[tristor]

I’m not sure your latter statement is true. I’m a “free thinker” (whatever that is supposed to mean these days) and run in those circles. Most of us have jobs, so we only have the time to digest articles that take less than an hour to read except in rare instances.

I’m very open to other ideas and I actively manipulate the mechanisms on sites like Facebook to prevent being put in an echo chamber. But I am difficult to convince using emotional arguments and I also don’t have time to read a 900 page dissertation on my lunch break. Long form journalism is amazing though, but unfortunately rare and often now corrupted by bias.

Most people in my circle are in the same boat. We are all welcoming of total mental shifts if warranted by the data. We’re happy to entertain an idea long enough to get through a lengthy article even if we’re not sure of it. But if you start with trying to gut wrench you’ve lost us.

Unfortunately the majority of people respond more strongly to pithy memes and emotional appeals, so that’s most of what I see both from those who putatively agree with me and those who don’t. It takes extraordinary effort to find good arguments about anything being written/presented by anyone.

[krapp]

I only have personal experience (and, admittedly, my own biases) to go by, but I suspect you're an outlier, and I'm referring to the norm, both within and outside the mainstream. I think the ways most people approach social media are the same either way, people want to be entertained and they want to feel emotionally validated.

[hungerstrike]

> Unfortunately the majority of people respond more strongly to pithy memes and emotional appeals...

This is why I want the described system. I can make it work for me by being selective about who or what I upvote.

(It wouldn't be just upvotes though. I'd like to apply all kinds of ratings. The whole point is that I'd be in control.)