Psych Blog #4
Last week I had posted an article on Facebook in my “Psychology
of Social Media” group page that talked about how social media and news could
warp people’s memories. There was a specific focus on false information that
was spread through social media among friends. I will repeat a portion of my
post to lay a framework for further elaboration on the article: “The article
detailed a phenomenon known as memory convergence. In short, this is the
process by which a group of people come to agree on what happened. Social media
allows for people to share ideas that are often reinforced by people with a
similar viewpoint. The danger in this is that false information can quickly
become circulated in these groups at large and distort the memories that people
have of these events. This idea ties into the phenomenon of group think, which
can be dangerous in regards to false information being accepted and stored into
memories as vetted facts.”
People’s thought processes and memories of events can
be manipulated when inaccurate information is supported by a large mass of
people. This is reminiscent of Asch’s famous conformity experiments conducted
in the 1950s. The tests showed that people will often conform to the majority’s
consensus, even if they, individually, may think it’s wrong. The same principle
still applies to users on social media today regarding shared information and
news. What complicates matters even worse is when users have immersed
themselves in only like-minded individuals (via control of the Friend’s list on
Facebook). This behavior often leads to people fading out of the individual mindset
and into the large body of group-consensus and shared ideas.
I frequently see people on social media post something
involving a strongly held idea or opinion on a controversial subject that
follows with the phrase “this should clear out my friends list.” How
detrimental is it to isolate ourselves from differing viewpoints so that we can
comfortably put on the blinders to allow for tunnel vision into our own ideas? The
construction of an echo-chamber of ideas that posts like these catalyze is
destructive to the framework of sound reasoning and critical thinking. Surrounding
oneself with staunch supporters doesn’t allow you to hear or consider the voice
of opposing ideas. I believe that this is unhealthy and, in the absence of opposition,
can lead to the acceptance of more radical ideas.
As an addendum:
In class this week we discussed some of the
differences between traditional media (newspapers, TV reporting agencies,
Radio, etc...) and social media. Traditional media is generally a one-way communication
system whereby users listen to the information, but have no way of responding.
Social media, however, is a two-way communication system that allows the
audience to reply and interact with the newscaster. Also, traditional media
often takes longer to deliver information to the public due to its more
stringent publishing and editing process. Social media is free from these
restraints which allows it to deliver news to its audience nearly immediately.
But what price do we pay for this immediacy? Accuracy. Accuracy is often forfeited
in the race to be first. It takes time to thoroughly review and vet information
for factual value, a process that social media doesn’t have time for. Are we
willing to accept this sacrifice to quench our demand for speed of delivery?
Comments
Post a Comment