18 April 2022

Are We Witnessing A Metaphorical Babel?

A thoughtful piece at The Atlantic makes the case the social media had fragmented society and made it stupider in the last ten years. 

I remain convinced that the foundations of this phenomena are mostly economic, but it is hard to disagree that this technology has played an important part in fragmenting American culture and politics. It probably underestimates tools like cable TV, talk radio, and media streaming that also facilitate the fragmentation of culture. And, it fails to recognize that the rise of stupidity has not been equal on both sides of the political spectrum. But social media has played an important role.

As is common, the diagnosis of the problem is more insightful than the proposed solutions.

The story of Babel is the best metaphor I have found for what happened to America in the 2010s, and for the fractured country we now inhabit. Something went terribly wrong, very suddenly. We are disoriented, unable to speak the same language or recognize the same truth. We are cut off from one another and from the past.

It’s been clear for quite a while now that red America and blue America are becoming like two different countries claiming the same territory, with two different versions of the Constitution, economics, and American history. But Babel is not a story about tribalism; it’s a story about the fragmentation of everything. It’s about the shattering of all that had seemed solid, the scattering of people who had been a community. It’s a metaphor for what is happening not only between red and blue, but within the left and within the right, as well as within universities, companies, professional associations, museums, and even families. . . .

Robert Wright explained in his 1999 book, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. . . . that history involves a series of transitions, driven by rising population density plus new technologies (writing, roads, the printing press) that created new possibilities for mutually beneficial trade and learning. Zero-sum conflicts—such as the wars of religion that arose as the printing press spread heretical ideas across Europe—were better thought of as temporary setbacks, and sometimes even integral to progress. (Those wars of religion, he argued, made possible the transition to modern nation-states with better-informed citizens.) . . .

historically, civilizations have relied on shared blood, gods, and enemies to counteract the tendency to split apart as they grow. But what is it that holds together large and diverse secular democracies such as the United States and India, or, for that matter, modern Britain and France? . . . Social scientists have identified at least three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: social capital (extensive social networks with high levels of trust), strong institutions, and shared stories. Social media has weakened all three. To see how, we must understand how social media changed over time—and especially in the several years following 2009.

In their early incarnations, platforms such as Myspace and Facebook were relatively harmless. . . . Once social-media platforms had trained users to spend more time performing and less time connecting, the stage was set for the major transformation, which began in 2009: the intensification of viral dynamics. . . . Shortly after its “Like” button began to produce data about what best “engaged” its users, Facebook developed algorithms to bring each user the content most likely to generate a “like” or some other interaction, eventually including the “share” as well. Later research showed that posts that trigger emotions––especially anger at out-groups––are the most likely to be shared. . . .

It’s not just the waste of time and scarce attention that matters; it’s the continual chipping-away of trust. An autocracy can deploy propaganda or use fear to motivate the behaviors it desires, but a democracy depends on widely internalized acceptance of the legitimacy of rules, norms, and institutions. Blind and irrevocable trust in any particular individual or organization is never warranted. But when citizens lose trust in elected leaders, health authorities, the courts, the police, universities, and the integrity of elections, then every decision becomes contested; every election becomes a life-and-death struggle to save the country from the other side. The most recent Edelman Trust Barometer (an international measure of citizens’ trust in government, business, media, and nongovernmental organizations) showed stable and competent autocracies (China and the United Arab Emirates) at the top of the list, while contentious democracies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, and South Korea scored near the bottom (albeit above Russia).

Recent academic studies suggest that social media is indeed corrosive to trust in governments, news media, and people and institutions in general. A working paper that offers the most comprehensive review of the research, led by the social scientists Philipp Lorenz-Spreen and Lisa Oswald, concludes that “the large majority of reported associations between digital media use and trust appear to be detrimental for democracy.” The literature is complex—some studies show benefits, particularly in less developed democracies—but the review found that, on balance, social media amplifies political polarization; foments populism, especially right-wing populism; and is associated with the spread of misinformation. . . .

I think we can date the fall of the tower to the years between 2011 (Gurri’s focal year of “nihilistic” protests) and 2015, a year marked by the “great awokening” on the left and the ascendancy of Donald Trump on the right. Trump did not destroy the tower; he merely exploited its fall. He was the first politician to master the new dynamics of the post-Babel era, in which outrage is the key to virality, stage performance crushes competence, Twitter can overpower all the newspapers in the country, and stories cannot be shared (or at least trusted) across more than a few adjacent fragments—so truth cannot achieve widespread adherence. . . .

since the tower fell, debates of all kinds have grown more and more confused. The most pervasive obstacle to good thinking is confirmation bias, which refers to the human tendency to search only for evidence that confirms our preferred beliefs. Even before the advent of social media, search engines were supercharging confirmation bias, making it far easier for people to find evidence for absurd beliefs and conspiracy theories, such as that the Earth is flat and that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks. But social media made things much worse. . . .

What changes are needed? Redesigning democracy for the digital age is far beyond my abilities, but I can suggest three categories of reforms––three goals that must be achieved if democracy is to remain viable in the post-Babel era. We must harden democratic institutions so that they can withstand chronic anger and mistrust, reform social media so that it becomes less socially corrosive, and better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age.

From The Atlantic.

5 comments:

Morris said...

Maybe simpler explanation is that human nature has not changed but conditions with respect to ease of communication and personal risk have. Things that are (cravenly) said in anonymous posts are not said on Walmart parking lots face to face. Who had time or opportunity to proselytize before mass media of the digital age? How many would listen? Who blows up the disagreements to their own advantage? Academics and news media for relatively small beer. Historically those who wanted to change the world were missionaries but that has become stale. Social media is a tool not a prime cause?

Guy said...

It is hard to see this without the fear that that it will eventually lead to violence. And a civil war with info weapons, nukes and bio weapons is not apt to be particularly pleasant, even for the winners. I believe that social media needs to be tamed as a matter of survival for western democracy. How all that works... well, it's complex.

andrew said...

@Morris

Perhaps we need cultural "missionaries".

@Guy

With slavery no longer present to create the moral imperative that it did in 1861, perhaps a peaceful division of the United States into one or more parts wouldn't be the worst idea, although that isn't a great solution either since the big divide is, at least, to a significant extent, an urban-rural divide, stranding many rural people in urban dominated culturally left places and many urban people in rural dominated culturally right places.

andrew said...

Maybe Social Media is getting too much blame:

"Do online platforms facilitate the consumption of potentially harmful content? Despite widespread concerns that YouTube’s algorithms send people down “rabbit holes” with recommendations to extremist videos, little systematic evidence exists to support this conjecture. Using paired behavioral and survey data provided by participants recruited from a representative sample (n=1,181), we show that ***exposure to alternative and extremist channel videos on YouTube is heavily concentrated among a small group of people with high prior levels of gender and racial resentment. These viewers typically subscribe to these channels (causing YouTube to recommend their videos more often) and often follow external links to them.*** Contrary to the “rabbit holes” narrative, non-subscribers are rarely recommended videos from alternative and extremist channels and seldom follow such recommendations when offered."

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/04/what-drives-people-to-extremist-youtube-videos.html

andrew said...

see also another criticism of this article:

https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/according-to-jonathan-haidt-the-fault?s=w