Why do you share what you share? Homework time, go and look at the last 5-10 things you shared on Facebook and really come up with why you did it. I’ll do it too; it’s only fair.
The Everlasting Squabblestarter
This might be one of my favorite videos from one of my favorite YouTube creators, but if you can’t spare 8 minutes to watch it, I’ll try to sum it up here, as well as the paper which inspired it. If you’ve watched it, feel free to skip down to So What.
What makes online content viral?
…was the subject of a marketing research paper back in 2009. The prevailing wisdom of the time was that the rate a particular item (word-of-mouth product endorsement, article from a newspaper, etc.) would be shared at a rate corresponding to its valence— that is, its positivity or negativity. The idea was that positive emotions, such as awe, would be more likely to induce the reader to share the content than negative emotion, such as anger, anxiety, or sadness. This research challenged that notion, using empirical data to demonstrate that virality correlated more closely with arousal. Awe is certainly both positive and arousing, but anger is also an arousing emotion, and it turns out that we tend to share things that make us angry just as often as we share things that inspire us.
The video above uses the illustration of a pathogen, using emotions to enter the host like transport proteins in a cell, but let me choose a different one: Imagine you’re managing inventory in a warehouse with limited space. You want to keep the highest value items only. If something new comes along that has no value, ignore it. However, if it exceeds the value of something in your inventory, replace it! If your brain is the warehouse, your attention is that inventory manager, and it measures value using arousal. Value depreciates here, and so anything you take in is likely to be replaced sooner or later.
What separates the good from the great?
This is a point of the video that may be subtle enough to miss. We have a tendency to change everything we share. Look at all the images of text you see on Facebook. Do you think those people made those? Probably not. They found them, edited them, and shipped them. I’ve seen plenty of videos produced by YouTube creators I care about get turned into GIFs and passed around. Think of the last memes you saw. Were they in their original format? Probably not. You remember the funniest ones, which may be wildly different than the first incarnation.
The insight was this is a form of descent with modification. Natural selection. Changes happen, and each of us collectively judge how valuable that change was. If the change turns out to be funnier, more awe-inspiring, or more rage-inducing, it gets talked about and it gets shared. Your brain’s inventory manager will fast-track it for intake.
The result of this is, of course, that we collectively modify content to become more viral. We do this subconsciously, by sharing more, on average, the things that most arouse our subconscious. Whether we want to or not, we enforce the policy of survival of the most infuriating.
New fuel, same fire
But eventually it’ll burn out, right? There are only a finite number of people, so sooner later it’ll hit everyone on the internet who will give it attention, and then that’ll be that. Unfortunately, we can’t let ourselves off the hook that easily. Sure, an individual meme will die out, but its descendants will move on.
Think back to the last argument you had on Facebook. You make your point, and someone else joins the fight! They make some points, and then someone comes in on your side. The visibility attracts more participants, and it spirals out of control! Soon your friends list is cloven in twain— perhaps figuratively at first into two groups on either side of the fight, but perhaps literally as the groups of you start unfriending each other, distancing yourselves socially in more ways than one.
My question: what happens next?
Well, the arguments you made survived! They live on in the minds of your allies and enemies. On your side, you talk about them, and they mutate into better arguments— at least from your perspective. You, and your buddies, are actively mutating it to be more valuable, and oddly enough in this case that means making them more infuriating to you. The other side is doing this too; they’re taking your points and using them to direct the mutations of their own arguments. The result is progressively more infuriating points.
That’s not even the worst of it. This argument also disconnected some friends. This means that your new, weaponized arguments aren’t going to face the enemy. They’re going to pass by your own side. They’re going to make your people angry about the other side, stirring up new and more infuriating arguments, and they’re only going to talk to each other about them.
So what?
Why would I spend so much time writing about this? I have been sitting on this idea for a while, and I’ve been ready to discard it because I didn’t feel it contributed anything, but there was this nagging feeling that it represented something so fundamental to what I’m trying to do that I couldn’t leave it alone. To wit, I present to you a feature that does not appear in the criteria that your own brain uses to evaluate the stories your eyes present to it: truthfulness. The things that attract our attention need not be true, nor fair, nor reasonable, but only arousing.
Excuse me?
Before I go further, don’t hear what I’m not saying. I am not saying that you are stupid and that is the reason why you share stuff that is false. I am saying that all of our brains, definitely including mine, suffer from the same bugs and exploits. My motivation is not pride but humility. There are things that we should know about how our own brains work so that we can judge how we employ them.
I’m also motivated by some examples from my real life. A family member posted an article that condemned people of my political persuasion, and when I visited the site, I saw more of the same. I do not blame this individual for this; I know of sites on my own side that do this (and I’ve unsubscribed from their emails due to this rage-inducing effect). However, I still felt alienated, and I worry the long-term effect these “news” sources are having on relationships between people.
My Results
Here are some highlights from my recent shares. I will try to explore what drove me to share each one, along with whether or not I hit my goal.
Same Photo, Different View
Why did I share it?
This made me laugh, but it made me laugh because it touched on something I was angry about. Two things, actually.
First, I resent that Fox News exists and is so popular, in particular because they spend so much time demonizing people like me and causes I care about. Every time I go to my parents’ house, I hear it on and realize that they are exposed to this every day. Even though they tend to turn it off while I’m there, I know they are being influenced by people opposing what I care about when I’m not around, and I find it hard to let that go. Since anger is such a survival mechanism for ideas, I suspect that CNN and other cable news sources suffer from a similar defect, but Fox News is the one that has hurt me.
Second, this seems to me a clear example of the devaluing of human life that every parent tries to keep their children from adopting, and yet it seemed acceptable in their minds to use the threat of deadly violence to deter a threat that did not exist. I understand that people do not see it that way, but I don’t believe the couple was in danger, and I don’t believe they felt they were in danger, because they approached the “danger” with pretty minimal precautions and preparations.
Who reacted?
12 likes and 11 laughs. 7 top-level comments, spawning 2 threads for a total of 24 comments. 1 share.
What happened?
This one started a fight. Four separate fights, in fact. In hindsight, I don’t think my goals were met in posting this. While people on “my side” understood what I meant, people who are not did not, and those are the people I should most be talking to if I am to break the cycle I described above (talking to your in-group about how much your out-group pisses you off).
Abstractly, I don’t think fights are bad, so long as the parties can come to an agreement (or at least an understanding). That happened in only 1 of the 4 fights.
Reversible Percentages
Why did I share it?
It made me feel proud of myself, since I figured this one out when I was a kid. I feel uncomfortable sharing that as the reason, but I think it’s important to be honest.
Who reacted?
11 likes, 3 wows, and 1 heart. 3 comments. 0 shares.
What happened?
Not a whole lot. I was happy to see that some people thought well of me, though.
Nuts
Why did I share it?
Like the vast majority of my shares, I shared it because it made me laugh. That’s all I wanted, that’s all I got.
Who reacted?
9 laughs (9! What have you done with your life?). 1 share.
What happened?
Hopefully someone’s day was brightened.
Breakouts
Why did I share it?
I had just finished reading a ton of memes and listening to missives from people I know about the hypocrisy of protesting during a pandemic. My thought was that it’s not the same people protesting who are making the rules, as well as the people protesting are, ironically, following the rules better than other people. I felt vindicated. Is that a good reason? I’m not sure yet.
Who reacted?
12 likes. 3 top-level comments, spawning 1 thread for a total of 6 comments.
What happened?
I honestly don’t know. A friend, with degrees higher than I’ve attained, cautioned me that there isn’t a simple explanation available why these protests did not result in increased cases of COVID-19. Another friend, also with degrees higher than I have attained, has attended protests and noted his opinion, noting that protestors were by and large wearing masks. I am aware of the false equivalence fallacy, but I really don’t know how to dissect this one. Does that mean I shouldn’t have shared it? I am open to your opinion.
Natural Language Processing
Why did I share it?
I know some people who are deep into conspiracy theories, and for most of them, I’d prefer they saw that the conspiracy theories actually don’t hold water. This is touchy, though; most of us believe at least one conspiracy theory, so probably a few people will think I’m targeting them.
Who reacted?
1 wow. That’s it.
What happened?
I wished more happened, honestly. It’s an important result, that you can look at the structure of conversations over time and see a distinction between stories grounded in reality and those grounded in mere interpretations. If this is really important, it’s incumbent on me to find ways to make it accessibe.
Save with Fortune
Why did I share it?
I thought it was funny, and that’s basically it. I also love D&D and want some of y’all to play it with me. Let’s get a remote game going up in here!
Who reacted?
5 laughs, 2 likes.
What happened?
Some people got a laugh. That’s not so bad, is it?
The Takeaways
What I’ll be doing
I hate being mocked, and I hate not feeling like I’ve been heard. I see that some of my methods don’t provide that courtesy to others, and so I will fix that. This isn’t the same as censoring myself; if anything I’d like to become more honest and open about myself and my thoughts, and therefore I must foster an environment where others can do the same.
What I’d like you to do
Hold the Rage
Rage bypasses your immune system, leading you to share stuff you might not have thought all the way through. Take a minute, come back to it, and then decide what to do. Your close relations will be all the better for it. And if you see DESTROY in the headline, maybe just skip it.
Climb out of the Canyon
Echo chambers are the name of the phenomenon described earlier. They are comprised of like-minded people who affirm one another’s views and reject outsiders’ views, and the frequent target of their discussion is how angry the outsiders make them. I’m not going to say you can’t be in the groups you’re in, but I want you to know that there is probably more to the story. If you’re being handed a totem to represent the “repugnant cultural other“, get another viewpoint.
Share Responsibly
Before you share something, really ask yourself these questions (not an exhaustive list):
- Is it true?
- Look for corroboration with at least one other reputable source.
- Is it scaled properly?
- Is the fact I’m sharing representative of the entire group that I’m talking about?
- For example, if I find a liberal who wants to ban eating spicy food, does that mean all of them do?
- If in doubt, ask your liberal friend. I volunteer myself. I’ll probably say “what” and you realize someone was trying to pull a fast one.
- What is my goal?
- Do I want to change the minds of the people targeted by my post, or do I want to humiliate them?
- After the fact, did I accomplish my goal? If not, why?
- Did I make people angry that I meant to persuade?
- Did I fail to garner support for my cause?
Am I wrong here? Let me have it in the comments!
I love the idea of examining your previous posts for motive and response! One interesting thing I noticed was that family/child posts received significantly more interaction than my single “social justice” post (a repost of a video of a friend talking with his pastor about race). I’m wondering if there is a partner dynamic to the “rage machine” you’ve identified, namely the conflict averse response of silence and avoidance. Two, this question of audience is so vital! (Do I want to change the minds of the people targeted by my post, or do I want to humiliate them?) A family member once shared a post with me that implicitly labelled a person with my convictions as selfish, narrow-minded and short-sighted… what I found sad and ultimately challenging was that when I probed back on how it “preached to the choir” (it certainly didn’t seem inviting to me!), this family member just kept saying how true it was (well, not to my thinking!). Without even getting to the issue, I found it just as difficult to suggest that the messaging was off-putting and therefore not intuitively persuasive!