Posts Tagged ‘media’

“These then are my last words to you. Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help create the fact.” ~ William James

confusionIt’s hard to know what’s true sometimes. In fact, despite increased availability to information and increased connectivity, what’s really true has become evasive and somewhat problematic to define. Our society is filled with all sorts of political and religious leaders who claim to know the truth. We turn to the gauntlet of the Media Industrial Complex, where facts are often bought and sculpted by special interest groups, paid advertisers, and a host of pundits, who—well, opine for a living.

We come out of the gauntlet firmly crystallized in our various camps of ideology. All of these competing, conflicting personal truths are what makes our culture so diverse, so dynamic. But these differences are also deepening the divides in this splintered world. How are we to hone in on significant ideas, beliefs, and experiences when surrounded by a saturation of noise and chaos?

According to a recent must read article from the NY Times, http://nyti.ms/1NTto2q, people tend to cherry-pick their own personal truths in a society that caters to the fashion of designer realities. While I am not immune to this phenomenon, I still strive to seek deeper truths that lead to meaningful action.

Reality BubblesIt’s important to understand that when we brand ourselves with a particular way of life, we are all merely identifying with what resonates with us. The real challenge becomes stepping outside of our own reality bubbles and identifying with others’ realities. This is what it means to live with compassion and empathy; to forgo your comfort in order to share another’s pain; to feel connected to another person’s experience, even if you are ideologically opposed to them; to realize the underlying theme beneath these seemingly alien encounters with another person.

The human experience, while widely varied, has some common themes. Regardless of political or religious ideologies, these human needs are at the core of what drives us as a species and individually. As explained in the book, How to Own the World, by Stephen K. Hayes, these five basic human needs are:

  1. Authority – A sense of being worthy of accessing life’s great abundance; to be in charge of accomplishing our own goals, and to know we set our own boundaries. We want to be important.
  2. Knowledge – Authentic understanding of who we are and what is true about life; to realize what is true, and to attain personal peace through intelligence. We want to be right.
  3. Connection – Kinship with the community and the hearts of others; to express who we really are, and to share respect, admiration, and love with others. We want to be noticed.
  4. Service – A sense of engagement with the adventure process of life; to expand brightness and good over negative energy, and to know we are part of something bigger than self. We want to be needed.
  5. Personal Fulfillment – Experience of enlightened peace that comes with wisdom; a sense of having the space to live up to our dreams and expectations. We want to experience directly and fully the significance of life.

Not everyone would agree with this list (subjective personal truth again), but these ideas, and variations of, are a good launching point for studying human behavior.

In your interactions with others, try to see the motivating behavior behind a person’s words and actions. What human needs are they driven by? What human needs are you driven by? When engaged in conflict, try to see these encounters for what they are in terms of energy transactions. Try to empathize with them, while also driving the types of self-behaviors that will affect a positive outcome.

Perhaps, if we can approach another person with the strength of compassion, we will find ourselves not so negatively affected by their own version of reality, but closer to an understanding of what is really true.

Compassion

Advertisements

two people arguingToo many times I’ve gotten sucked into religious or political debates online. Whether it’s on Facebook when I see someone posting something I disagree with as it enters my news feed, or vice versa.  Or when I’m reading the comments section of a controversial news story. I read the thread as it spirals downward into name-calling territory and personal attacks and further from the topic.

All too often, these types of conversations devolve into vicious sniping sessions of the worst passive-aggressive variety. I’m convinced that none of these issues will ever be settled by means of a social network platform. I’m not trained in the art of debating. I lack a formal education in the schools of philosophy and theology and indeed the scientific disciplines. But that hasn’t stopped me from having a particular reaction to what I see others posting about these topics.

Why? Why do I have this reaction? It seems like an easy question to answer, but it is something I’ve had to devote some time into self-exploration in order to understand this behavior. If I am so secure in what I believe, or if the belief-system I subscribe to is to me unshakeable, then why have I devoted so much time and effort towards trying to get people to see my point of view? I mean, what does it matter to me if religious people are making declarations of faith? I am a non-believer, so why does this affect me? When people post politically-charged internet memes and links that clash with my own, why am I so affected? These people have the right to the same freedom of speech that I enjoy, right? And difference in political views is one of the aspects that make our society diverse and robust, right? So what’s the big deal? Despite the grim satisfaction I got from these interactions, I couldn’t ignore the nagging sensation that something about this felt wrong. And then it hit me.

frenemyInstead of spending my time squabbling with Facebook “friends” over unresolvable issues, the more important issue at hand here, is how to convince people why it’s important to seek quality information. And indeed, how to evaluate information critically in order to make more informed decisions. The lack of factual information I’ve seen come across social media is alarming. This, I’ve decided, has been the cause of my distress over the so-called “hot button issues.” So instead of getting quicksanded into endless debating, I will try to tackle what I see as the causes for much of this disparity: Bad information/Bad communication.

The internet has been a great tool to gather and spread information, but—as they say—with great power comes great responsibility. The internet has provided us with the access to more information, but MORE doesn’t exactly mean BETTER. In fact, I would argue that it’s more difficult to attain quality information, because first, you have to sift through all the crappy information (and there’s a lot of crap). Before the internet, information had to pass through a more rigorous process in order to be broadcast for public consumption. Now, anyone who wants to say something has a platform (even me). And this is great, because the internet has democratized information, but the rigorous, skeptical process of vetting information has fallen by the wayside.

The internet has become a morass of half-baked truths, bad ideas, and dangerous misinformation. But what’s even more dangerous are the lazy attitudes people have adopted towards seeking truth and disseminating quality information. Social media platforms have become breeding grounds for virally destructive ideas. Often, these ideas are spread through memes. Sure, memes can be funny, stinging, poignant, and factual. Anyone can create them. I’ve used them before. They are like greeting cards; a way to share beliefs and sentiments across the social webs. There is nothing inherently wrong with memes. But memes (especially ones revolving around hot-button issues), can also be factually incorrect, misleading, or propagandistic. The problem becomes when people don’t fact check. As I see it, this is a two-fold problem:

  1. It takes nothing to put something out there, regardless if it’s true or not. Most people don’t take the time to consider the source of the information, but simply accept its existence on the internet to mean that it must be true.
  2. Some people would rather accept information they suspect is misleading if it supports their worldview, especially if it’s entertaining or acerbic.

This type of negligence toward quality information spreading is problematic because it takes little effort to spread poor information and nearly anyone can be a carrier. People have less time and less desire to get into the details of an issue. It’s more convenient to simply “share” a meme.

meanmemeAlthough it can be tedious at times, it is more important than ever to seek out good information. It is key to being a well-informed member of society. Here are a few questions to ask when evaluating information:

  • What is the source? Don’t just accept things at face value. Find out who or what is behind a particular bit of information. Just because it appears on the internet or on the cable news, doesn’t mean it’s true.
  • Is the information credible? Reliable information should be testable, verifiable. Too often, people react to information on an emotional level, which can sometimes cloud the facts. Try to remove personal biases. Seek corroborating evidence.
  • What does the opposing view say? It’s a good idea to understand all sides of an issue. This is not only a good practice for gathering information, but practicing empathy as well.
  • What is the context? Is there any additional information that is able to paint a more complete picture of an event or news story? Literal or Symbolic?
  • What is the intent? Is a particular piece of information designed to inform, or sensationalize? Are all the facts presented or are some of them purposefully obscured to mislead?

These are just a few ways to look at incoming information with a critical eye. There are many resources available that go much further into detail about how to examine information. I will list some of these links down below.

teamworkhandsOn a final note, one casualty of these internet information wars has been civil discourse. Lobbing word grenades at each other from the safety of our computer chairs has become the norm. This is a sad practice that gets us nowhere. I’ve been guilty of this at times and have felt the sick satisfaction that comes from “putting someone in their place.” But how can I expect another person to listen to my ideas or respect me, if I’m unwilling to do the same? There needs to be a return to thoughtful, respectful discourse. And the best way to create that environment is to put it to practice myself. It may be tempting to pulverize an easy target, but as a friend of mine once challenged me: Be the bigger person.

Here are some helpful links for improving your critical thinking skills:

Author and professional skeptic Michael Shermer writes about Carl Sagan’s famous ‘Baloney Detection Kit’

Radio host and political commentator David Pakman’s Critical Thinking Miniseries

CH

Image

We Americans are in the midst of a civil war. It is not so much a battle of blood and glory, but of ideology and what is at the core of the American identity. More and more often, I have found my point-of-view attacked by the social network commenting class. Don’t get me wrong–I enjoy a robust discussion of diverse opinions and I am certainly not beyond reproach. However, I have been surprised by the frequency and ferocity of these attacks, especially after posting a rather innocuous opinion, or one that had the purpose of uniting. While my political beliefs might be difficult to pin down, they really aren’t very extreme. I mostly believe in sensibility between people, and I use my social media platforms to express my thoughts on current issues. With all of the outrage generated by my posts, I began questioning my values. Was I really that far off-base, to garner such opposition? Was I simply some nobody who should just shut-up and get out of the way of the real thinkers? But I soon discovered that there was a deeper, underlying issue at play here.

ImageWhat mostly set me apart from my critics, is that I actually took the time to articulate a well-thought-out, researched response. I didn’t just spew out someone else’s talking points or resort to using simple-minded bumper sticker slogans. I respected the intelligence of my opponents by responding thoughtfully and intelligently. But, that was the problem. I assumed their intelligence. What I encountered from my opponents, more often than not, was a complete disregard for facts, an unwillingness to parse specific issues within the greater context, and disinterest towards a deeper engagement over the issues. Mostly, their comments and responses amounted to nothing more than childish blurts.

After encountering this so often, I realized that the blurting didn’t bother me as much as did the spirit behind it. Most of the time, there was a distinctive tone of superiority behind what my critics were saying. It didn’t matter what I said or how well I said it, they responded with an “I know better than you” attitude. They weren’t interested in what I had to say. They were merely outraged at the audacity that I would say anything, let alone post it for the whole world to read. These critics adopted the personae of the Protector, crusading against the spreading of all my dangerous ideas.

Image

Rather than allowing my smarmy critics to take charge of the discussion, I really dug into the issues, presenting a researched opinion. But they consistently failed to answer my points with like-consideration. Instead of a nuanced, intelligent discussion, I was faced with commenters who valued ignorance above open-minded reason. So, after much soul-searching, I concluded that my perspective wasn’t the problem; it was just as unique and valid as the next. The problem really lied within the mindset of the ignorant individual.

This person doesn’t take the time to research or formulate his/her own original thoughts on a subject. He/she accepts half-truths as long as it aligns with his/her world view. There is no room for debate. No room for the finer nuances that might challenge their black and white view of reality. This embracing of filtered reality, of fiction-over-fact has led to a type of American Schizophrenia, one with many competing and often contradictory voices. I have outlined a few recurring themes that keep coming up in my social media circles.

Here are my observations:

mad_max A tribe called America. There is a very vocal contingent of right-wing extremists calling themselves “Tea Party,” who are actually anarchists. The most extreme of this group aren’t calling for less federal regulations, they’re calling for no regulations. In this nightmare scenario, our society would regress into neo-tribal, secessionist territories with questionable or no food, environmental, educational, transportation, or public safety standards. Strangely, these people are at ease with violent upheaval. They (in their disgruntled anguish) are quick to forget that you usually trade one set of problems for another. Mad Max, here we come!

  • Today is opposite day! As Americans, we have learned to accept the complete antonymical identification with the terms “Liberal and Conservative.” In other words, people call themselves one thing and act or speak on behalf of the opposite. Look up the origins of the words, liberal and conservative. Do these definitions really match the values of their respective parties? Why is environmental conservation usually associated with being a liberal value? Why are Liberals so quick to restrict the liberties of others by use of more government regulation? Black is white and white is black. Orwell had a term for this: doublespeak.

Image

  • Might is right. Most Americans use the terms “democracy and republic” interchangeably. If only we lived in a true republic! But alas, the tide has shifted towards a populist democracy. The problem with this, is that when you have a growing population, the opinions grow ever more diverse as well. It becomes impossible to accommodate all persuasions. With media influence becoming ever more democratized, truth and facts become diluted with half-truths and outright lies. If you don’t have a well-informed public, bad ideas can spread like a virus, leading to fractured factions of mobs who cling onto falsities and misnomers. People think they’re right because they’re mightier. Power perceived translates into real power. Instead of a relatively stable Union, we become captive to the populist political movement du jour.
  • Behold the martyrs! There is a false perception among popular groups that they are in the minority or are being persecuted. Two examples are Evangelical Christianity and what I call the “gun-hugging community.” Both groups are highly popular in America, and indeed dominate the landscape of religious and political influence here. But both groups continue to perpetuate the belief that they are being persecuted. Gun-huggers spread unfounded conspiracy theories by claiming that Liberals, or Obama, or Peaceniks, or shadowy elements within our government, or some other mysterious force is trying to take away their guns. Ok, maybe there is a tiny, outspoken group within the U.S. that would go as far as to abolish ALL guns. But they are demonstrably fringe and non-influential. In fact, despite higher rates of gun violence, guns have become even more popular. It’s like the high school football team saying that the small group of nerds somehow kept them from playing football. It just ain’t so. The same goes for Christianity in America. Christians claim they are being persecuted, all while enjoying tax-exempt status, political power, and absolute constitutional freedom to practice and spread. Christianity is the most popular religion. Period.

Image

  • The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. The internet is full of “yacktavists” opining from their ivory towers, spewing out one set of standards for the rest of the world, while holding themselves to a different set of standards. If you’re for smaller government, but unwilling to cut defense spending, then you might just have a double-standard. If you complain about your lack of freedom of speech by ranting on YouTube, you might have a slight disconnect with reality. If you’re sick of this bad economy, but refuse to identify with those less-fortunate, who really have been negatively impacted by the economy, you might be a bit out of touch with the suffering of others. I mean, it’s not like you lost your house, or second vehicle, or even your internet connection.  C’mon! If you’re going to make these grandiose proclamations, loud political rants, scathing social commentary from the safety of your home computer screen, at least follow your own rules. This is passive-aggressive hypocrisy at its worst. Fellow citizens be damned!

These are just a few symptoms of the greater disorder that is American Schizophrenia. Most of these points illustrate how divided we are as a nation, politically and philosophically. However, I don’t think that people realize that these differences are mostly cosmetic. I think that deep down, we agree on the most important issues: reduced suffering for all, personal freedom (as long as it harms no one), a greater understanding of the world, etc. If you actually go out and meet more diverse people, the level of fear and xenophobia goes down. You realize that the angry blogger from next door might actually be a decent person when you strip away the self-righteous posturing. It’s good to remain humble because you haven’t walked in another person’s shoes, and you never know when you might need a hand up. Even when help might come from someone you disagree with.

Image