Social media has caused psychic damage to folks. I've witnessed those who used to take an interest in an opposing view change over night. What we find now is essentially a culture of mic dropping. Minds have been rewired such that folks basically blurt out their ugly political views willy nilly and expect a thumbs up or a smilie face or some other emoji reaction. It's a sickness. It is possible that one day, we will collectively awaken to the madness and put some limits on social media usage to fix the problem. But at the moment, most don't see the problem. Instead they are addicted to the tech. Until that changes, I don't see a way out.
Thanks a lot for this. There's some good food for thought here. I want to comment on something in it, because I don't agree with it, but my disagreement, almost acts as a support for it. Quite the double bind.
"Nearly everyone engages solely for the purpose to prove the other wrong." I don't come from that position. If you are wrong, I am happy to point that out, but I am quite able to revise my own thinking if you have pointed ways in which I am wrong. I keep hearing claims that others don't feel this way, but it really is incomprehensible to me. Is there any proof of your claim? And why would it be so?
I'm speaking specifically here of many conversations that happen on social media. People in real life don't engage this way as often. I will point you to a recent specific example: https://x.com/alexandrosM/status/2062671252477903059
This conversation started normally, but at a certain point, Alex simply stops seeking understanding and writes his own version of what he thinks is within my mind and attempts to use that to frame my character as one which ignores moral societal issues having nothing to do with our conversation.
At that point, I simply end the conversation. I've come to recognize when nothing productive will follow based on the other person's state of mind.
A person who seeks understanding, will ask questions for clarification to be sure they understand your perspective. They won't write your perspective for you and then attack words you never spoke.
> And why would it be so?
There isn't one reason, but social media makes this worse. All the incentives are wrong on social media. People are getting paid to be hostile, controversial, and to attract attention. Beyond that, is everyone's natural instinct to protect their identity or pride.
It is one reason I try my best not to attach specific labels to myself, politically or ideologically. I don't consider myself pro-AI or anti-AI. Because once you adopt an identity, your instinct is to defend it, and you can lose objectivity.
Finally, when I say their objective is to prove you wrong, I'm not saying that is their conscious objective. It can simply be the result of attempting to either defend their identity, be consistent with things they have said in the past, or prove their "superior" knowledge to their followers or tribe.
I should probably add and clarify, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with attempting to prove someone wrong, but it becomes conversationally destructive when it becomes the only goal. Attempting to prove someone wrong in good faith intellectual debate is a good thing. But that requires you are equally open to fully understanding what is your opponents true position, and not everyone makes it that far.
So when I state "what we should attempt to prove is that we understand their perspective; then meaningful dialogue can proceed." I'm not saying we cannot attempt to prove the other argument wrong, but make sure we understand what their argument is first.
Thanks for this conversation! I will think about how I've worded it in the article and may update later with hopefully a better version. :-)
FYI, not sure if you've read this one, but here I go much deeper into what I perceive as many of the negative dynamics that shape social media and why it is simply incompatible with normal human communication.
Social media has caused psychic damage to folks. I've witnessed those who used to take an interest in an opposing view change over night. What we find now is essentially a culture of mic dropping. Minds have been rewired such that folks basically blurt out their ugly political views willy nilly and expect a thumbs up or a smilie face or some other emoji reaction. It's a sickness. It is possible that one day, we will collectively awaken to the madness and put some limits on social media usage to fix the problem. But at the moment, most don't see the problem. Instead they are addicted to the tech. Until that changes, I don't see a way out.
These are digital drugs and BigTech is the digital drug cartel.
Thanks a lot for this. There's some good food for thought here. I want to comment on something in it, because I don't agree with it, but my disagreement, almost acts as a support for it. Quite the double bind.
"Nearly everyone engages solely for the purpose to prove the other wrong." I don't come from that position. If you are wrong, I am happy to point that out, but I am quite able to revise my own thinking if you have pointed ways in which I am wrong. I keep hearing claims that others don't feel this way, but it really is incomprehensible to me. Is there any proof of your claim? And why would it be so?
> Is there any proof of your claim?
Look at my X conversations :-) lol
I'm speaking specifically here of many conversations that happen on social media. People in real life don't engage this way as often. I will point you to a recent specific example: https://x.com/alexandrosM/status/2062671252477903059
This conversation started normally, but at a certain point, Alex simply stops seeking understanding and writes his own version of what he thinks is within my mind and attempts to use that to frame my character as one which ignores moral societal issues having nothing to do with our conversation.
At that point, I simply end the conversation. I've come to recognize when nothing productive will follow based on the other person's state of mind.
A person who seeks understanding, will ask questions for clarification to be sure they understand your perspective. They won't write your perspective for you and then attack words you never spoke.
> And why would it be so?
There isn't one reason, but social media makes this worse. All the incentives are wrong on social media. People are getting paid to be hostile, controversial, and to attract attention. Beyond that, is everyone's natural instinct to protect their identity or pride.
It is one reason I try my best not to attach specific labels to myself, politically or ideologically. I don't consider myself pro-AI or anti-AI. Because once you adopt an identity, your instinct is to defend it, and you can lose objectivity.
Finally, when I say their objective is to prove you wrong, I'm not saying that is their conscious objective. It can simply be the result of attempting to either defend their identity, be consistent with things they have said in the past, or prove their "superior" knowledge to their followers or tribe.
I should probably add and clarify, there isn't anything necessarily wrong with attempting to prove someone wrong, but it becomes conversationally destructive when it becomes the only goal. Attempting to prove someone wrong in good faith intellectual debate is a good thing. But that requires you are equally open to fully understanding what is your opponents true position, and not everyone makes it that far.
So when I state "what we should attempt to prove is that we understand their perspective; then meaningful dialogue can proceed." I'm not saying we cannot attempt to prove the other argument wrong, but make sure we understand what their argument is first.
Thanks for this conversation! I will think about how I've worded it in the article and may update later with hopefully a better version. :-)
FYI, not sure if you've read this one, but here I go much deeper into what I perceive as many of the negative dynamics that shape social media and why it is simply incompatible with normal human communication.
https://www.mindprison.cc/p/uniform-thought-machines