Remember that time the Internet lost its mind? It might have
been about holiday cups at Starbucks, a satirical racial joke by Stephen
Colbert, a lion or monkey being killed, some actor saying something offensive
or a journalist asking a politically incorrect question. While each issue has its own degree of
legitimacy (large or small), the tidal wave of outrage it triggers represents
the destructive potential of social media.
The smallest perceived offense can ignite the Internet’s fury.
On the flipside, remember when we had a presidential race
that featured candidates with such loose relationships to reality that people
simply stopped being outraged. Like the proverbial frog that let the water
heat to boiling around him, so too have many people come to expect, or worst
accept, this toxic political environment.
The deluge of unreality has blunted our ability to react
appropriately.
Both of these examples of outrage and apathy demonstrate the
importance of social media as a tool for social conversation. In my last post, I discussed how social media
can help us as a society decide what is right and what is true. Knowing this will help us deal with outrage
and apathy appropriately. Yet these
examples also demonstrate that social media can be destructive and actually
push us further apart.
To turn social media into a constructive force, we need
guidelines to harness its power. Here I
will discuss the 4 rules of using #SocialMediaForSocialGood.
The 4 Rules
These rules are taken from Daniel Dennett’s book Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking
in which he relays debate rules that he received in conversation with the
accomplished mathematician and game theorist, Anatol Rapoport.
1.
You
should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and
fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that
way.”
2.
You
should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general
or widespread agreement).
3.
You
should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4.
Only
then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Let me take each of these one at a time.
You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly,
vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of
putting it that way.
This one is key on social media. The vast majority of Facebook arguments I
have either seen or participated in became contentious because people were
arguing against things their opponent was not saying. The format of social media lends itself to
miscommunication because it is so constrained.
You have 144 characters on Twitter or clunky comment boxes on Facebook
to express yourself. You need to focus
on the specific point the person is making and not argue against a conclusion
you think they will make three logical steps down the line.
Suppose I post something negative about Trump like “whenever
Trump talks, he lies a lot”. My
conservative friends will immediately respond with how terrible Hilary is. The conversation is already off to a bad
start because I didn’t say anything about Hilary, they just assumed a
conclusion that wasn’t made. Re-expressing the argument helps to narrow the
scope of the conversation to a manageable topic over social media: “I think
your point is that Trump says things that are untrue, for example during his
political speeches, well if you look at the context…” and so on. Now we are on
the same page and won’t be talking past each other.
One last note, this rule also implies that the original
poster is the person setting the scope of the debate. If Trump’s lying makes you want to say
something about Hilary’s emails, then either take the time to logically connect
the original point to the emails, which will probably take multiple
back-and-forth posts, or post a new topic yourself. The conversation will be
pointless if we continually talk past each other or bury each other in an
avalanche of disconnected opinions.
You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not
matters of general or widespread agreement).
This is an important point for both participants in the
conversation. It serves to close the
ideological gap by allowing all parties to realize what they have in
common. This also helps to further
narrow the scope of the debate so you both know what is already considered true
in this particular conversation. It also
has a nice psychological benefit of lowering the oppositional barriers the
participants might be feeling that are inherent in disagreements. Keeping with our Trump lying example, you as
a Trump supporter may say something like “I agree that many of his comments are
untrue at face value, for instance there is no way Mexico will pay for the
wall. But he says these things to make a
larger point about immigration policy….” and so on. Now we both know our common ground and where
the disagreement begins.
You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
The point of the discussion is to get closer to what is
right or what is true, so hopefully you are learning something along the
way. You have not somehow “lost” the
discussion by learning from your opponent.
This is actually evidence of the back-and-forth process at work and
should be encouragement for further discussion! Like the second point, this also
has psychological benefit because it breaks down the divide between
participants and reframes the experience more as two humans trying to decide what
is right or what is true together rather than as a competition between two
opponents.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or
criticism.
Now we both understand what the argument is about, where we
are beginning from, and what the benefit of the conversation has been. So now, its time to tussle!
Let me make a few concluding observations:
·
These steps do not necessarily have to happen in
order or with every reply or post that is made.
Some of them can happen a few times throughout a conversation or
sometimes you can just check them yourself mentally. The point is that these guidelines should
provide structure for how you approach discussing sensitive topics with another
human; how you actually employ them is up to you.
·
During political discussions, we are ultimately
arguing about what is right and what is true (see the last post). We shouldn’t be trying to “win” or “defeat”
an opponent. It also helps to assume good motives in others, for instance that
they too want to better understand what is right and what is true
·
However at times it becomes clear that some
people have bad motivations, such as trying to belittle your point. I would argue that it’s not worth engaging
these people because it will quickly degenerate into a rhetorical
competition. The only level in which you
could engage them is to argue that what is right and what is true should be the
purposes of their arguments.
·
Emotions play a big role and need to be observed
mindfully throughout a discussion.
Sometimes its just better to sit on that message overnight before
pressing send.
·
Be responsible, don’t drink and tweet.
So there you have it, my (actually Daniel Dennett’s)
proposed rules for debating politics and other sensitive topics on social media. With these rules, we can overcome the cycles
of clickbait outrage and sensational apathy and instead learn to thoughtfully
use #SocialMediaForSocialGood.
