Media
Worth Pondering
Like all intelligent men who are not in any way creative, Sir Robert Peel was dangerously sympathetic towards the creations of others. Incapable of formulating a system, he threw himself voraciously on those he came across, and applied them more vigorously than would their inventors.
–Andre Maurois
I don’t know enough about Sir Robert to have an opinion about whether this was a fair assessment of him, but I think it’s a valid and important point in general. “Intelligent but not creative” describes a high percentage of people in academia, ‘nonprofits’, and the media (as long as you don’t set bar for ‘intelligent’ too high, especially in the case of the media)…and I think this has a lot to do with their eager adoption of theoretical frameworks such as critical race theory, cultural Marxism, and various types of gender theorizing…and the special and often weird vocabularies that tend to go with such things.
The need to conform, the desire to promote oneself and to feel superior, and the search for meaning also play a part, of course.
See Lead and Gold, which is why I discovered the Maurois quote in the first place. As LG notes, the voracious-framework-adoption phenomenon is also found in business, though at a somewhat lesser level than in academia, media, and nonprofits, I think, due to the exigencies of competition and the need to deal with reality sufficiently well to actually produce products and services.
See also my post Professors and the Pornography of Power, which cites Jonathan Haidt on what he calls the single-lens approach.
Previous Worth Pondering post.
“Threads”
Meta’s new Twitter competitor is called “Threads”, the name deriving from ‘threads of conversation’. (The use of the term in online discussion systems may owe something to its earlier use in operating system technology)
However, another connotation of the word “threads” seems appropriate for this particular product. Marionettes–puppets–are manipulated via threads (OK, strings if you want) and controlled by a puppeteer. They have no autonomy, they do what the puppeteer wants them to do.
Given that a lot of the support for Threads seems based on its promise of a ‘curated’ environment, this other meaning of the term fits quite well. (See this post for early examples of this curation in practice)
It has becomes more and more clear how much power devolves to those who control the communications environment, and how difficult it is to overcome this advantage. See my related posts:
Society, Social Media, and Human Nature
The Instagram Panopticon, at Quillette, discusses the way in which social media has encouraged people to carefully curate their self-presentations and to judge the self-presentations of others.
I think it is certainly true that new kinds of media can affect how people think, feel, and interact…and this effect is nothing new. Joseph Roth, who lived in Berlin in the 1920s, wrote about the impact of radio:
There are no more secrets in the world. The whispered confessions of a despondent sinner are available to all the curious ears of a community, which thanks to the wireless telephone has become a pack…No one listened any longer to the song of the nightingale and the chirp of conscience. No one followed the voice of reason and each allowed himself to be drowned out by the cry of instinct.
He didn’t like photography very much, either:
There are no more secrets in the world. The whispered confessions of a despondent sinner are available to all the curious ears of a community, which thanks to the wireless telephone has become a pack…No one listened any longer to the song of the nightingale and the chirp of conscience. No one followed the voice of reason and each allowed himself to be drowned out by the cry of instinct.
But the focus on self-presentation and on evaluating the presentations of other goes back much further. Consider, for example Russia’s ‘paper Facebook’ of the 19th century. No computers and no telephones, but, among aristocrats and the well-off, visiting cards were very important…and:
The cards, decorated with vignettes and lettering, were usually piled somewhere in the entrance hall of a rich house – either on a coffee table or tucked behind the mirror; so when a guest was coming, while he waited for the servants to tell the host he’s got a visitor, the guest could assess the popularity and social ties of his host by looking at the cards.
The fashion mongers of the era flaunted each other with a set of business cards from famous and popular people, just as some people now flaunt how many Facebook stars they are friends with!
There were even bot-equivalents to increase one’s count of Likes:
Some people even paid the doormen in rich people’s houses for visiting cards of famous persons – princes, counts, rich businessmen – to tuck these cards behind their mirrors and make their guests believe they are sometimes visited by such ‘posh’ persons.
Going back even further, in one of Fielding’s novels a woman takes great pleasure in going through the visiting cards of people who called on her. Again, similar to like-collecting on Instagram or Facebook, probably exactly the same dopamine hit.
So yes, changes in media do influence human perception and behavior…but we must be careful not to ascribe things to new media which are really human constants.
Back in the Olden Days
…of the Blogosphere: Glenn Reynolds remembers.