Disagreeing on the Internet, Part 2 of 2
A Proposed Process for Productive Social Media Disagreement
In Part 1 What is wrong with a little debate, I pretty much just complained about how messed up and unproductive it is to argue on social media. Now, I propose a way to make better use of the social media platforms for disagreements.
Part 1 was pretty dark. Thanks for wading through it. To recap:
- Social media is not designed or incentivized for productive arguments.
- We are the meanest version of ourselves when there is a screen, not human body language, in front of us.
- No one ever changes their mind because of a social media post.
- This manner of arguing is hurting our selves and our society.
So I believe it is time to put our minds into how we are going to improve our use of Facebook and Twitter. Right now we are applying old methods of thinking about debate to a user experience (UX) that has a new feature set designed as an entertainment platform. The platform thinks it is successful when we use it more, no matter what that use creates.
They are not useful for settling arguments about non-binary topics.
Instead, let’s use these simulacrum-of-social platforms for something that can be meaningful to us. Develop standards for your self and expectations for your interactions that don’t bum you out so much. How about using your Facebook account to understand better instead of to prove yourself right?
If you are lucky enough to engage someone you don’t agree with over Facebook or Twitter, decide that you are not trying to change their mind. Instead, seek to understand their beating human heart. These platforms offer a fast, fluid way to exchange information. They do not offer verification or referees. We can’t use them to prove a point. We can use them to learn about people.
Try This Three Step (So Far) Process
What you are about to read is a work in progress. It is (thus far) merely my findings. Please contact me, comment on this Medium post, and offer input as to how to improve it.
Step 1: Presume Sanity
This will be hard at first. To be good fighters for our beliefs, we demonize the other side. Since you know that your position is rational, you quickly presume that any opposing idea must be irrational.
Any human you speak to also presumes themselves to be rational — just like you! Give them that respect. If you presume insanity, it is impossible for the other person to prove sanity (although I am sure that you would say that they had “come to their senses” if they suddenly start agreeing with you). You have provided no possibility of bridging the gap if you presume that they are insane. On the other hand, presuming sanity gives them the chance to explain what they believe and why.
Step 2: Ask [Non-Rhetorical and Non-Trap] Questions
Just the thought of asking open-minded questions of an opponent might make you afraid. I understand. That makes sense. You don’t want to give the other side of the issue a platform.
If that is your fear, I will say that we live in a world where posting an opinion on the Internet is free and easily accomplished. The value of the giving someone a platform to speak is just about the value of a trod upon gum wrapper.
Regardless, I am not suggesting you ask questions about the exact topic. That would not bridge the gaps. Instead, ask questions with the intent of learning about the rational person who seems to believe the opposite of you.
“Why is gun ownership important to you?”
“Where does your comfort with immigration come from?”
I will say that it is hard to get out of the habit of forming questions that are traps. And, when we move on to step three, we need to make sure we don’t accidentally try to spring the trap. Instead…
Step 3: Actively Acknowledge
You will most likely be acclimated to seeing flaws and [other people’s] bias in their response. Instead of being triggered and diving in to the differences, acknowledge that they are legitimately believing something.
Don’t suggest that they change their mind.
Don’t offer your alternative point of view. Don’t even point out the gaps between your beliefs and theirs. I am really confident that you don’t yet understand those gaps. You have just asked one question! You don’t know crap!
Perhaps just say, “I can understand your position.”
If you don’t yet believe that, ask peacefully clarifying questions. Again, it is very hard to not set a trap, but check yourself. It is easy to accidentally do so. Note your vocabulary carefully. Use their language, but not ironically. Use it in a way that respects it. How about a follow up question like
“So when you say that personal liberty is the number one priority, what is personal liberty?”
“I don’t know that I have an image of what you mean when you say ‘diversity.’ Can you clarify? Maybe you could tell me what is the value of diversity in your mind?”
Stop There! You Are Winning at Social Media!
Don’t continue. You have used the social media platform for something that it can be useful for.
Now, I would love it if there was a platform that allowed for dealing with conflict productively, but Facebook and Twitter are not it. Stop trying. I have experimented with a couple techniques of using the platform for expanding understanding.
Bonus Step A: Offer an Information Barter
This rarely works, but I find it interesting. What would you do if someone that did not treat you like you were insane said “If you read my favorite article on this topic, I will listen to the moving podcast that you referenced?”
People don’t usually take me up on it. It is an exhausting task to read something you disagree with. Recall that these social media platforms are designed to be engrossing. The businesses that operate them think of them as entertainment products that keep you engaged as long as possible. I wish it was otherwise. They are not, in their current incarnation, meant as a forum for considered thought. People know that and are not logged in to be challenged or to improve their sympathy muscles. Asking them to do that is like trying to talk people into doing Jazzercise in the middle of a nice dinner.
Bonus Step B: Be a Third Party
This is even harder. It would take initiative on your part. If you see a topic getting heated in which you are not deeply opinionated, wade in and ask questions. See what happens.
This is a lot to ask of you. You, just like the rest of us, are acclimated to using these platforms as consumers or players. Who logs in to be a referee or moderator? I have found that no one trusts that I am actually neutral. I am also distrustful that I am actually as neutral as I think I am.
Bonus Benefit: Troll Mitigation
In my short time using this technique, let me tell you that trolls, particularly foreign-based ones, can not abide being questioned. They disengage as you do not offer them fertile ground for divisiveness.
