They’re people too, just like you
You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with.
A quote famously attributed to Jim Rohn, who passed away in 2009. If he made this statement today, it might sound more like:
You are the average of the social network you spend the most time with.
This is not to say that it’s no longer about the five closest friends. Rather, in this modern decade, we now have the luxury of indulging ourselves with a larger crowd which I would argue is reducing diversity of our views.
On USA Today’s Facebook Candidate Barometer to track conversation about the 2016 presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton had 247M likes/shares/comments/mentions, while Donald Trump had 250M. Did your crowd have approximately equal likes and mentions of both candidates on your social network feed? Mine didn’t.
And why not? where do all the other side’s likes/comments/shares/mentions exist? Do we all now live in a delusional Black Mirror-esque echo chamber such that we’re so easily caught off guard when realizing an opposing viewpoint has become equally if not more popular than ours?
Maybe it’s because of location. Or social status. Or race. Regardless of these factors contributing to our network’s ideological tilt, it’s largely because we ourselves have carefully crafted a “Like” dispensing lifestyle that filters out any chance of disagreement. When was the last time you had a heated political argument with a stranger and subsequently added them on Facebook? Or kept a friend around just so they could disagree with you on your ideals?
We strive to keep the ideological average of our social circles within such a small standard deviation that any outlier is essentially discarded from our social set.
A recent Pew Research Study noted that conservatives “are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.” While liberals “are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or ‘defriend’ someone on a social network — as well as to end a personal friendship — because of politics.”
In essence, we’ve created an environment so toxic where fear of betraying your “allies” silences any whisper of opposition. Where mob mentality and peer pressure force a silent majority to (surprise!) actually being silent. Where political opinions become so “in vogue” with heavy support from celebrities, that people become too shy to admit they support the contrarian option (also known as a “Bradley Effect”).
But this doesn’t just apply to politics, this is a much larger general issue of social polarization. A Facebook Study noted that users consume and interact with disagreeable content significantly less. Not a surprise. In essence, we are selectively defining our truths with only agreeable content, and then using these building blocks to create higher and higher walls against “the others”. If we don’t like an opposing opinion or thought, we simply ignore, dismiss, or attack it behind our great social walls. Change the channel, “unfollow”, “see fewer posts like this”, “unfriend”, “wow ur dumb as fuk”/“lol ya he’s dumb”.
Furthermore, not only is it easy to shut out traces of opposing viewpoints but it is just as effortless to mount attacks behind the Internet’s humanity-detaching veil. There’s little constructive discourse and instead a prevalence of blame and insults.
Sharing links that mock a caricature of the Other Side isn’t signaling that we’re somehow more informed. It signals that we’d rather be smug assholes than consider alternative views. It signals that we’d much rather show our friends that we’re like them, than try to understand those who are not. - Sean Blanda, The Other Side is not dumb
It’s much easier to be “right” when the Other Side is no longer human. Rather, the Other Side becomes handpicked straw man representations in articles and social-media statuses where there is no chance to defend their opinion. Content like this simply becomes a catalyst to self-reinforcing social narcissism. How many piñatas do we have to string up before we’re content with the amount of the likes and gold stars they drop?
It’s much easier to be “right” when you make an ad hominem attack towards the Other Side, and therefore their entire platform and arguments are wrong. These criticisms do little to discredit opposing arguments and simply end up making the debate personal and rather emotional. We should strive to separate the person from their beliefs or there will never be dialogue. “You’re all racist ignorant assholes!” / “Oh wait a sec, you’re right! Sorry we totally agree with you now” said no one ever.
It’s much easier to avoid conflict, claim I-know-you-don’t self-righteousness, and engage in non-constructive insults, than it is to face an opposing viewpoint and patiently try to understand that perspective. It’s tough to internalize sometimes that the other side is, just like you, a real human being with opinions and values. Likely with opinions just as valid as yours. Perhaps sometimes with opinions more valid than yours. There’s maturity and grace in being able to accept viewpoints of another.
What is “right” depends on your own reality, and your own reality depends on your perspective. It’s likely that your social network is an accurate reflection of the lens upon which you perceive the world, but just like your network, there are many others with different ideological views. We must understand that an opposing ideological view is thus not an isolated opinions but also the average result of its respective social network. It would be extremely ignorant to believe that the conclusions drawn by you and your friends are the best ones for everyone else. And even more so to conclude that anyone who opposes your ideological catechism is deplorable and fundamentally evil. To anchor your ideologies as social truth is to eliminate not only any validity of opposing arguments but any humanity in their perspectives.
All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Thus, I implore you to make an effort to understand. Challenge yourself: can you switch roles and defend the other side? Justify why the opposition feels the way they do and be able to argue for it? You’re allowed to still believe your perspectives are more “right”, but if you can’t make a case for the opposing party you will never begin to be truly empathetic — maybe at best, sympathetic, or worse, patronizing.
Open up yourself to opposing ideologies. Don’t lecture; listen. Until we can do that, we won’t be able to move together; merely past one another.
Our world is made up of different people with different stories, lifestyles, values, and needs. We can, from our ivory towers, proclaim what we envision to be the best course of action. Unfortunately there’s rarely ever a one-size-fits-all policy. Everyone has just a simple singular desire: to hope to have that size fit them a little better.
