In conversation with a friend the other day, a conversation that evolved as most such do for me (three or four topics at once, tangled together like spaghetti), we got to talking about nuclear power and how people think they're smart and clever when the just scream "But, Fukushima!" when someone suggests more of it.
The 'structures' you write of aren't a new phenomenon, the way social media is.
Many, including comedian Louis C.K.,' have pointed out that social media has removed the "instant feedback" aspect of communication and conversation.
Face-to-face, if we say something hurtful, we see its effect immediately, in a moment where we are prone to feeling bad for causing hurt
Face-to-face, if we put forth an opinion, we are there and then inviting dialogue and feedback - and also risking appearing foolish. The former is in-the-moment, and for an off-the-cuff remark, may be timely enough to keep that remark from hardening into an "I must defend this endlessly" position. The latter is a powerful mechanism, and tempers what people may utter. The fear of appearing stupid in front of others is hard-wired - just look at how many are afraid of public speaking.
People have always spoken "past" each other. People have always distrusted "others'" motives. That's not the point here. This is commentary about how much more prevalent it has become, and I point a finger of blame directly at social media and its "isolating" effect.
It is ironic and perverse that this tool of global communication has proven to be such a negative influence on communicating, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I do believe that I got what you were driving at, but I read the crux of your response as about "structures." And, I also agree that "when making a point I will tailor my foundational facts to what I know about that third person," but I believe this has always been the case. It's natural to adjust your interaction with another based on what you know about that other.
Having an iPhone at hand does alter that dynamic, but the examples I give and the core of my hypothesis are not face-to-face dynamics, but rather social media interactions. That's where the "aggressive ignorance" seems to emerge more overtly.
It's like road rage. People are far less likely to be raging when in physical proximity, but far more apt in the safety of one's car.
The 'structures' you write of aren't a new phenomenon, the way social media is.
Many, including comedian Louis C.K.,' have pointed out that social media has removed the "instant feedback" aspect of communication and conversation.
Face-to-face, if we say something hurtful, we see its effect immediately, in a moment where we are prone to feeling bad for causing hurt
Face-to-face, if we put forth an opinion, we are there and then inviting dialogue and feedback - and also risking appearing foolish. The former is in-the-moment, and for an off-the-cuff remark, may be timely enough to keep that remark from hardening into an "I must defend this endlessly" position. The latter is a powerful mechanism, and tempers what people may utter. The fear of appearing stupid in front of others is hard-wired - just look at how many are afraid of public speaking.
People have always spoken "past" each other. People have always distrusted "others'" motives. That's not the point here. This is commentary about how much more prevalent it has become, and I point a finger of blame directly at social media and its "isolating" effect.
It is ironic and perverse that this tool of global communication has proven to be such a negative influence on communicating, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I do believe that I got what you were driving at, but I read the crux of your response as about "structures." And, I also agree that "when making a point I will tailor my foundational facts to what I know about that third person," but I believe this has always been the case. It's natural to adjust your interaction with another based on what you know about that other.
Having an iPhone at hand does alter that dynamic, but the examples I give and the core of my hypothesis are not face-to-face dynamics, but rather social media interactions. That's where the "aggressive ignorance" seems to emerge more overtly.
It's like road rage. People are far less likely to be raging when in physical proximity, but far more apt in the safety of one's car.