![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I came across this article while doing some more-or-less random linksurfing, and am posting the link here. The main premise (that even though people know reality TV isn't real it still affects them) comes as no great surprise, but one of his sub-points really caught my attention. Specifically, when he talks about how die-hard political partisans are so very good at creating their own versions of reality by simply rejecting out of hand any material that contradicts their viewpoint. It's not only political partisans who do this, though; really, it's basic human nature. You see it every day - in the letters column of your newspaper, in conversations on any sort of divisive topic, and rampantly on the Internet - and I'm certain that you and I are guilty of it ourselves. However, the fact that the Internet has become such a popular medium for discourse seems to be magnifying the effect, both online and off: the relative anonymity gives people courage to be more and more vitriolic about their opinions, and the fact that the Internet is such a morass of conflicting information gives pretty much anyone the ability to reference five or six different websites supporting said opinion. As the article states, "Nor does it address the toll exacted on public discourse when "reality" is whatever one chooses to accept, breeding a toxic environment where, as Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten observed, 'It becomes hard to have a rational conversation about anything.'" While the quote is referring to cynicism about reality TV, that can equally be applied to websites, scientific studies, anything - the fact that people are generally cynical about how truthful something is isn't going to stop them from using it to construct shields around their version of reality, though they'll sure as heck use it as an excuse to dismiss any information that they percieve as contrary to or attacking what they believe.
Given the state of near-information-overload that we live in, it's interesting to see how this has affected people - it seems like the idea of "collective reality" and "common ground" is becoming more and more chimerical. Especially online, people are withdrawing into small groups who reinforce each other's reality and define themselves by it, rather than discussing and being open to opposing viewpoints. I find this especially interesting given that it's more or less how humanity evolved before the agricultral revolution - in small tribes, willing to fight and die for the (often widely-varying) principles and collective reality of each group, with treaties between some groups but mostly an "us-against-them" mentality. I wonder if that's why it seems to be such basic human nature, and whether there will be any great online revolution that will allow people of different belief systems to once again have rational discussions with each other...
Given the state of near-information-overload that we live in, it's interesting to see how this has affected people - it seems like the idea of "collective reality" and "common ground" is becoming more and more chimerical. Especially online, people are withdrawing into small groups who reinforce each other's reality and define themselves by it, rather than discussing and being open to opposing viewpoints. I find this especially interesting given that it's more or less how humanity evolved before the agricultral revolution - in small tribes, willing to fight and die for the (often widely-varying) principles and collective reality of each group, with treaties between some groups but mostly an "us-against-them" mentality. I wonder if that's why it seems to be such basic human nature, and whether there will be any great online revolution that will allow people of different belief systems to once again have rational discussions with each other...
