It’s definitely a good thing that all people are skeptical — at least sometimes.
I find it intriguing (and even fascinating), though, that people’s skepticism does seem to follow somewhat predictable patterns — and that such patterns actually interfere with their ability to deal with bias and biased information.
This has a lot to do with (and is sort of a “follow-up” to) last week’s post (about “What’s the Difference (Between Mainstream Media and Echo Chambers)?” [ https://socio.business.blog/2024/01/14/whats-the-difference-between-mainstream-media-and-echo-chambers ] ) Let me illustrate this by analyzing two popular podcasts I have listened to now and then.
One which I listen to more now (occasionally) is the so-called “Joe Rogan Experience” (which was also mentioned and cited in last week’s post). One which I used to listen to more several years ago was (is? I don’t know how regularly new episodes of this are posted) Jason Calacanis’ “This Week in Startups” (which was sort of a spin-off of another podcast, “This Week in Tech”). Let me focus on one of the differences in approach I recognize between Joe’s and Jason’s podcasts.
Both Joe and Jason often address a topic which I would like to refer as “exploitation”. Yet they appear to take different perspectives. Whereas Joe usually sides with the exploited, Jason generally sides with the exploiter. “Exploit” here is a charged yet also somewhat neutral term from economics. According to this point of view, there is nothing wrong (for example) in reaping the benefits from economies of scale — i.e., in exploiting them.
Yet if the exploitation has something to do with people, then the waters seem to get much murkier, much less clear-cut, much less kosher. Perhaps one of the most controversial cases of traversing this ethical tightrope is a quote commonly attributed to P.T. Barnum: “there’s a sucker born every minute” (see also “There’s a Sucker Born Every Minute“).
If my analysis of the difference between Joe’s and Jason’s podcasts is somewhat correct, then it might be reasonable to assume that people who believe that “making money” through exploitation is OK might be more prone to align with Jason’s podcast and that people who believe that such exploitation is (in some cases?) objectionable might be more prone to align with Joe’s podcast. Likewise, it might also be reasonable to assume that such differences might influence the “credibility” of said podcasters.
Such partisan alignment would probably also influence choices regarding which sources of information are deemed trustworthy and whether media sources are considered “mainstream” or “echo chamber” — i.e. whether a source is “credible” or “incredible” (such that a skeptical attitude seems warranted).
Socio Business blog 