Social Media Broke My Parents
By: Liz Mcleod
Tags: Generation X, Bias, Social Media, Millennials, Baby Boomers

My story mirrors many others. I’m a member of Generation X, the sometimes “forgotten” generation sandwiched between the more dynamic Boomers and Millennials. Others often perceive us as riding on our parents’ coattails while indulging our kids way too often. There’s some validity to those thoughts. Not wanting to repeat our parents’ hands-off, stoic aspects, some of us went too far the other way and helicoptered our kids. Those nasty pendulum swings get so many of us every time!

As several recent articles have noted, we were the ones who began without cable and internet but quickly embraced the new technology, incorporating all its aspects into our work and personal lives. We accepted and even encouraged the trends towards more information, more seeming connection, more consumer choices, more and more. We were the children of the ’80s, after all.

The tech companies and marketers were only too happy to oblige. Savvy individuals produced algorithms that fed each of us exactly what it thought we wanted. Initially, this may have seemed good marketing, providing the consumer with the desired result. Later, the insidiousness of confirmation bias grew more and more evident.

The Boomer’s Dilemma

My father is a man of principle. He’s always believed in personal responsibility and taking care of those around him. He accomplished this with years of work with one company, consistent attendance at his church, and active participation in many volunteer associations. He is a shining example of his time.

He’s an educated man, finishing his chemical engineering degree from Georgia Tech in the ’60s, working at the same company his entire work life while developing chemical processes that gave him several patents, building a log house with his own hands, raising a family, and dealing with tragedy, all while keeping a firm grasp on his faith. He’s more than admirable; he’s astonishing. His day-to-day commitment to responsibility gives me pause. It’s what his generation held in high regard, and it’s what they accomplished well.

He’s one that would be described as “…one of those quiet heroes that we have all across America. They’re not famous. Their names aren’t in the newspapers. But each and every day they work hard. They look after their families. They sacrifice for their children and their grandchildren. They aren’t seeking the limelight — all they try to do is just do the right thing.”- Obama. Of course, the irony is that by the time Obama was becoming well known, my father was well on the way to being convinced, this man represented nothing he understood or wanted to support.

In the late ’90s, he retired. While continuing his volunteer efforts and keeping his toe in the job pool with some consulting, he began winding down. He had more time on his hands, and as a good Republican, he believed the new cable news show Fox was the outlet that most spoke to his belief system.

And so, it began.

Slippery Slopes and All That

Everyone has heard the ‘slippery slope’ argument. As Texas State’s Dept. of Philosophy notes, a slippery slope entails,

“…a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends…(it) involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen.”

The article goes on to note that examples include marijuana use (the erroneous belief that it leads to hard drugs), being perpetually late (the times get longer and longer), banning of alcohol in all forms (after one drink, individuals want more and more), and, among others, the ‘insidious’ idea that pro-choice will lead to infanticide.

Yes, according to the slippery slope idea, one drink, one puff of pot, and one DNC medical procedure will lead to a nation of cracked out drunks with all the women killing their babies.

Sigh…

But this is the argument used on a continuous basis on right-wing networks opinion pieces and especially on social media. The slippery slope idea takes advantage of confirmation bias and ill-advised coincidence, not true cause and effect.

Change isn’t a Slippery Slope

I’m going to show my age here and note, many years ago, I read and resonated with Scott Peck’s Road Less Traveled. I was in the prime of my Christian identity, trying to mesh what I felt I “should” do with what felt honest and authentic. I loved the idea that someone who was outside the faith somehow talked themselves into the faith as an adult.

Granted, it was confirmation bias. I get that. I understand that I read EVERYTHING through my lens of experience and categorize it accordingly. I think there were many things about Peck’s work that don’t work for me now; however, I do love the idea he expressed at the beginning.

Peck believed that each of us has an internal map. He stated that we could either continuously update this map throughout our lives or we can find a map that suits our beliefs and biases and solidify it.

Obviously, Peck believed that healthy individuals constantly take in new information and update their maps throughout their entire life. Peck had his areas of arrogance (don’t get me started on his whole demon possession idea!), but, like most, he had elements of wonderful truth in his work as well.

My father and I shared a love of Scott Peck. But my father’s map now seems old and staid. His map seems to reflect fear of change and fear of diminishing relevancy. His map feels stuck.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Social Media’s Algorithms and Confirmation Bias

Bonnie Kristian wrote an excellent article in “The Week” discussing how the internet has sabotaged many relationships and frustrated those of us from Generation X as we try and discuss how algorithms work with our Boomer parents.

Noting Nicholas Carr’s book The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, both Carr and Kristian state that just as substance abuse, certain foods, exercise, and meditation can alter brain chemistry, so can excessive use of the confirmation bias tools used by social media. As the human race has always been evolving to accommodate progress, it should be noted that not all changes are negative. The birth of the internet was lauded with hopes of greater access to information, more democratic notions of knowledge sharing, and making it easier to connect or stay connected with others.

After all, it’s much easier for me to send my dear friend in England an email than to wait for up to three months to send an Air-Mail letter and receive one in return as we did in the ‘90s.

And answering questions of trivia or passing interest makes the conversation more enjoyable. (My partner and I looked up the attributes of absinthe and the synopsis of Dorian Gray last night to enhance our binge-watching. Yes, we’re re-watching Penny Dreadful on Showtime. LOVE the myths and fairy tales.)

But, of course, as with any substance, internet usage can be misused and altered in frightening ways. A New York Times article by Charlie Warzel, What Facebook Fed the Baby Boomers, depicts the very different feeds of two individuals, based solely on what links each clicked and what the algorithms noted as points of interest.

My parents have fallen down the same rabbit holes with not only Facebook but YouTube.

First, let me note that YouTube’s feed suggestions make sense if you’re looking into videos regarding hobbies or DIY. Do you like fixing old cars, quilting, gardening, or home improvement? Watch one video, and tons more will fill your feed for your viewing pleasure.

However, as many of us obsessively search for information about politics, the pandemic response in our area, and other news as we socially isolate at home, the algorithms are creating a nasty and insidious byproduct…brainwashing.

A classic definition of brainwashing encourages isolation of the subject coupled with intensive and biased viewing of propaganda. Enter the pandemic, and voila, algorithms and biased reporting are having a field day.

Now, you have to actively search for unbiased reporting or take the time to review options from both sides of the argument. That means looking at newsletters like The Factual, Tag the Flag, or a number of other news sources that try to objectively present information or give both sides with a level of credibility that encourages high-end journalism.

It takes time and effort and the ability to put emotions to the side while listening or reading things you don’t necessarily agree with initially. It requires an open mind, and more importantly, an open heart. It means suspending the knee jerk reactions and listening.

As Kate Murphy notes in You’re Not Listening, listening is one of the hardest things we ask our brain to do, but always talking keeps us from learning.

And we’ve got to figure out a way to hold not only those in social media accountable for the biases (and no, I don’t mean trying to change Proposition 230), but we also need to find a way to label news programs as opinion-based, in bold, blinking letters… “This is the opinion and view of this one person, that’s all!”

Check your facts, folks and your resources. Just because there’s a video or it’s on tv doesn’t make it true. Reality television is scripted. Our parents grew up obtaining their news through radio, newspapers, and television. They don’t necessarily understand the blurring of the lines between reality/opinion journalism and high-end journalism. It’s time to pay attention, not only for ourselves and our children but for our parents.

We can do better!