Further to my interests in psychology, I have been reading & engaging across lots of
social media platforms recently.
It's the effect that social media has on our socio-political views & interactions that interests me particularly, (I do realise that there's more on social media than just that).
Two things have become clear:
1. that there are a lot
of folk out there holding with absolute certainty, hard-line (even extreme), closed-minded ideological views; but
2. who
also think of themselves as being reasonable, open-minded and moderate.
How
they have come to rationalise these juxtapositions I’m not entirely sure but I think
it may have something to do with only paying attention to what people in their own ideological tribe think and say.
Only reading/hearing the same views as you already hold is comforting, but can lead to a belief that there is no other sane/reasonable/acceptable way to look at the world.
You establish a self-regarding, self-congratulatory, bias-confirming ideological monoculture.
The dangers of this are obvious.
On social-media, we seem to build-up little cliques of 'friends'/'followers', and we make sure that anyone who thinks differently on socio-political issues is, one way or another, ejected from the conversation.
This can be by simply ignoring them; rudeness/dismissive responses; individual or mob aggression (trolling); blocking; reporting to the platform authorites; or even, in some cases, writing direct messages telling them that they are no longer welcome because they don't have the right opinions, or simply that they find differing opinions/criticism 'upsetting'.
The combination of conceit & low self-esteem that makes someone hide within a 'safe, same-view' bubble is fascinating, though sad and disheartening for our future.
Conceit because they believe that it is neither necessary nor helpful to hear alternative takes or criticisms of their views. They even believe they have the right to determine what other people can or cannot say to them.
Low self-esteem because anyone who can't handle in a mature way alternative takes or criticisms of their views without claiming to feel 'unsafe', clearly has issues and deserves our compassion.
However, the answer to their low self-esteem is surely to help them raise their self-esteem, not wrap them in cotton wool & force everyone else to walk on egg shells around them.
Anyway, how do these folk square being so certain about how society should be run with the belief that they are reasonable, open-minded & moderate people?
Well, most of us
know some people in our own political 'tribe' with even more hard-line/extreme views than
us; as such, we MUST be moderates mustn’t we?
Well, no.
'Moderate' ideologues are still far from any reasonable centre ground.
The error comes back, I think, to this narrow cocooning belief that your side of the political divide is all you need to take meaningful notice of. You know the other side exists but you ignore it or just shout at it.
So, if on a scale of 1 to 10, you're at 5 or 6, then you're a reasonable moderate.
You forget that there is the same scale on the other side such that you have to be at 1 or 2 on your side to claim 'reasonable moderate' status across the entire political spectrum.
We know that to
effect change in ourselves requires first, the self-awareness to realise that
we are not as ‘reasonable, open-minded & moderate’ as we tell ourselves;
and second, the necessary mixture of humility & self-confidence to
genuinely want to, & then actually do something about it.
Humility because if you think that your IQ or education level or some other life-experience mean that you can't be wrong, and that 'lesser' people should give you servile respect (i.e. just accept what you say as correct), then you are doomed to a very narrow outlook on life (as well as being a very difficult person to interact with unless that interaction involves simply agreeing with you!)
Self-confidence in the sense that you can be calm, objective & open to reasonable points from the other side without feeling in any way threatened. You can even alter your view without feeling a failure.
These character traits are very difficult to find in self-selecting & self-policing social-media cliques.
No wonder, because humility and the self-confidence to be calm and objective are the very opposite character traits to those they so often possess.
Dr Bret Weinstein has another idea about how
we come to rationalise contradictory behaviour.
He says that often, we 'cave-in' to pressure simply because it’s the least hassle option. We fear the backlash from resisting the pressure; from disagreeing; from saying 'no'.
We know we’re wrong to take the easy option & cave-in, and feel ashamed, but we’re too cowardly to admit it, even to ourselves;
Instead, we
rationalise our behaviour and double-down to convince ourselves that our new 'caved-in' position is
in fact, ‘right’.
It’s very psychologically damaging to feel
shame and cowardice, so as a defence mechanism, we rationalise that ‘red is
blue’ or ‘bad is good’, just to let ourselves off that damaging psychological
hook.
The defence mechanism in the human brain is
a marvel. We can convince ourselves that ‘left is right’ or 'up is down' if our cowardice and sense of shame are strong enough.
So, my suggestion for engaging in socio-political dialogue on social media with integrity, is to be humble but brave.
Don't shy away when you disagree. Ask probing questions; make alternative suggestions; say if their sources are clearly biased or if they're merely asserting opinion with no evidence etc.
You'll get called names; you may even get threatened; you'll be called racist; bigotted; misogynist; bully; xxxx-phobe etc.
But these are just cowardly ploys to get you to self-censor.
However, ALWAYS be polite; ALWAYS acknowledge when there is some truth in what they say; and NEVER succumb to the temptation to name call or threaten.
That way, your conscience is clear AND you can look yourself in the eye because you have your integrity intact.
