I recently started my own social media journey. In 2024, I am a little late to the game. I have had some accounts in the past, but honestly found little utility in them. Coming in at this phase, I am overwhelmed, oversensitive, and quite frankly, disappointed. We all hear what social media is doing to the youth and the negative side effects that it has on our personal psychology, and being in the control group for so long, I agree with them. While these are tragic on a personal level, I think there is a bigger problem that lurks behind the scenes.
The Abilene Paradox
The Abilene Paradox was coined by management expert, Jerry B. Harvey, and describes effect that the perceived preferences of others affect our decision making. Specifically, we make choices based on what we think others in the group would approve of, even if it isn’t our preference or even the best decision. This phenomenon is also sometimes called “groupthink.”
Side effects of such behavior in a group include a harsh reduction in dissenting opinions, poorer decision making, and overall, more negative outcomes. As it trickles down to the individual, you can see a sharp decline in critical thinking skills, more subordination, and higher levels of cognitive dissonance.
Social media has become masterful at reproducing this paradox. With divisive opinions on nearly any subject you come across, your algorithm is bound to try to land you in one distinct side. Worse, it doesn’t actually care which side as long as it isn’t in the middle, because then it gets harder to feed you targeted content. It is important to note that any topic being fought over is complex and painting things as black and white (or red and blue) is not accurate or helpful to navigate nor solve the issues at hand. Both sides of an argument hold some level of validity and may not even be worth the fuss over it in the grand scheme of things.
Anger is much more of a capturable emotion than indifference. If you want views and engagement, throw some controversy in there. If you want to be shouted down and ignored by everyone, try breaking up a fight and introducing some diplomacy. This is what our media sources have all fallen into by adopting this social model and it is lowering the cognitive function of society as a whole.
Who Are You Fighting Anyway?
There is no shortage of proof and examples of bots, AI, and scammers in the comment section of any post with reach. So, who do you think you are addressing? What is the aim of your public input on this topic? Optimistic as I may be, I don’t think the bots and scammers care too much about your support or disapproval. They are more geared towards influencing yours. The actual people will already be on your side or the other’s. People aren’t converted to anything in the comments section.
I actually feel most people are fighting themselves and their own cognitive dissonance when jumping into arguments. They want validation that their held opinion is correct. Being on the winning team feels good, but when there isn’t a score, both sides get a participation trophy for who causes the most senseless harm. If you are hurting, don’t ask for more negativity. If you are feeling emboldened, uplift others. Being kind and helpful is proven to be quite beneficial to your own health, so why not treat yourself and just be kind.
Gain Back Some Control
Now, I have an abundance of faith that the majority of the population is well meaning and generally considerate. It is when in groups they lose their civility. I like to say, “people are smart, groups of people are stupid” and it is attributed to our kind nature in practice, producing groupthink results.
While not engaging in the public opinion sphere is the choice of the most sane among us, it is not most people’s preference at this stage. Rather than proposing we all cut gauging public opinion out entirely, I challenge you to engage thoughtfully. Try to have a well-meaning, but dissenting opinion of at least one topic a day. If something angers or aggravates you based on right and wrong assessment, devote a few minutes to it and try to think about it critically. Try, just for a minute, to assume that the other side of an argument has some reason they think or feel that way and it is from a good place. See how that idea can live in harmony with your belief system. If you try and can’t, be honest with yourself about how much this actually impacts you and if there is anything you can do to make changes in a positive way. Posting an insult or negative comment won’t achieve either. You only make yourself complicit in further divisiveness. The beauty of this is, you can do this in your own head, try out new ideas like clothes in a dressing room. If they don’t fit, simply don’t buy and brandish them. No one has to be there with you to watch you try things on.
If you must comment, speak to the author, not the idea. If that author is saying something you agree with, commend them and they will keep it up and use their platform to do so. If you have dissenting opinions based on a data source, politely point that out without criticizing. I assure you some logic and proof will get some attention to the point you are making and the biggest ‘gotcha’ you could achieve is a revision. Ask yourself first though the true audience and benefit of your words and think critically. Lastly, consider your own credibility. Your online presence will never be erased.
There is a time and place for passionate discussions, but there are also rules of engagement that should be adhered to. Be the change that you want to see in the world. You make the world a better place by starting in your own little corner of it. Maybe it’s best to adhere to Miss Manner’s rules of topics not for polite conversation: sex, religion, and politics. At least, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” If Miss Manners was still writing today, “Stay out of the comments section” would be right up there with the golden rule.