostly by using a gossip grapevine of friends and family. When you do watch the news, you turn it off as soon as anything contests your beliefs. In your mind, you believe that news channel is then biased.
An echo chamber thrives because everyone in it essentially agrees on a very specific skewed view of the world… viewing the world not actually how it is, but how everyone in the echo chamber believes that it is.
In other words, an echo chamber is, yes, a form of brainwashing.
Without further adieu, here are the 10 signs you’re living in an echo chamber…
10. You firmly believe to the point of anger that the world is one way when actual news events prove your beliefs are invalid.
This sign shows us that you have subscribed to a belief system so strongly that you simply cannot allow anyone to disrupt that belief system at all, not under any circumstances. In other words, you are fully unwilling to even entertain the possibility that your belief can be in any way proven false.
You remain so firmly entrenched in that belief, even if it can be proven to be a false belief, shows that you are not only stubborn, but also exceedingly closed-minded. You are absolutely not interested in truth. You’re interested only in others who are willing to coddle and support your beliefs. Being unwilling to entertain any outside information that disagrees with your belief system is a hallmark sign that you have succumbed to the power of an echo chamber.
9. You say that you’re open to all ideas, but you instantly shut down anyone who puts forth an idea that doesn’t support your beliefs.
Here’s a situation where when you have a discussion with someone who doesn’t believe what you believe, you then feel the need to counter their arguments with such phrases as, “Well, I’ve always seen the exact opposite.” However, instead of actually providing concrete examples to support your “exact opposite” belief statement, you delay, avoid and ignore requests to provide any details on how those “exact opposite” beliefs actually became real in your mind. In other words, your beliefs are crafted entirely on faith, not on facts.
What this typically means is that you’re listening to the (false) beliefs of others in your gossip group, instead of forming your own opinions based on witnessing world events yourself and digesting and forming your own opinions from actual world events. Listening to other’s words and trusting that those words are valid reinforces your belief system under an echo chamber.
8. You instantly counter any argument to which you disagree, then attempt to insult the person by claiming you’ve been offended by the other person’s argument.
This is both bad debate form and it also proves you’re living in an echo chamber. This situation manifests when another person (party 2) counters one of your beliefs with actual real world facts showing exactly how your belief is invalid and untrue. Instead of rationalizing and realizing the possibility that that belief is wrong, you instantly take offense to the statement and then claim that party 2 is in the wrong for insinuating that you’ve been brainwashed.
This is a circular argument that only intends to insult the second party solely to reaffirm that your own personal (false) belief is true and valid. This is strictly a manipulation tactic to get the other party to back down. Using any form of manipulation in an attempt to win your argument is not only bad debate form, it is illogical, it shows that you’re closed minded, it shows that you’re unwilling to entertain any outside ideas and it also proves that you’re living in an echo chamber.
7. You only visit social media sites that support your belief systems. More than this, you only friend accounts who also believe like you do.
This one should go without saying. However, many people may not realize that this is exactly what they are doing. When you sign up at or into Facebook or X (formerly known as Twitter) or similar, you find yourself gravitating towards those who believe like you do. This does two things at once: 1) Like minded “friends” make you feel instantly comfortable and 2) by doing this, nothing will ever challenge your beliefs (see point 1).
By not exposing yourself to counter arguments from others, you limit your view of the world to only those people who profess to believe just like you. This is the very definition of an echo chamber.
6. You state that you’re critically open minded and claim to watch all types of news programs, but you prove that you don’t do this when you’re presented with reports that invalidate your beliefs… and then you claim news media bias.
It’s easy to profess equality and critical thinking skills, but it proves more challenging for some people to actually do this. Typically, even if a person does watch many news programs, it’s very easy to discount and invalidate what any news reporter is showing you by simply claiming that news channel is biased. This rationale instantly allows you to shut off that real news spigot claiming it as “fake news” or disinformation, thus keeping your false beliefs fully intact.
Here you’ve just watched a news program that has shown you the reality of the world, yet you’ve instantly decided to completely discredit the news report, and by extension the entire news channel, simply because that news report invalidates your own personal beliefs.
Discounting ALL news reports that are fully documented with videos, clips and interviews using people who are first-hand involved, yet you STILL choose to discredit all of that simply to hold onto a (false) belief indicates you’re living in an echo chamber.
5. Using year’s past examples or potentially old and misleading information to support your beliefs. (Cherry Picking)
It’s easy to call on examples from the past, using potentially misleading or cherry picked quotes that support your beliefs. Instead of researching the full information and context surrounding any given quote or news snippet, you choose to take a quote or snippet entirely out of context or, worse, choose to cite sources of misinformation or disinformation solely to support your beliefs.
Cherry picking tiny bits of (mis or dis)information that supports your beliefs, but where the very real and full context of information doesn’t hold up your beliefs under contextual scrutiny is a sign you’re living in an echo chamber.
4. Your actions prove you’re unwilling to entertain any other points of view.
This one is pretty simple. It’s not what you say. It’s how you respond and act as actions always speak louder than words. Sincerity is easily determined not by your words, but by how you respond to argumentation. A listening party can easily determine you’re not being sincere when you make claims of being fair and open-minded, but prove that you are not by devolving arguments into nonsensical debate tactics solely in an attempt to win your arguments.
Not only does this prove you’re not sincere, it proves you’re only in it solely for the argumentation and most likely only to support your current beliefs. This is entirely a defense mechanism against outside beliefs, but it also proves that you’re living in an echo chamber.
3. Instantly discrediting legitimate news sources and news articles because “they’re biased.”
While definitely linked to number 6, this one is wholly separate. When you cannot win your belief argument because of counter facts brought up using a news article example of how the beliefs are false, you insist on attacking the news source as highly biased, non-credible, illegitimate and “fake news” strictly because they have written an article that runs counter to your beliefs.
I won’t state which person now does this frequently, but suffice it to say that he has taught others to do exactly this and that this behavior is acceptable. It isn’t. Not only does this tactic look insanely stupid, it shows us that you’re close-minded and unwilling to entertain alternative beliefs AND that you must instantly attack anyone or anything that doesn’t fit within your belief system. This one shows us you’re living in an echo chamber.
2. You find news articles on extremist and tiny “news” sites that almost no one has heard of solely to support your beliefs.
When a counter argument to your (false) belief system is given to you by the likes of The New York Times, The New York Post, USA Today or even featured on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News, you counter those articles by claiming “biased reporting”, choosing instead to locate an article on a super tiny “news” site that few have ever heard of and which receives maybe 50 views per day solely to show that your belief is valid and true.
Having to dig down into the bowels of the internet to a teeny-tiny “news” site solely to refute articles published by large news organizations, like those listed above, your actions say you’re not interested in being open minded or fair. Forget that these tiny news sites are likely mini echo chambers themselves by echoing extremist disinformation view points, many of their “news” articles are not even professionally written nor do the “reporters” even have journalism credentials. If they did, they’d be working for CNN or The New York Post.
It also says you’re willing to put your faith into a super tiny “news” site with no notable credentials over actual professional journalistic organizations whose sole goal is to produce professional news segments 24 hours and 7 days a week, employing hundreds if not thousands of degree holding journalism majors. What credentials does your tiny news site offer? Not much. What proves your cited article is even valid? Nothing.
Relying on extremely tiny, boutique news sites that few use or have heard of proves you’re trying way too hard to support your belief system and that you’re living in an echo chamber.
1. You resort to insults and name calling to support your beliefs.
Insulting someone by name calling is not only extremely bad debate form, it’s stupid, inane, insipid and sophomoric. It tells the other party that not only is your point entirely invalid, it shows us that you have no solid way to debate your beliefs using actual real facts. Further, your name calling not only tells other parties that you are NOT open-minded nor do you possess any critical thinking skills, you also don’t even know how to properly argue your stance in any legitimate way.
Because you are unable to win on actual facts, articles and information that support your beliefs, you must resort to name calling and by insulting the other party; which seems to be the modus operondi for such sophomoric behaviors when all else fails. This action is considered such a bad sporting tactic that, if you were playing in an actual professional sporting event, you’d have been suspended and required to leave the field.
By resorting to this kind of amateur action, you have proven that you have no interest in hearing any other points of view or in listening to other belief systems other than your own. Doing this one proves you are 100%, most definitely living in an echo chamber.
Conclusion
While these 10 signs are the most critical, these are not the only signs that indicate you’re living in an echo chamber. Any way that sees you to rationalize and maintain your belief system by potentially hurting others indicates you are living in an echo chamber. If you are doing any of the above, you may not personally want to believe that you’re living in an echo chamber, but you are. You can choose to continue to pull the blinders over your eyes, or you can firmly open them to the world around you.
It’s far easier to live in a world of fantasy than it is to live in a world of reality. Unfortunately, living in that fantasy world does you no favors. For example, if you vote a candidate in based solely on your false beliefs, you may be dooming yourself and, more importantly, your children and grandchildren to something they may not comprehend until years later when it’s way too late. It is on you to choose to wise up and become a responsible adult. Living in an echo chamber may feel nice right now, but it won’t prevent the chaos and decay that will born and consume us from such destructive echo chambers.
If you wish to break free from an echo chamber, it may not be easy and it definitely won’t feel comfortable. You will need to stop the arguments designed to support your beliefs. Instead, you will need to ask questions and find out why the “other side” believes the way that it does, read articles that support other beliefs and understand why those beliefs make sense. Additionally, you will need to use your eyes, ears and brain to comprehend it all. Stop the arguing and begin questioning.
As long as you’re arguing for your stance only, then you’re not open to all information out there. You must be willing to open your eyes, ears and mind to ideas and beliefs beyond your own world view. Until you are willing to do this, you will remain stuck in your comfortable, but destructive echo chamber.
Feedback Is Always Welcome
Here at Randocity, we’re always open to feedback. Please use the comment panel below to tell us what you think. If you like what we do at Randocity, please consider clicking the “Follow” button in the upper right corner when using web browser or if using the Jetpack app, click the follow button at the top of the feed.
↩︎
Fact Check: Time article claims Phenylephrine ineffective.
Welcome to the new Randocity Fact Check Series. With all of today’s lies, deception with intentional and wilful misleading information, Randocity is beginning this series to combat these misleading and false articles. With that said, a recent Time article blanketly claims Phenylephrine is ineffective. Let’s explore.
Time Article
The Time article in question is entitled “With the Decongestant SNAFU, the FDA Tries Something New” written by Haley Weiss and published on September 14, 2023 4:30 PM EDT. Note, the link included points to the article’s contents located at the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive to show this article’s snapshot as it was written at the time this article was published. I offer a link to the actual Time article later in this article, but I suspect this article will be corrected soon, thus the snapshot is required. Please click the Wayback Machine link to read this article in full.
Because Time and other large media outlets have tendencies to revise, correct and sometimes delete articles at later dates, the Wayback Machine is the only safe way to maintain a consistent link to such articles from the past. Let’s move on.
Misleading Information
The trouble even with sites like Time is that they hire writers who don’t always properly investigate or clarify the information about which they are writing. In this case, Haley Weiss doesn’t properly clarify her article’s own topic.
Here is Ms. Weiss’s relevant misleading statement in her article:
…the panel of experts assigned to evaluate over-the-counter allergy medications ruled that phenylephrine was effective.
Except phenylephrine has never worked. What’s puzzling, then, is how it stayed on those shelves for 50 years without a challenge.
Note: Highlighting and text formatting added by Randocity for fact checking and clarification purposes.
This unusual blanket statement regarding Phenylephrine is entirely misleading. The article opens by not outright stating the fact that the entire article’s premise involves discussion solely around oral administered versions of Phenylephrine. Simultaneously, this article makes no mention of nasal spray versions of this drug. It is, thus, left up to the reader to understand and discern (and not conflate) this fine point. Conflation is the problem at issue here.
The reality is, either Haley is intentionally trying to mislead readers into believing that all forms of Phenylephrine don’t work or Haley is naive and doesn’t understand (or didn’t research) that multiple administration forms of Phenylephrine exist. Being a health columnist for Time, I find the latter to be extremely unlikely and improbable.
In this article, Haley seems to be intentionally trying to conflate all forms of Phenylephrine under the same “doesn’t work” umbrella, when clearly this is not true.
Nasal Spray Administration
While oral pills and oral suspensions appear to be the sole focus of Haley’s Time article, this article also conveniently ignores the fact that the drug Phenylephrine is also available in a Nasal Spray format. In fact, several known brands utilize this drug ingredient including the brand Neo-Synephrine… and, yes, this brand has been on store shelves for years. The form of Phenylephrine used in a nasal spray is Phenylephrine HCL.
When Phenylephrine HCL is administered using a nasal spray, this drug is, contrary to Haley’s misleading assertion in her Time article, quite effective and fast acting at opening up nasal passages when applied directly to nasal mucosa tissues, thus shrinking (or constricting) them. This author has used Neo-Synephrine for years for this purpose. I can also attest personally that Phenylephrine HCL is not only QUITE effective, it’s also fast acting and usually starts working within 1-3 minutes.
The downside to Neo-Synephrine (Phenylephrine HCL) is that it is short acting and requires frequent re-application. The best duration I’ve been able to get out of this nasal spray is between 1 and 3 hours of relief.
How I use this specific nasal spray is for the near instant relief it offers (1-3 minutes), opening up nasal passages rapidly. I then couple Neo-Synephrine with a second spray from the longer acting Afrin. Afrin contains Oxymetazoline HCL, which this drug lasts between 6-12 hours in duration, depending on amount of nasal discharge. The more discharge, the faster it wears off. However, Afrin’s active ingredient (Oxymetazoline HCL) takes up to 15 minutes to begin working after being sprayed… which is why I couple up Afrin with Neo-Synephrine. Waiting 15 minutes for a nasal spray to begin working takes way too long.
Neo-Synephrine gives me short and immediately relief. Afrin gives me long continuous relief long after the Neo-Synephrine has worn off.
Compare all of this to saline spray. While saline sprays are effective at washing nasal tissues, it does nothing to actively open up the nasal passages. If the saline manages to dislodge and wash away an allergen irritant, it might help reduce nasal allergies. However, I’ve never had any congestion relief from using a saline nasal spray, other than to sooth irritation and dryness.
Nasal Sprays are Drying
The one thing that drugs like Oxymetazoline HCL and Phenylephrine HCL have in common is that they are extremely drying to nasal muscosa. They are so drying, in fact, that they can sometimes cause nose bleeds. The best way to avoid this drying problem is to occasionally apply a saline spray to keep the nasal tissues hydrated while using Phenylephrine HCL and/or Oxymetazoline HCL. You can also use a facial steamer to steam the nasal passages, help hydrate them and offer relief from the dryness.
Nasal Spray Rebound
All of the current drugs that are designed to shrink nasal mucosa (vasoconstriction) by direct spray application have the possibility of a rebound effect. Nasal spray rebound is when the drug wears off and the nasal passages stay congested for long periods thereafter… sometimes for hours. This then causes the person with congestion discomfort to want to spray again to open up the nasal passages. It becomes a vicious cycle.
I workaround rebound by cessation of spraying one side at a time. I cease using the nasal spray in one nostril and wait through the rebound cycle to complete for that one side, which could take up to 24 hours. Once the rebound is over and that nostril is back to its normal state, I then cease using nasal spray in the other nostril and, again, wait through the rebound cycle. Once both nostrils are clear, I’m off of the nasal spray.
This is the only method I have found to get out from under the nasal spray rebound cycle. I go through this process with each cold I’ve had at the very end of the cold. There’s no real way to avoid nasal spray rebound, unfortunately.
Rebound is the reason that so many people get addicted to using nasal spray.
Nasal Spray Effectiveness
The final aspect of the use of any vasoconstricting nasal sprays is that they’re actually too effective. What I mean by “too effective” is that these sprays artificially open the nasal passages wider than is otherwise normal. It forces the nasal muscosa to shrink more than is normal when the nasal passages are open under normal circumstances. For me, this being “open too wide” causes several problems.
The first problem of being too open is that it allows way more allergens in, which causes me to sneeze way more often. The second problem is that I can feel that the passages are open too wide, which actually causes a slight bit of discomfort. Third, because the passages are open quite wide, this encourages way more air flow in and out, which seems to cause more drying than is otherwise normal. Thus, the need for saline sprays or steam treatments to moisturize. While the drug formulations also seem to encourage dryness via the drug chemical itself, the being open too wide seems to exacerbate this drying issue.
However, if the choice is being fully congested or using a spray to open nasal passages, I’ll choose using the spray every time. My first spray choice is always Neo-Synephrine because of its fast acting nature, even though it doesn’t last nearly as long as Afrin.
Time Article, Circling Back
The point to all of the above is that Phenylephrine is indeed effective and useful when applied in the correct way. However, when taken in an oral form, its effectiveness may be in question as Haley’s Time article suggests.
I don’t have a problem with Haley’s article if seen solely through the lens the oral drug versions. However, her article is confused and appears to intentionally conflate all versions of Phenylephrine to be one-in-the-same. They aren’t. While the oral versions may be ineffective and have no efficacy, the same absolutely cannot be said of the nasal spray version.
Debunking Haley Weiss Time Article
Haley Weiss’s article in Time (this is the actual Time article link) is strongly misleading. It intentionally attempts to lump all forms of Phenylephrine into the same bucket, claiming the overall drug is ineffective and does not work.
===> This article’s claim is absolutely false! <====
Phenylephrine HCL in a nasal spray format is quite effective as a decongestant when applied directly in the nasal passages. Phenylephrine, when taken in an oral pill or suspension format, as her article suggests, may or may not be effective for the purposes for which it was intended, as an oral decongestant. This article intentionally fails to separate the effective uses of this drug from its ineffective uses, thus making overall blanket statements to confuse readers.
I guess that Time is no longer a trustworthy enough news source to properly research its articles… nor can it now avoid making such misleading statements.
↩︎
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment