Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Argument Analysis Report - Coggle Diagram

- - - - People thought social media only shows us things we already agree with, but the talk says that's not completely true.
        Example: Studies found that online, we see lots of different opinions, not just the ones we already believe.
    - - The talk suggests that in our everyday lives, like with friends and family, we're actually more stuck in our own beliefs.
        Example: It says we're more surrounded by similar ideas in real life than on the internet.
    - - Talks about how our brains evolved to work well with those close to us.
        Example: Back in the day, living near people made us cooperate, even if we didn't agree on everything.
    - - Explains that too many arguments on social media can mess with our brains.
        Example: Social media wants us to get angry because that keeps us online, and it makes extreme opinions seem like everyone on the other side believes the same thing.
    - - Suggests that going back to smaller online groups could help us understand each other better.
        Example: Before, the internet had smaller communities with different rules, which might be better than one big chaotic place.
  - - - Questioning Filter Bubble Idea:
        
        The talk says social media doesn't always trap us in a "filter bubble," showing studies that found we see diverse opinions online.
        Good Point: This challenges the common idea that social media only shows us what we already believe.
      - Real-Life Groups Influence:
        
        It suggests that our everyday interactions, like with friends and family, might have a bigger impact on our beliefs than what we see online.
        Good Point: This makes us think about how the people around us shape our ideas.
      - Brain Evolution Explanation:
        
        The talk talks about how our brains evolved to cooperate with those nearby for survival.
        Good Point: Connecting our brain's evolution to our need to work together in the past makes sense and helps explain why we care about what those close to us think.
      - Social Media Overload:
        
        It points out that too many arguments online can confuse our brains and make us pick sides.
        Good Point: This explains why we might feel more divided when there are too many arguments online.
    - - Making Assumptions About Real-Life Groups:
        
        Sometimes, the talk assumes our real-life groups are less diverse in their ideas.
        Weaknesse:Not everyone in our real-life circles thinks the same way, so this assumption might not be true for everyone.
      - Ignoring Some Filter Bubbles:
        
        While the talk challenges the filter bubble idea, it doesn't consider situations where it might still be true.
        Weaknesses:It's not always as simple as saying filter bubbles don't exist; sometimes they do.
      - Too Simple Explanation of Brain Evolution:
        
        The talk simplifies how our brains evolved and why we care about what others close to us think
        Weaknesse:Evolution is more complicated, and our brains don't just care about what's close; they also adapt to new things.
      - Blaming Social Media for Everything:
        
        It implies social media is the main cause of our disagreements.
        Weaknesse:While social media plays a role, it's not the only reason for our differences; there are other factors too.
- - - - The talk says that the people we know in real life, like friends and family, often have similar opinions. This makes our everyday interactions less diverse than what we see online.
    - - It explains that our brains evolved to get along with those close to us. So, blaming social media for disagreements might not consider how our brains naturally work in smaller groups.
    - - The talk talks about how people in the past lived in small communities. Even if they didn't always agree, being close physically helped them understand each other better.
    - - It suggests that fights and arguments are not just because of social media. There are other big reasons, like money and politics, that also make people disagree
  - - - Real-Life Friends and Family:
        
        It's interesting how the talk says our brains grew to get along with those close to us. This idea helps show that blaming only social media might not be fair.
      - Brains Evolving Together:
        
        Explaining how people in the past lived in small groups helps us see that disagreements are not just because of social media. It's a good way to understand that being close physically can make a difference.
      - Looking at History:
        
        The talk makes a good point about how our real friends and family usually think similarly to us. This helps explain why our everyday interactions play a big role in what we believe.
      - Admitting Things Are Complicated:
        
        The talk says that fights and arguments are not only because of social media but also because of many other big reasons. This shows a good understanding that things are not simple.
    - - Making Social Media Less Important:
        
        While talking about other reasons, the talk could be making social media seem less important than it might actually be. It should be careful not to say social media doesn't matter at all.
      - Assuming Smaller Online Groups Work:
        
        Saying smaller online groups could solve things assumes it will work without giving strong proof. It could be better with more examples or evidence.
      - Thinking Tools Alone Fix Everything:
        
        Saying media literacy tools can solve the problem might be too simple. It assumes that if we understand news better, everything will be okay, which might not be entirely true.
      - Not Looking Deep Into Money Issues:
        
        The talk talks a little about money issues but doesn't explore them much. Understanding more about how money affects disagreements could make the argument stronger.