Lots of articles, courses, and modules recently on “critically consuming information” or “becoming a more responsible digital citizen.” These are very noble goals, absolutely — but I wonder how many people care to actually pursue them.
Here’s a good new piece from Marcus Buckingham of ADP about all this stuff, and he frames it up right near the top — ultimately, the erosion we’re seeing here is one of trust:
According to a recent global study of 25,000 workers by the ADP Research Institute the single most powerful driver of resilience and engagement is trust. When you completely trust your colleagues, your team leader, and your senior leaders, you are far more likely to give your best, to feel you belong in your organization, to stay with your company, and to say your strengths are being called upon every day.
And yet today, according to this same global study, only 7% of us feel this level trust in our lives. This is the lowest we’ve ever seen.
This shouldn’t necessarily be surprising — organizational trust has been declining for a minute, largely because of horrific priority management. Overall trust numbers have been down for years, and CEO trust is hardly any better.
But here’s the question: does anyone really care?
What feels good, baby?
If you post something that’s within your worldview, even if you ostensibly know it’s fake, but you get a bunch of likes and comments and the requisite dopamine hits that come with that, isn’t that better than posting reality and getting no feedback? I post a ton of different crap on social media. I can tell you the divisive, inflamed stuff gets tons of traction. You post an actual academic study? That’s gonna get you literally nothing.
When given the choice between a bunch of reaction and no reaction, most human beings will take the bunch of reaction. We’re not all data-focused, research-is-pure academics. A lot of us are chasing relevance. Look at family photos on Instagram and Facebook. Now find someone you know who is divorced. Learn the date of their divorce and scroll back 10 weeks. There will be one beautiful, shining family photo in there. I virtually guarantee this. But the adults, at least, knew divorce was on the horizon. So why is that photo there? Because even though it’s fake, it will generate what the people (or at least the wife, typically) wants — likes, comments, and reflections on how great everything seems when the reality is that everything is chasing down around that couple.
People would rather be seen and acknowledged than be factually right, and appealing to tribes and hitting the life marker posts will get you seen and acknowledged. So do people really want to practice digital literacy, or do they want to feel more relevant when they spray the world with their bullshit?
“The strategies”
All these articles and modules about becoming a better digital citizen give you a variety of “strategies” to try, like evaluating data holistically — which maybe 7% of the populace can do, if that — or questioning assumptions, which ideally more people can do but again, belief is a very powerful thing. I know guys in Texas who absolutely think Kamala is a whore, or Obama was born in Kenya. If I gave them facts to the contrary, they would not change that belief. They would not question those assumptions. In their mind, those things are not assumptions. They are stone cold fact. Who wants to question assumption if thinking that all Democrats are awful and corrupt is a core function of your belief being?
Some of these articles will tell you to “think like a scientist” or whatever. Do you know how small a percentage of the population are scientists? Do you know why? There’s a specific vetting process and academic excellence you would need to achieve. Not everyone can suddenly channel that as they scroll Instagram. It’s unfortunately just not realistic.
Now, can you balance a media diet? Sure. Most don’t want to — tribal stuff — but can you see how each side frames an issue? Absolutely. Or at work, you can attempt to talk to different silos about issues and concerns. There are ways to break bubbles, but it’s small steps and conversations between individuals, not some “data-driven strategy” that most aren’t capable of.
I just don’t think people broadly care. They’d rather be relevant than factual. I was depressed about a year ago and drinking by myself (good start to any story) and these two women were sitting near me at the bar. One had just had a kid. She was complaining to her friend that the like-count on the first photo of the baby wasn’t high enough. Can you imagine having that conversation with a straight face? Can you imagine that woman’s husband or partner? I mean, Jesus Christ. But that’s how we live right now, to many. And in such a world, who cares about “critically consuming information?” You put out the stuff that gets you the dopamine back. I mean, no?
“Rather be relevant than factual,” is a great observation. Awhile back I came up with a mnemonic to describe people who favor observation over being factual, RAtR: Rather Accurate than Right. Scientists on their best days are like this.
Am I being relevant right now? I think so.
Facts don’t grant social status. They may allow you social status or a feeling of safety, but this is for people already used to using facts to feel good. If you’re into the habit of using social media to feel secure in your social status, then you have less emotional investment in using facts as your way to feel powerful.