Hmm… There was a comic about women and serial killers that got me started thinking about this but…
Do you think both genders are being sold on extremes of the other that might be skewing our ability to interact rationally?
Like women being sold extremes of men abusiveness and cults and rapists and men on stingy or “slutty” women. And now both genders are spending less time with each other and more with internalized extreme versions of each other?
It’s like maybe a symptom of a lack of social spaces or maybe just leads to less of them as people only feel comfortable in closed groups. I’m thinking we are all being taken for a ride.
Or people are way worse than I can consider.
Okay so hear me out. I have this pet theory that might explain some of the divide between genders, but also political parties, causing paralysis which ultimately might lead to humanity’s extinction. Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious.
I’m going to set up two axioms to arrive at an extrapolated conclusion.
One: Human psychology tends to ascribe more weight to negative things than positive things in the short term. In the long term this generally balances out, but in the short term it’s more prudent in a biological sense to pay attention to the rustling in the bushes than the berries you might pick from them. This is known as the negativity bias.
Two: The modern gatekeepers of social interaction, Big Tech, employ blind algorithms that attempt to steer your attention towards spending more time on their platforms. These companies are the arbiters of the content we experience daily and what you do and don’t see is mostly at their discretion. The techniques they employ, in simple terms, are designed to provoke what they call ‘engagement’. They do this because at the end of the day FAANG have not only a financial interest, but a fiduciary duty to sell advertisements at the behest of their shareholders. The more they can engage you, the more ads they can sell. They employ live A-B testing, divide people into cohorts and poke and prod them with psychological techniques to try and glue your eyeballs to their ads.
Extrapolated conclusion:
These companies have a financial and legally binding interest to divide the population against itself, obstructing politics and social interaction to the point where we might not be able to achieve any of the goals that we need to reach to prevent oblivion.
I absolutely agree and would only like to add that humans also have a Confirmation bias that is of course reinforced by engagement algorithms as well. So not only do we tend to only see the negative but also predominantly the negative that reinforces our worldview. Best example is the fact that many people are convinced crime rates are going up all the time while they are actually going down world-wide for decades already.
There’s a whole documentary about exactly this, called The Social Dilema (2020). The film is a bit over-the-top and hyperbolic, but I get that they’re competing with shows that are mostly CGI explosions and have to spice things up. Anyway, it goes into details, using sources from the industry, and it’s worth a watch. At the very least you’ll feel vindicated about your thesis.
In this sort of place we are also pretty good at selecting and promoting the best performing offensive material against the other side on whatever axis sides are drawn — cats vs dogs; cars vs bicycles; religion vs religion vs no religion
Not really the best against the other side - the best for their side to feel would offend the other side
Further thought - I was taught to not follow news because news isn’t about what’s important, it’s about what keeps you watching or gets you to buy the newspaper. This problem has always existed since we first had information tied to money
Exactly. Allowing (edit: promoting, even!) that kind of content is in the interest of businesses that need your attention. Fear, anger and outrage drive engagement like nothing else.
BINGO. You nailed it. This is absolutely how it works. It’s not even a “conspiracy” in the traditional sense, evil tends to naturally become “industry standard” in a “highly competitive market.”
Also I’d like to add to this, how people are working more than ever, and participation in civics, local politics, hobbies, religious organizations, etc… Have been trending downward for ages. “Third places” between home and work are also disappearing. If you set foot outside your home, you’re on somebody’s turf and you’d better be buying something or working for them.
And talking with others? My goodness how unproductive! Gotta be working on these 3 side hustles. “Maybe you can monetize talking with friends!” /s
My neighborhood personally is full of renters who never bother to meet each other and are rarely seen outside at all, and many will probably be gone within 3 months. Knocking on your neighbor’s door will just get your face on a Ring video posted with
“ANYBODY KNOW THIS GUY? PROBABLY CASING THE PLACE OMG.” with responses like
“Never answer your door and get a gun and a big dog. I’ve seen this on TV and a friend got robbed once.”
This all adds up to literally seeing and experiencing the world through a digital filter. A filter that makes tons and tons of money when everybody is in a pocket universe. Scared of each other. Filtering each other. Weaponized by politics. Swayed by ads. Nobody shares resources. Nobody talks. Nobody gathers.
They’re all the most important thing in their own little worlds, buying products and generating data. I liken this to when we started seeing split-screen disappear from video games. “Well now each player needs a game console, and a subscription, and the game…”
Lol sorry didn’t mean to follow your TED talk with a blog post of my own. But, yeah, how the heck do we get this message out there…our humanity is hanging on by a thread…
I certainly think so. Social media and all those publicity-hungry news publishers have contributed to fostering an image of men and women that is unrealistic and without nuance. Not just regarding aggressiveness of men or chronically dtf women.
This might be a weird take, but Ted Bundy was only so successful because his victims inherently trusted him. In today’s world I believe he would have a lot more trouble to find a woman that assumes he has good intentions.
That and the gender separation is exaggerated by smaller families. Often a lot of people will only interact extensively with their mother or father as a member of the opposite sex, rarely anyone around their own age.
Not fond of this “both sides” attitude - you don’t see women threatening the safety of men: the onus is on men to ensure that women feel safe around them. It’s not enough to not hurt a woman, but to ensure the woman is always in a situation where she feels like you aren’t a threat. Don’t isolate her from a crowd as there is safety in numbers. Be confrontational against men who male her feel unsafe. Keep space so she doesn’t have to fear sudden movements from you. Etc etc etc. It’s work to navigate in such an environment, but it isn’t impossible.
If you want to engage with women on more equal footing, your enemy is the men who are making them feel unsafe, not the women for feeling unsafe. This is the only viable path forward.
Hmm… There was a comic about women and serial killers that got me started thinking about this but…
Do you think both genders are being sold on extremes of the other that might be skewing our ability to interact rationally?
Like women being sold extremes of men abusiveness and cults and rapists and men on stingy or “slutty” women. And now both genders are spending less time with each other and more with internalized extreme versions of each other?
It’s like maybe a symptom of a lack of social spaces or maybe just leads to less of them as people only feel comfortable in closed groups. I’m thinking we are all being taken for a ride.
Or people are way worse than I can consider.
Okay so hear me out. I have this pet theory that might explain some of the divide between genders, but also political parties, causing paralysis which ultimately might lead to humanity’s extinction. Forgive me if I’m stating the obvious.
I’m going to set up two axioms to arrive at an extrapolated conclusion.
One: Human psychology tends to ascribe more weight to negative things than positive things in the short term. In the long term this generally balances out, but in the short term it’s more prudent in a biological sense to pay attention to the rustling in the bushes than the berries you might pick from them. This is known as the negativity bias.
Two: The modern gatekeepers of social interaction, Big Tech, employ blind algorithms that attempt to steer your attention towards spending more time on their platforms. These companies are the arbiters of the content we experience daily and what you do and don’t see is mostly at their discretion. The techniques they employ, in simple terms, are designed to provoke what they call ‘engagement’. They do this because at the end of the day FAANG have not only a financial interest, but a fiduciary duty to sell advertisements at the behest of their shareholders. The more they can engage you, the more ads they can sell. They employ live A-B testing, divide people into cohorts and poke and prod them with psychological techniques to try and glue your eyeballs to their ads.
Extrapolated conclusion: These companies have a financial and legally binding interest to divide the population against itself, obstructing politics and social interaction to the point where we might not be able to achieve any of the goals that we need to reach to prevent oblivion.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
I absolutely agree and would only like to add that humans also have a Confirmation bias that is of course reinforced by engagement algorithms as well. So not only do we tend to only see the negative but also predominantly the negative that reinforces our worldview. Best example is the fact that many people are convinced crime rates are going up all the time while they are actually going down world-wide for decades already.
That is an interesting factor I hadn’t even considered. Thanks for pointing it out.
There’s a whole documentary about exactly this, called The Social Dilema (2020). The film is a bit over-the-top and hyperbolic, but I get that they’re competing with shows that are mostly CGI explosions and have to spice things up. Anyway, it goes into details, using sources from the industry, and it’s worth a watch. At the very least you’ll feel vindicated about your thesis.
Awesome, I’ll be sure to check that out. Thanks for the tip!
In this sort of place we are also pretty good at selecting and promoting the best performing offensive material against the other side on whatever axis sides are drawn — cats vs dogs; cars vs bicycles; religion vs religion vs no religion
Not really the best against the other side - the best for their side to feel would offend the other side
Further thought - I was taught to not follow news because news isn’t about what’s important, it’s about what keeps you watching or gets you to buy the newspaper. This problem has always existed since we first had information tied to money
Exactly. Allowing (edit: promoting, even!) that kind of content is in the interest of businesses that need your attention. Fear, anger and outrage drive engagement like nothing else.
BINGO. You nailed it. This is absolutely how it works. It’s not even a “conspiracy” in the traditional sense, evil tends to naturally become “industry standard” in a “highly competitive market.”
Also I’d like to add to this, how people are working more than ever, and participation in civics, local politics, hobbies, religious organizations, etc… Have been trending downward for ages. “Third places” between home and work are also disappearing. If you set foot outside your home, you’re on somebody’s turf and you’d better be buying something or working for them.
And talking with others? My goodness how unproductive! Gotta be working on these 3 side hustles. “Maybe you can monetize talking with friends!” /s
My neighborhood personally is full of renters who never bother to meet each other and are rarely seen outside at all, and many will probably be gone within 3 months. Knocking on your neighbor’s door will just get your face on a Ring video posted with
“ANYBODY KNOW THIS GUY? PROBABLY CASING THE PLACE OMG.” with responses like
“Never answer your door and get a gun and a big dog. I’ve seen this on TV and a friend got robbed once.”
This all adds up to literally seeing and experiencing the world through a digital filter. A filter that makes tons and tons of money when everybody is in a pocket universe. Scared of each other. Filtering each other. Weaponized by politics. Swayed by ads. Nobody shares resources. Nobody talks. Nobody gathers.
They’re all the most important thing in their own little worlds, buying products and generating data. I liken this to when we started seeing split-screen disappear from video games. “Well now each player needs a game console, and a subscription, and the game…”
Lol sorry didn’t mean to follow your TED talk with a blog post of my own. But, yeah, how the heck do we get this message out there…our humanity is hanging on by a thread…
I certainly think so. Social media and all those publicity-hungry news publishers have contributed to fostering an image of men and women that is unrealistic and without nuance. Not just regarding aggressiveness of men or chronically dtf women.
This might be a weird take, but Ted Bundy was only so successful because his victims inherently trusted him. In today’s world I believe he would have a lot more trouble to find a woman that assumes he has good intentions.
That and the gender separation is exaggerated by smaller families. Often a lot of people will only interact extensively with their mother or father as a member of the opposite sex, rarely anyone around their own age.
So true. I find it weird that in my 20’s I wondered where all the people my age went. It seemed like I was only interacting with old people and kids.
Maybe because I couldn’t stay in college, I dunno. =\
Not fond of this “both sides” attitude - you don’t see women threatening the safety of men: the onus is on men to ensure that women feel safe around them. It’s not enough to not hurt a woman, but to ensure the woman is always in a situation where she feels like you aren’t a threat. Don’t isolate her from a crowd as there is safety in numbers. Be confrontational against men who male her feel unsafe. Keep space so she doesn’t have to fear sudden movements from you. Etc etc etc. It’s work to navigate in such an environment, but it isn’t impossible.
If you want to engage with women on more equal footing, your enemy is the men who are making them feel unsafe, not the women for feeling unsafe. This is the only viable path forward.