I think there is a genuine need for escaping echo chambers but every attempt is usually aimed just showing the opposite side/narrative.
If I am conservative I won’t be open to be shown the most leftist content, and viceversa, while instead I might be open to be shown more balanced views that might gradually carry me out of my echo chamber instead of reinforcing it.
edit: this an OT comment more related to the echo chamber topic than the submission itself. Interesting project, OP.
I think in order for the opposite thing to work, you have to approach the material with the understanding that "There are people who believe this stuff as firmly as I believe the complete opposite. If you asked them, they say, with absolute conviction, that I'm nuts. How might that happen? What if they're right? What could I have missed?"
This engages System 2, hard. And it's so easy to slip back into System 1 and continue to reject the evidence in front of you, as System 1 does so well when it doesn't like what it's seeing.
I have to constantly remind myself of the possibility that I could be wrong or have an incomplete view of things, but then that allows me to extract the valuable nuances and hidden assumptions that underlie the belief.
Even more importantly, it tends to cast a light on my unconscious biases and assumptions that underlie my beliefs.
The problem with delusional belief systems is that they tend to be coherent and self-supporting, just not rooted in reality.
Statistical aggregates make this worse. You can argue that on average X is more than Y, or you can cherrypick all the examples where Y is greater than X to make your point.
> I think there is a genuine need for escaping echo chambers but every attempt is usually aimed just showing the opposite side/narrative.
I think the idea that there only exists a single spectrum sorted into sides is itself a sort of meta echo chamber shared by people in echo chambers even as they disagree about everything else. In modern politics, even the idea that the opposed party holds opposite views (versus just opposed) is a meta echo chamber idea. In many left/right topics, the disagreement isn't 'pro/anti', but often more fundamental.
Some examples: While conservatives might be anti-abortion, liberals aren't pro abortion, they're pro-choice and that's not just a rhetorical device. While liberals are anti-racism and see conservatives as pro-racism, a conservative rejects the idea out of hand because of a difference in definitions. A third, more nuanced view might even see the average conservative as non-racist (as opposed to anti-racist) which many would still argue is not enough, but it's not 'the opposite' at all.
I don't think recommendations need to necessarily go to the extremes, but I don't think 'a shade to the left' is enough either, because without understanding the fundamental differences, you have a you-can't-get-there-from-here problem.
It seems like no matter what books I key off of, the results appear to be pretty nuanced and not even necessarily absolutely opposing. This is really cool.
I think part of the problem with just swinging to the absolute other end is, unless you're just interested in psychology, reading the "other side" is only of real value if you're reading quality, or at least good arguments made in good faith.
At the extremes there seems to be a much higher tendency for the authors themselves to be deep in the echo chambers of their respective ideologies, as well as a higher likelyhood that its target audience is more forgiving of poor content as long as it hits close enough to the mark. Blindly selecting content by a strict point of view would seem to result in lower value overall.
Not to say there isn't good reading out there in the extremes, but the level of chaff to sort through to find a decent seed is just too damn high.
The value is ultimately in finding good content and not just an opposing point of view. Whenever I can find both at the same time, those are the real keepers.
I think that it is hard to beat r/ChangeMyView (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/), as the arguments are usually much more detailed than "left vs right".
However, there is one crucial prerequisite - someone needs to have an open mind, and courage to at least doubt one's own point of view. Compare and contrast with Change my View by Steven Crowder, which is full of fake openness + trolling, not genuine curiosity.
We have quite a few conversations here about how some issues aren’t on a continuum but on a plane. Maybe the thing to map out here is the extra dimension where things aren’t black and white. This person has read four books on the dark end of the scale? Let’s show them something in a forest green.
Actually this tool seems to solve that problem by showing you multiple books, and not just direct opposites in terms of content. If you don't believe me search for 'Mein Kampf' and something similar, it doesn't spit out books you would consider opponents of Hitler's worldview necessarily.
Now whether the books it spits out are even going to help you break out of your worldview, who knows, but I'm sure reading Shakespeare is going to loosen up a fascist to other ideas at least a little bit.
My own experience is that it works quite well for a certain kind of person: on Reddit I was simultaneously subbed to /r/The_Donald, /r/politics, /r/ChapoTrapHouse, /r/Libertarian, etc (while those were still around). I'd also drop by voat occasionally to get my weekly sample of virulently antisemitic takes.
I think looking at extremes is the most realistic path. Purportedly balanced sources are dangerous because their bias is subtle; extreme sources typically have very clear bias that is easy to keep in mind as you. You can read many extreme sources and sort of take the intersection of what they show you to guess at some minimal amount of what must be really true.
Agreed. I have long wanted to see a social network or recommendation engine that generated those arguments most likely to appeal to those who disagree. What Julia Galef calls steelmanning.
I think it works: I put in "Zero to One", "The Idea Factory" and "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" -- one of the top results was "We Are Never Meeting in Real Life." This was reviewed on Amazon as "Not For a White Male Forty-Year-Old Software Engineer."
The problem is, there's a line between "things I don't consider because they're out of my comfort zone / I don't even know they exist" and "things I don't consider because I consider them to not have quality".
You give me a novel from a niche author from the middle East, I'm game; you give me a cash grab book signed by a teen youtuber and I'm probably out.
It does not seem to work well IMO. If you start over and type in the books that it recommends for readers of the books that the dev obviously thinks are "bad", it still recommends more of the books that the devs think are "good" instead of giving you the "opposite" of those.
I think it would be more effective for the devs to manually put together a recommended reading list of progressive literature and explain why they feel each book is worth investing time into. I would find that really helpful because even though I'm not part of their target demographic of extremely conservative people, I wouldn't really know which progressive works of literature are considered essential reading.
I tried various combinations of the books I’ve read over the last couple of years[1]. And either I got stuff already on my bookshelf or sphere of reference[2], or a lot of Calvin and Hobbes (seriously every result had at least one, sometimes several), or children’s books, or adult comic books. Which I guess is by some definition the opposite of adult novels. But a fun and interesting tool to play around with either way.
[1] Underworld, Blood Meridian, The Bluest Eye, Milkman, Pale Fire, Borges, etc...
[2] Chekhov, Ursula Le Guin, Proust, Umberto Eco, etc.
Edit: I scrolled down and read the creators summary of how the search works. And now believe my results really nailed his description: rarest but highly rated by readers of the same books. Which also explains all the Calvin and Hobbes, which I think have a universal appeal.
I would point out, that there are also many positive reviews of the same book on the exact same amazon. As in, this guy gave it two stars, but the books overall rating is much much higher.
Cantos, Bros Karamazov, Gibbon, Junger, Norwich .... I get suggestions for crummy business self help books, a biography of Elton John, something about crazy ladies talking to their crazy therapists, and something on vegetarianism I had already read and found laughably insane and ill researched. I'll stick with my literary bubble.
Hi HN. I made a tool that allows you to discover what books you are least likely to have come across or enjoyed, but are nonetheless highly rated. These books will likely challenge you if you tend to read quite narrowly. Briefly, for each book entered we find the rarest but highest rated intersections and provide those to you. The query can be summarised as: which highly rated books are least read (and enjoyed) by people who've also read the books entered?
I like the idea a lot, and the interface is very easy to use. However, I entered a Neil Gaiman Sandman book in my first four, and it showed me another Neil Gaiman book, which seems odd? But then again I didn't recognize it, so maybe the statistics really do point that way. But excluding books by the same authors you've entered might make sense.
Seems like a cool idea! Did you think about referral sales (Amazon Associates) as a way to fund the project instead of Patreon?
I have no affiliation or experience with either, just genuinely curious if you chose one over the other. Affiliate sales seems like a good fit for this kind of service.
Loved it, but I felt a large proportion of the 'bubble breakers for software engineers' are actually referenced quite often on hacker news. Not 'Taking charge of your fertility' though.
Anecdote : I put in the three first books of the Stormlight Archive series and it showed me many fantasy books, comics & BD, and mangas, I already read (I'd say 60 to 70%). I don't know what it should output for things not inherently political.
Very nice! Liked seeing Chomsky, Fromm, Tolle and Postman when I clicked the "software engineering" link. Will check out some of the other recommendations.
I added a few of my favorite books (mostly 20th century lit) and depending on the set got mostly children's books or non-English books. Not terribly helpful.
I like it, even though it doesn't have my two books.
How about a browser extension that tracks the articles, videos, discussion boards, HN threads, etc one reads and in real time suggests other anti-bubble ones?
Not sure if your engine would support it, but I'd use it.
I realize, the site's aim is to help you escape the "echo chamber". But I've recently been mulling over this other idea from Seneca (writing 2000 years ago!) on limiting the number of books you read, hard as it is, for an avid reader:
[...] Be careful, though, about your reading in many authors and every type of book. It may be that there is something wayward and unstable in it. You must stay with a limited number of writers and be fed by them if you mean to derive anything that will dwell reliably with you. One who is everywhere is nowhere. Those who travel all the time find that they have many places to stay, but no friendships. The same thing happens to those who do not become intimate with any one author, but let everything rush right through them. Food does not benefit or become part of the body when it is eaten and immediately expelled. Nothing impedes healing as much as frequent change of medications. A wound does not close up when one is always trying out different dressings on it; a seedling that is transplanted repeatedly will never grow strong. [...]
"But I want to read different books at different times," you say. The person of delicate digestion nibbles at this and that; when the diet is too varied, though, food does not nourish but only upsets the stomach. [...]
— Letter 2 ("A beneficial reading program"); translation by Long and Graver
On a similar note in Seneca's letter to Serenus (On the Tranquillity of Mind):
"Even in our studies, where expenditure is most worth while, its justification depends on its moderation. What is the point of having countless books and libraries whose titles the owner could scarcely read through in his whole lifetime? The mass of books burdens the student without instructing him, and it is far better to devote yourself to a few authors than to get lost among many."
I think it can be very valuable to go down the rabbit hole sometimes and study the author and read their less popular works. But of course, after a while you will get diminishing returns.
Very interesting—I certainly wouldn't have expected the antithesis of Mein Kampf and Revolt Against the Modern World to be Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat: Mastering the Elements of Good Cooking. Honourable mentions include the Bible (NIV) and The C Programming Language.
Love the idea! My one suggestion would be to add the ability to filter out children's books from the results. After I added Hitchhiker's Guide, Children of Time, and the Iliad, the majority of my recommendations were children's books. Or, maybe the tool is telling me something...
I remember attending a presentation from Pandroa many years ago and one thing struck me as very interesting. I am rephraizin from memory: "It is of little value to recommend obvious things. For example if you like Duke Ellington there is no point to recommend you Ella Fitzgeral d. You probably already aware of her. But if we recommend you a song by Madonna, whom you would not normaly consider listening, which happens to be very much in jazzy style you like, you will be pleasantly surprised." This is how you break a bubble.
Weirdly, I keep getting books I like in the search. It would be nice if I could add more than three authors because my reading is already extremely diverse, like music listening there is very little that I dislike (According to spotify, I listened to over 500 genres of music this year -- although I'm not really sure how useful that is because of how every piece of music seems to be categorized into it's own genre).
For example, I put in:
Mort - Terry Pratchett
Mortal Engines - Stanisław Lem
My Lesbian Experience With
Loneliness - Kabi Nagata
And Judith Butler was in the search results. So instead I realised that Mort and Mortal Engines are adjacent, genre-wise and tried:
Mort - Terry Pratchett
My Lesbian Experience With
Loneliness - Kabi Nagata
Gender Trouble - Judith Butler
and in the search results I got:
The Far Side comics
"This Book Is Full of Spiders"
Douglas Adams
Kurt Vonnegut
Brian Lee O'Mally
Calvin and Hobbes
All of these works I have enjoyed quite a lot -- I used to be able to quote the radio show of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy from memory, I own all of the John Dies at the End series, and I'm wondering about getting the special edition of Calvin and Hobbes because there's quite a lot I haven't seen and it's pretty timeless.
The rest, mostly consisting of PG Wodehouse and Oscar Wilde, are works that I consider myself interested in yet unexposed to, but they are hardly opposites of the books I put in?
So I'm not really convinced of the utility of this tool as it stands.
Perhaps it is tailored to a single type of reader that only reads books within their purview (Perhaps, political history books, or purely science fiction books) to the exclusion of many other interesting and worthwhile genres?
----------------------------
Edit : What is especially interesting about this is that when I enter only
My Lesbian Experience With
Loneliness - Kabi Nagata
Gender Trouble - Judith Butler
I get a book by Sappho(!) and a literal deluge of mostly-feminist literature with only a handful of anti-feminist works -- with the touchpoint that those anti-feminist works are trying to sound and look feminist!
I'm not sure how Sappho is directly in opposition to Nagata's work, and it strikes me that anyone who has read both Nagata and Butler would also be familiar with the works of Sappho?
Been looking for a similar tool but for music. I love Spotify's recommendations for the most part, but sometimes I want to dive out of my music bubble and explore new genres or new anything really. Basically what I'm looking for is a tool that can give me recommendations of the music that is the opposite of what I usually listen to, or something like that. Anyone know of any?
This is quite fun actually! Tried different philosopher combinations. Get Alcoholics Anonymous recommendations for quite a few until I add Schopenhauer. And if you are a Rand, Rowling reading techie, apparently, you should read more Eddo-Lodge, Baldwin and Chomsky... Brightened my day, thnx.
P.S. Are you sure this thing isn't pushing people from one echo chamber to another?
I enjoyed playing around with this and I got real value out of it as a discovery tool when I filtered to showing aclaimed fiction. I know its survivor bias, but I dont want to waste my time on something both terribly written and outside my echo chamber.
One usability tweak based on how I interacted with it would be to add a 'I already like this' button to suggested books to save me from re-adding them. It also suggested another H.P. Lovecraft novel despite me already marking At the Mountains of Madness as a liked book, I'm pretty sure that if you like one Lovecraft book, you'd like the rest.
The one recommendation I had a strong negative reaction to was by Jeffrey Archer which I guess means that its the book I should read next.
As an experiment, I gave it The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss, a Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin, and the silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien. A pretty standard selection of well-known books in the Fantasy genre.
Out of the 90 books I get, 53 either have the word "Dragon" in the title, or a dragon on the cover of the book. Clearly, a majority of the results also fall in the Fantasy genre, so have my doubts this counts as escaping the echo chamber.
On the other hand, there are a lot of books in that list that I have never heard about, and that look interesting (insofar as you can judge a book by its cover).
When I'm done with my current series of books, I'll have a good look at this :-)
This is interesting. I put in a handful of books on my shelf that I have read and enjoyed, and the results that it returned seem to be largely: a) religion of all kinds but largely Christian apology, and b) civil rights and apartheid. Both topics I wouldn't go out of my way to read about but I might if it the book seemed particularly interesting and was well reviewed (so pretty much the point of this project).
One interesting note is that there are several books on the list I absolutely would read, I just didn't know they existed or hadn't sought them out. One of Stephen Hawking's books, some American military books, a few biographies, etc.
I put in The Foundation by Isaac Asimov, The Test of the Twins by Margaret Weis, and On Libert by Mills. I got back a collection of literature by women of color and books about colonialism. I had no idea my book preferences were so conservative.
I put in SevenEves (my favour book) by Neal Stephenson and Leviathan Wakes by JSA Corey and the recommendations include:
Game of thrones,
Bernard Corwell books
Isaac Asimov
I've read these and I would put them in the same camp as the input books so I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to be doing.
Nice idea but, unless I'm missing something, not the expected behaviour.
I would more have expected "the old man who climbed out the window and disappeared", Clarkson's biography and maybe a Jack Reacher type stuff (which I also enjoy but on the other end of the spectrum from the input books)
I think this could be more impactful if it focused on short form/summary/critique recommendations.
Recommending someone from the left to read a book by Solzhenitsyn, or someone from the right to read a book by Maya Angelou is a hefty time commitment with little promise of proportionate intellectual gain for the time invested.
But to have recommendations on good counterpoint short form content (short stories, journal articles, essays) might get someone who is busy with life and career to spend a few minutes. Harder to ultimately monetize, since the business model for the online book market is pretty mature at this point but no one directly directly pays for that single essay. So where are micro transactions?
Anyone who has been in the position where their time was truly valuable instinctively protects their free time from “long form” intrusions. It the book is worthwhile, the essays on the essence of the ideas will be even more valuable (per minute). Most pop books or ideological rants might only need a paragraph. Condensing into short form might lead to the embarrassing disclosure that the emperor has no clothes.
The idea that you have to read a long form text to understand a different perspective sets off alarm bells in my head. I seem to remember that cults would always want prospective recruits to stay at the Center the whole weekend.
Great to see a new type of recommenders (long overdue).
A related problem is of exploitation vs exploration
(being recommended something one likes vs recommended new but with high uncertainty if it will be enjoyable or not)
some of my work on this related topic of active learning in recommender systems:
[+] [-] gcatalfamo|5 years ago|reply
If I am conservative I won’t be open to be shown the most leftist content, and viceversa, while instead I might be open to be shown more balanced views that might gradually carry me out of my echo chamber instead of reinforcing it.
edit: this an OT comment more related to the echo chamber topic than the submission itself. Interesting project, OP.
[+] [-] kqr|5 years ago|reply
This engages System 2, hard. And it's so easy to slip back into System 1 and continue to reject the evidence in front of you, as System 1 does so well when it doesn't like what it's seeing.
I have to constantly remind myself of the possibility that I could be wrong or have an incomplete view of things, but then that allows me to extract the valuable nuances and hidden assumptions that underlie the belief.
Even more importantly, it tends to cast a light on my unconscious biases and assumptions that underlie my beliefs.
[+] [-] pjc50|5 years ago|reply
Statistical aggregates make this worse. You can argue that on average X is more than Y, or you can cherrypick all the examples where Y is greater than X to make your point.
[+] [-] cgriswald|5 years ago|reply
I think the idea that there only exists a single spectrum sorted into sides is itself a sort of meta echo chamber shared by people in echo chambers even as they disagree about everything else. In modern politics, even the idea that the opposed party holds opposite views (versus just opposed) is a meta echo chamber idea. In many left/right topics, the disagreement isn't 'pro/anti', but often more fundamental.
Some examples: While conservatives might be anti-abortion, liberals aren't pro abortion, they're pro-choice and that's not just a rhetorical device. While liberals are anti-racism and see conservatives as pro-racism, a conservative rejects the idea out of hand because of a difference in definitions. A third, more nuanced view might even see the average conservative as non-racist (as opposed to anti-racist) which many would still argue is not enough, but it's not 'the opposite' at all.
I don't think recommendations need to necessarily go to the extremes, but I don't think 'a shade to the left' is enough either, because without understanding the fundamental differences, you have a you-can't-get-there-from-here problem.
[+] [-] snupples|5 years ago|reply
I think part of the problem with just swinging to the absolute other end is, unless you're just interested in psychology, reading the "other side" is only of real value if you're reading quality, or at least good arguments made in good faith.
At the extremes there seems to be a much higher tendency for the authors themselves to be deep in the echo chambers of their respective ideologies, as well as a higher likelyhood that its target audience is more forgiving of poor content as long as it hits close enough to the mark. Blindly selecting content by a strict point of view would seem to result in lower value overall.
Not to say there isn't good reading out there in the extremes, but the level of chaff to sort through to find a decent seed is just too damn high.
The value is ultimately in finding good content and not just an opposing point of view. Whenever I can find both at the same time, those are the real keepers.
[+] [-] stared|5 years ago|reply
However, there is one crucial prerequisite - someone needs to have an open mind, and courage to at least doubt one's own point of view. Compare and contrast with Change my View by Steven Crowder, which is full of fake openness + trolling, not genuine curiosity.
[+] [-] hinkley|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] postingpals|5 years ago|reply
Now whether the books it spits out are even going to help you break out of your worldview, who knows, but I'm sure reading Shakespeare is going to loosen up a fascist to other ideas at least a little bit.
[+] [-] isogon|5 years ago|reply
I think looking at extremes is the most realistic path. Purportedly balanced sources are dangerous because their bias is subtle; extreme sources typically have very clear bias that is easy to keep in mind as you. You can read many extreme sources and sort of take the intersection of what they show you to guess at some minimal amount of what must be really true.
[+] [-] kevinpet|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lambdatronics|5 years ago|reply
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1WB4G83DRI8PV/re...
[+] [-] kace91|5 years ago|reply
You give me a novel from a niche author from the middle East, I'm game; you give me a cash grab book signed by a teen youtuber and I'm probably out.
I'm not sure this site can tell the difference.
[+] [-] chevill|5 years ago|reply
I think it would be more effective for the devs to manually put together a recommended reading list of progressive literature and explain why they feel each book is worth investing time into. I would find that really helpful because even though I'm not part of their target demographic of extremely conservative people, I wouldn't really know which progressive works of literature are considered essential reading.
[+] [-] Bodell|5 years ago|reply
[1] Underworld, Blood Meridian, The Bluest Eye, Milkman, Pale Fire, Borges, etc...
[2] Chekhov, Ursula Le Guin, Proust, Umberto Eco, etc.
Edit: I scrolled down and read the creators summary of how the search works. And now believe my results really nailed his description: rarest but highly rated by readers of the same books. Which also explains all the Calvin and Hobbes, which I think have a universal appeal.
[+] [-] watwut|5 years ago|reply
So it seems that you picked outlier review here.
[+] [-] scottlocklin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] padolsey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|5 years ago|reply
Instead, Amazon, Spotify, etc. simply steer me toward the more mainstream genre-media that I already know about.
Oh you like Grandaddy? You'll like the Pixies.
Oh you like the Pixies? You'll like Radiohead.
Oh you like the Radiohead? You'll like Nirvana.
Please, I want to go the opposite direction.
[+] [-] rossdavidh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fbelzile|5 years ago|reply
I have no affiliation or experience with either, just genuinely curious if you chose one over the other. Affiliate sales seems like a good fit for this kind of service.
[+] [-] neilshevlin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k1e|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsmith99|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BenderV|5 years ago|reply
If you can do an Amazon/Audible integration, that would be awesome (and will let you build your recommendation system?).
From experience, I like to read the most populars/iconics books outside my perspective/pov, even though, if I had to grade them, it wouldn't be 5/5.
Maybe though, the most problematic of theses "ideological bubbles" is that people don't generally want to escape it.
[+] [-] jrimbault|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k1m|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychometry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bshanks|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spodek|5 years ago|reply
How about a browser extension that tracks the articles, videos, discussion boards, HN threads, etc one reads and in real time suggests other anti-bubble ones?
Not sure if your engine would support it, but I'd use it.
[+] [-] vuciv1|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kashyapc|5 years ago|reply
[...] Be careful, though, about your reading in many authors and every type of book. It may be that there is something wayward and unstable in it. You must stay with a limited number of writers and be fed by them if you mean to derive anything that will dwell reliably with you. One who is everywhere is nowhere. Those who travel all the time find that they have many places to stay, but no friendships. The same thing happens to those who do not become intimate with any one author, but let everything rush right through them. Food does not benefit or become part of the body when it is eaten and immediately expelled. Nothing impedes healing as much as frequent change of medications. A wound does not close up when one is always trying out different dressings on it; a seedling that is transplanted repeatedly will never grow strong. [...]
"But I want to read different books at different times," you say. The person of delicate digestion nibbles at this and that; when the diet is too varied, though, food does not nourish but only upsets the stomach. [...]
[+] [-] goto11|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aglundahl|5 years ago|reply
"Even in our studies, where expenditure is most worth while, its justification depends on its moderation. What is the point of having countless books and libraries whose titles the owner could scarcely read through in his whole lifetime? The mass of books burdens the student without instructing him, and it is far better to devote yourself to a few authors than to get lost among many."
I think it can be very valuable to go down the rabbit hole sometimes and study the author and read their less popular works. But of course, after a while you will get diminishing returns.
[+] [-] kevinmchugh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rumperuu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kamharrah|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vzaliva|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fao_|5 years ago|reply
For example, I put in:
And Judith Butler was in the search results. So instead I realised that Mort and Mortal Engines are adjacent, genre-wise and tried: and in the search results I got: All of these works I have enjoyed quite a lot -- I used to be able to quote the radio show of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy from memory, I own all of the John Dies at the End series, and I'm wondering about getting the special edition of Calvin and Hobbes because there's quite a lot I haven't seen and it's pretty timeless.The rest, mostly consisting of PG Wodehouse and Oscar Wilde, are works that I consider myself interested in yet unexposed to, but they are hardly opposites of the books I put in?
So I'm not really convinced of the utility of this tool as it stands.
Perhaps it is tailored to a single type of reader that only reads books within their purview (Perhaps, political history books, or purely science fiction books) to the exclusion of many other interesting and worthwhile genres?
----------------------------
Edit : What is especially interesting about this is that when I enter only
I get a book by Sappho(!) and a literal deluge of mostly-feminist literature with only a handful of anti-feminist works -- with the touchpoint that those anti-feminist works are trying to sound and look feminist!I'm not sure how Sappho is directly in opposition to Nagata's work, and it strikes me that anyone who has read both Nagata and Butler would also be familiar with the works of Sappho?
[+] [-] kaetemi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diggan|5 years ago|reply
Been looking for a similar tool but for music. I love Spotify's recommendations for the most part, but sometimes I want to dive out of my music bubble and explore new genres or new anything really. Basically what I'm looking for is a tool that can give me recommendations of the music that is the opposite of what I usually listen to, or something like that. Anyone know of any?
[+] [-] Neputys|5 years ago|reply
P.S. Are you sure this thing isn't pushing people from one echo chamber to another?
[+] [-] mercury_craze|5 years ago|reply
One usability tweak based on how I interacted with it would be to add a 'I already like this' button to suggested books to save me from re-adding them. It also suggested another H.P. Lovecraft novel despite me already marking At the Mountains of Madness as a liked book, I'm pretty sure that if you like one Lovecraft book, you'd like the rest.
The one recommendation I had a strong negative reaction to was by Jeffrey Archer which I guess means that its the book I should read next.
[+] [-] frederikvs|5 years ago|reply
Out of the 90 books I get, 53 either have the word "Dragon" in the title, or a dragon on the cover of the book. Clearly, a majority of the results also fall in the Fantasy genre, so have my doubts this counts as escaping the echo chamber.
On the other hand, there are a lot of books in that list that I have never heard about, and that look interesting (insofar as you can judge a book by its cover). When I'm done with my current series of books, I'll have a good look at this :-)
[+] [-] pc86|5 years ago|reply
One interesting note is that there are several books on the list I absolutely would read, I just didn't know they existed or hadn't sought them out. One of Stephen Hawking's books, some American military books, a few biographies, etc.
[+] [-] austincheney|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonbarker87|5 years ago|reply
Game of thrones, Bernard Corwell books Isaac Asimov
I've read these and I would put them in the same camp as the input books so I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to be doing.
Nice idea but, unless I'm missing something, not the expected behaviour.
I would more have expected "the old man who climbed out the window and disappeared", Clarkson's biography and maybe a Jack Reacher type stuff (which I also enjoy but on the other end of the spectrum from the input books)
[+] [-] TooCreative|5 years ago|reply
https://www.literature-map.com
I found some of my all time favorite authors this way.
[+] [-] onecommentman|5 years ago|reply
Recommending someone from the left to read a book by Solzhenitsyn, or someone from the right to read a book by Maya Angelou is a hefty time commitment with little promise of proportionate intellectual gain for the time invested.
But to have recommendations on good counterpoint short form content (short stories, journal articles, essays) might get someone who is busy with life and career to spend a few minutes. Harder to ultimately monetize, since the business model for the online book market is pretty mature at this point but no one directly directly pays for that single essay. So where are micro transactions?
Anyone who has been in the position where their time was truly valuable instinctively protects their free time from “long form” intrusions. It the book is worthwhile, the essays on the essence of the ideas will be even more valuable (per minute). Most pop books or ideological rants might only need a paragraph. Condensing into short form might lead to the embarrassing disclosure that the emperor has no clothes.
The idea that you have to read a long form text to understand a different perspective sets off alarm bells in my head. I seem to remember that cults would always want prospective recruits to stay at the Center the whole weekend.
[+] [-] e2e4|5 years ago|reply
A related problem is of exploitation vs exploration (being recommended something one likes vs recommended new but with high uncertainty if it will be enjoyable or not)
some of my work on this related topic of active learning in recommender systems:
presentation: https://www2.slideshare.net/nrubens/active-learning-in-recom...
book chapter: http://machinelearning202.pbworks.com/f/Rubens-Active-Learni...
a more basic primer (aimed at startups) https://www2.slideshare.net/nrubens/1-of-40-recommender-syst...
am happy to answer any questions