Tag Archives: influence

Down the Social Media Rabbit Hole

I made a mistake last night. I was on Twitter and clicked on a video of a guy knocking down a surveillance camera on a street light in Australia. I then scrolled to the next video and went down a right wing rabbit hole. The first video was a voiceover of Tucker Carlson recently ‘dismissed’ from Fox News, and it was essentially trying to make humourous jokes about a transgender host taking over. Next was a Republican semi-automatic gun wearing black man praising the NRA and claiming the democrats are ‘coming for our guns’. Then came a Sean Hannity clip that I didn’t watch. Then came my first Canadian content with a clip bashing Justin Trudeau. And finally I called it quits after watching a geologist bashing climate change… in case you didn’t know, carbon dioxide is ‘plant food, not a pollutant’.

These crazy social media algorithms, and the deep fakes I spoke about a few days ago, are going to absolutely polarize us, paralyze us, and completely undermine us.

Don’t ignore opposing views, measure them. Don’t jump on the bandwagon, figure out if you want to travel the exact same route. Don’t criticize, question. Don’t SHOUT, disengage until cooler heads prevail.

Don’t pretend the algorithms aren’t already influencing you, be savvy and question why posts and videos are algorithmically chosen for you. You are either trying to be digitally literate or you are probably being manipulated and steered towards an extreme view.

Downward Spiral into the mud

My grandfather had a saying, and I’ve shared it often, “Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig likes it.”

The pig has some success no matter what. This is something that I think is playing out with anti-vax and conspiracy arguments… they have some success every time we argue. The reason for this success is that they are operating from a fixed mindset, their minds are made up… but they are often arguing with people who have a growth mindset and are open to some level of persuasion. It’s a guaranteed downward spiral, with some of their fixed and misguided ideas seeping into the consciousness of people who try to factor all things in to their understanding.

An example of this is when the twin towers fell in New York. There were all kinds of conspiracy theories that started with the premise that ‘steel towers can’t crumble like that just because a plane crashed into them’. Spoiler alert, they can. But at the time we had no examples to go by, no science to support the possibility, and so just raising this concern could put doubt into a reasonable person’s mind. Then came the videos. Google something like “twin tower conspiracy video” and you’ll see what I mean. These videos are well crafted and convincing.

If you are someone prone to the idea that there is some cabal that has a master plan to rule the world, the fall of the twin towers easily fits that narrative. However, if you are someone who looks at evidence and makes sound decisions based on the information you have, too much of this convincing misdirection and misinformation could influence your thinking. In other words the spread of well constructed fake news has influence on all parties… meanwhile simple logic and boring facts only work on those with growth mindsets willing to do the research work.

The pig wins the moment you engage you in the fight. They get you dirty. Here is a study done at MIT, ‘Does correcting online falsehoods make matters worse?‘, which looks at how pointing out mistakes doesn’t help the argument:

Not only is misinformation increasing online, but attempting to correct it politely on Twitter can have negative consequences, leading to even less-accurate tweets and more toxicity from the people being corrected, according to a new study co-authored by a group of MIT scholars.

The study was centered around a Twitter field experiment in which a research team offered polite corrections, complete with links to solid evidence, in replies to flagrantly false tweets about politics.

“What we found was not encouraging,” says Mohsen Mosleh, a research affiliate at the MIT Sloan School of Management, lecturer at University of Exeter Business School, and a co-author of a new paper detailing the study’s results. “After a user was corrected … they retweeted news that was significantly lower in quality and higher in partisan slant, and their retweets contained more toxic language.”

And the article goes on to say,

“We might have expected that being corrected would shift one’s attention to accuracy. But instead, it seems that getting publicly corrected by another user shifted people’s attention away from accuracy — perhaps to other social factors such as embarrassment.” The effects were slightly larger when people were being corrected by an account identified with the same political party as them, suggesting that the negative response was not driven by partisan animosity.

Now in this case the ‘evidence’ will often degrade, and so it may not be too convincing, but research like this suggests that the conspiracy or fake news spreader is very unlikely to change their minds given sound evidence against their ideas… but when their false ideas are well crafted and instil doubt, the same can’t be said for thoughtful people who aren’t fixed in their opinions.

Social media engagement is more likely to influence people towards believing aspects of fake news that to promote facts and sound evidence. It’s a downward spiral, and it’s getting us all a little dirty.

Reciprocal influence

After a discussion with my Uncle Joe (Truss) last night on the topic of free will, I’ve reread my posts:

The Bell Curve of Free Will

And:

What does in mean to be conscious?

Joe said a couple interesting things, “Freedom comes with restraints.” And, “We influence the world and the world influences us.”

I speak of restraints on freedom in my bell curve post, but I don’t say this explicitly. I think restrictions to our freedom of choice can be circumstantial, or based on how virtuous we live our lives, or by things like our physical and emotional health. These restraints to our freedom can make us feel like we have less choice.

The simple, yet profound statement that, “We influence the world and the world influences us,” is one that I’m interested in deconstructing. When we react to the environment or situation we are in, we ultimately change that environment or situation. There are many experiments that prove the observer changes the experiment. We don’t live in a vacuum, and our interactions with the world alter that world, which alters our future interactions.

An example I’m thinking of is a crisis situation where the person in charge is calm and thoughtfully responsive vs the same crisis situation with a panicked and frantic leader. The crisis can be well handled or escalated. In both cases the leaders work in feedback loops that can help them deal with the situation at hand appropriately or have the situation become unmanageable. The leader’s actions (or inaction) changes the situation, which in turn influences their next action or reaction.

How often do we get stuck in a feedback loop of reciprocal influences between what we feel we can do next and how the outside world reacts? We move through situation after situation feeling like we lack choice and freedom because the restraints on us limit our responses… which in turn limits what we believe can happen next, and what our next actions can or need to be.

There are times when we do what we need to do, or feel obligated to do, and don’t recognize that we are in a feedback loop that continually limits our choices and decision-making. This can be especially true in work and family situations where past relationships and patterns of interactions influence our likelihood of reacting similarly the next time.

“I better do it this way or Peter will be upset.”

“Amy is going to complain about this no matter how hard I try.”

“My brother won’t want to join us, I won’t bother asking.”

We get into pattern ruts, habitual grooves where we get stuck limiting our own choices and freedom to do things differently.

I realize now that my thinking is less about free will, and more about how our habits dictate our future thinking. Our habits influence our world, our world changes and we react by reinforcing the same habits that can ultimately limit our future choices. In some ways we construct a limited future based on our habits, which emboldens our choice to keep these limiting habits. (You can also replace the word ‘habits’ with ‘addictions’.)

“We influence the world and the world influences us.”

Is this a reciprocal relationship, or is it one where we can choose to have more influence? I think there are countless self-help books written to suggest that we have more influence than we believe we do… we just need to make conscious choices rather than letting our past actions and habits limit our ability to influence the world around us.