This morning, I read an article about how a woman's life was changed radically by a single tweet on Twitter. The article ran in the New York Times Magazine.
I had a few thoughts about what is happening. Perhaps her plight is rare - the vast majority of tweets fall into oblivion soon after they are sent and read. But her story brings up some interesting aspects of how we communicate these days.
You may have noticed that what you say in texts and even Email is sometimes misinterpreted by recipients because text does not carry intonation, body language, etc. with it? By narrowing communication down to just one sense (reading), we lose a lot of what we humans have evolved to use to express ourselves. Try this: Look directly into someone's eyes for even a short time, perhaps 10 or 15 whole seconds. Say nothing. What happens? You'll end up feeling a great variety of things, I'll bet!
Well, if Email and texts can get you into trouble, at least these media are intended to be somewhat 'conversational' in that it's easy to reply with questions of clarification. There's no obligation, of course. But it's implied by the media itself: Emails have that nice big 'reply' button sitting there, and texts come in with a nice space to type a reply and keyboard just sitting there on your screen as an open invitation.
Now consider Twitter. Take the limitations of a text-only medium (yes, I know you can attach photos, videos, etc. - but the basic system is text based), then limit it to 140 characters, and then make it a broadcast medium - what you send is seen by many people. Add to that that the 'reply' and 'retweet' buttons are the same size. Sure Email has a 'forward' button, but to forward something to lots of people takes at least some effort; with Twitter, retweeting always means that you are 'forwarding' the original to many people whenever you hit the button, without stopping to consider who they are.
I submit that these factors greatly increase the likelihood that what you originally tweeted can backfire on you and perhaps others: Limited to text. Very short message. Little or no context. Sent to many people who can resend to many others who are total strangers. Does this sound familiar? I'm thinking of a phrase common in the early 1950s, "Nuclear Chain Reaction." If that doesn't bring up an image for you, think of lighting a match out on the beach (it will burn, rapidly at first, with its own oxygen, but it goes out harmlessly, even if you drop it). But if you're standing inside a gasoline fuel storage depot, the result could easily be a violent explosion, followed by a fire that can't be put out until it burns out.
But this story carries with it a lesson in human nature as well as media. I think of the book "Made to Stick" by Chip and Dan Heath. In the very first chapter, the describe why absurd 'urban legends' spread very wide and fast, even though they're completely false. It has to do with stirring some primitive emotions, being a story (not just a factoid), and having a little plausibility thrown in.
There is also a very profound book, "The " by Philip Zimbardo. The Lucifer E ffectsubtitle is "Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" Philip also has some excellent video recordings of his lectures & a TED talk available on the internet. I recommend looking at this Lecture at MIT a few years ago. This is a very long lecture (almost 2 hours), but I have watched the whole thing more than once and I recommend that you do as well. In it, he explains how, "... in the right circumstances, ordinary people can swiftly become amoral monsters. Evil is not so much inherent in individuals, ..., but emerges dependably when a sequence of dehumanizing and stressful circumstances unfolds." I consider Philip's stories and analysis crucial to understanding what's going on in the world today. It is so common to rush to blame each other without considering the context, the environment, the medium, the 'situational aspects' of what may be an horrific event or sequence of events.
I think of this in relation to the story that I mentioned at the start of this post - about the attack of one woman by thousands of strangers via Twitter (and other social media). The question is, why would so many people, who have never met this woman, know little to nothing about her, suddenly do something that essentially ruins her present life - gets her fired from her job, harassed by the main stream media, and fills internet media with other messages that vilify her in the extreme?
Why, indeed. I am not a deeply schooled expert in social psychology, and I cannot begin to enter into a discourse of the fine points. But it seems to me that it behoves us all (or at least as many of us who have the time and opportunity), to avail ourselves of the perspectives and understanding that are already out there, available to everyone by now (a more positive aspect of the internet). This is area of study is what used to be called "mob psychology" but it is way much more than that. It is how we, as intelligent human beings, in a highly evolved society, can still take part in evil acts without even realizing what we are doing, much less how incredibly hurtful it can turn out.
I speak about spreading love throughout the world as one of my main missions in life. Indeed, there are thousands of proverbs spread on Facebook and elsewhere that encourage us all to love each other and love nature and the planet. I wish it were just that simple. But along with those wonderful little sayings and feel-good messages with images of of puppies, kittens, and beautiful sunsets to go with them, I ask you to also understand how and why we humans so often inflict violence, emotional pain, and so on on each other. Why did Doctor Gary Slutkin come up with the idea that violence in urban areas is actually spread just like a disease? How is it that otherwise good, ordinary people can do such harm? What are the circumstances under which they (we) do? And how can we, through our understanding, help immunize ourselves against it?
Think you are a good person? That you'd never do such things? Please! Watch Philip's video or read his book. These are powerful forces, and the vast majority of 'good people' counted in the studies, fell victim to the spell and did horrid things as a result.
I know some of this is hard to watch or read. Sometimes, that's the price to pay for truly doing good in the world, I think. I won't blame you if you just can't find the strength. And if you do, thank you for hanging in there!
I had a few thoughts about what is happening. Perhaps her plight is rare - the vast majority of tweets fall into oblivion soon after they are sent and read. But her story brings up some interesting aspects of how we communicate these days.
You may have noticed that what you say in texts and even Email is sometimes misinterpreted by recipients because text does not carry intonation, body language, etc. with it? By narrowing communication down to just one sense (reading), we lose a lot of what we humans have evolved to use to express ourselves. Try this: Look directly into someone's eyes for even a short time, perhaps 10 or 15 whole seconds. Say nothing. What happens? You'll end up feeling a great variety of things, I'll bet!
Well, if Email and texts can get you into trouble, at least these media are intended to be somewhat 'conversational' in that it's easy to reply with questions of clarification. There's no obligation, of course. But it's implied by the media itself: Emails have that nice big 'reply' button sitting there, and texts come in with a nice space to type a reply and keyboard just sitting there on your screen as an open invitation.
Now consider Twitter. Take the limitations of a text-only medium (yes, I know you can attach photos, videos, etc. - but the basic system is text based), then limit it to 140 characters, and then make it a broadcast medium - what you send is seen by many people. Add to that that the 'reply' and 'retweet' buttons are the same size. Sure Email has a 'forward' button, but to forward something to lots of people takes at least some effort; with Twitter, retweeting always means that you are 'forwarding' the original to many people whenever you hit the button, without stopping to consider who they are.
I submit that these factors greatly increase the likelihood that what you originally tweeted can backfire on you and perhaps others: Limited to text. Very short message. Little or no context. Sent to many people who can resend to many others who are total strangers. Does this sound familiar? I'm thinking of a phrase common in the early 1950s, "Nuclear Chain Reaction." If that doesn't bring up an image for you, think of lighting a match out on the beach (it will burn, rapidly at first, with its own oxygen, but it goes out harmlessly, even if you drop it). But if you're standing inside a gasoline fuel storage depot, the result could easily be a violent explosion, followed by a fire that can't be put out until it burns out.
But this story carries with it a lesson in human nature as well as media. I think of the book "Made to Stick" by Chip and Dan Heath. In the very first chapter, the describe why absurd 'urban legends' spread very wide and fast, even though they're completely false. It has to do with stirring some primitive emotions, being a story (not just a factoid), and having a little plausibility thrown in.
There is also a very profound book, "The " by Philip Zimbardo. The Lucifer E ffectsubtitle is "Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" Philip also has some excellent video recordings of his lectures & a TED talk available on the internet. I recommend looking at this Lecture at MIT a few years ago. This is a very long lecture (almost 2 hours), but I have watched the whole thing more than once and I recommend that you do as well. In it, he explains how, "... in the right circumstances, ordinary people can swiftly become amoral monsters. Evil is not so much inherent in individuals, ..., but emerges dependably when a sequence of dehumanizing and stressful circumstances unfolds." I consider Philip's stories and analysis crucial to understanding what's going on in the world today. It is so common to rush to blame each other without considering the context, the environment, the medium, the 'situational aspects' of what may be an horrific event or sequence of events.
I think of this in relation to the story that I mentioned at the start of this post - about the attack of one woman by thousands of strangers via Twitter (and other social media). The question is, why would so many people, who have never met this woman, know little to nothing about her, suddenly do something that essentially ruins her present life - gets her fired from her job, harassed by the main stream media, and fills internet media with other messages that vilify her in the extreme?
Why, indeed. I am not a deeply schooled expert in social psychology, and I cannot begin to enter into a discourse of the fine points. But it seems to me that it behoves us all (or at least as many of us who have the time and opportunity), to avail ourselves of the perspectives and understanding that are already out there, available to everyone by now (a more positive aspect of the internet). This is area of study is what used to be called "mob psychology" but it is way much more than that. It is how we, as intelligent human beings, in a highly evolved society, can still take part in evil acts without even realizing what we are doing, much less how incredibly hurtful it can turn out.
I speak about spreading love throughout the world as one of my main missions in life. Indeed, there are thousands of proverbs spread on Facebook and elsewhere that encourage us all to love each other and love nature and the planet. I wish it were just that simple. But along with those wonderful little sayings and feel-good messages with images of of puppies, kittens, and beautiful sunsets to go with them, I ask you to also understand how and why we humans so often inflict violence, emotional pain, and so on on each other. Why did Doctor Gary Slutkin come up with the idea that violence in urban areas is actually spread just like a disease? How is it that otherwise good, ordinary people can do such harm? What are the circumstances under which they (we) do? And how can we, through our understanding, help immunize ourselves against it?
Think you are a good person? That you'd never do such things? Please! Watch Philip's video or read his book. These are powerful forces, and the vast majority of 'good people' counted in the studies, fell victim to the spell and did horrid things as a result.
I know some of this is hard to watch or read. Sometimes, that's the price to pay for truly doing good in the world, I think. I won't blame you if you just can't find the strength. And if you do, thank you for hanging in there!