3 ms·

I think this is by no means a new phenomenon. We as humans have staked our self-worth on social acceptance for millenia, seeing how we are social animals and mo

I think this is by no means a new phenomenon. We as humans have staked our self-worth on social acceptance for millenia, seeing how we are social animals and most of our successes were the consequence of our societal organization. What Facebook might have changed is whom our peers who we derive social acceptance are. That peer group seems to have changed from people close both as proximity and emotionally to people further away from us, who might not care as much about out emotional well being and feelings.

Satam 8y ago
That is a very interesting idea; I'd also say it makes things more scary. Social media might not necessarily creating something new but it is abusing circuits that had already been instilled by evolution - quite powerful and important circuits at that.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
This is a really interesting idea, but I have a fundamental disagreement about society. I completely agree that small groups (family and very small collections of families) would have relied on social acceptance as being important, but I would argue that the giant leap forward that actually created society was specifically working with people without concern for acceptance. Look at chimps for instance. They also form these very small groups that can number in the tens of chimps. But their little groups are based almost entirely on acceptance and domination, and it prevents them from developing further. They instead just go to war and kill other chimp groups that reach these comparable sizes. And it never ends. They cannot seem to get over 'in group good, out group die'. By contrast, it seems extremely likely that we all started extremely similarly but at some point realized that instead of each of our little in groups killing each other, if we worked together we would become even stronger and able to kill even more groups to our mutual benefit. Add in some basic rules we agree to abide by, and you have what would be the seed of what would become 'society.' So as paradoxical as it sounds, I would argue that directly seeking approval as a means of self affirmation could even be a regression away from what creates society. Because working with the 'enemy' is hardly socially acceptable, yet that is precisely what's required for societies to continue to function. You'll never be accepted by everybody so it drives people into ever smaller insular chambers, which then go to metaphorical war with all the other groups, that may over time become less metaphorical. Come to think of it, this does not really seem all that far off from the state of contemporary society. So I would hypothesize something relatively similar sounding, but fundamentally different. In that social media is perhaps driving some to form these 'chimp style' groups, yet the nature of the internet and worldwide communication has turned these warring insular groups drive largely by acceptance, from the tens of people into the millions of people.

Satam 8y ago

That is a very interesting idea; I'd also say it makes things more scary. Social media might not necessarily creating something new but it is abusing circuits that had already been instilled by evolution - quite powerful and important circuits at that.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

This is a really interesting idea, but I have a fundamental disagreement about society. I completely agree that small groups (family and very small collections of families) would have relied on social acceptance as being important, but I would argue that the giant leap forward that actually created society was specifically working with people without concern for acceptance. Look at chimps for instance. They also form these very small groups that can number in the tens of chimps. But their little groups are based almost entirely on acceptance and domination, and it prevents them from developing further. They instead just go to war and kill other chimp groups that reach these comparable sizes. And it never ends. They cannot seem to get over 'in group good, out group die'. By contrast, it seems extremely likely that we all started extremely similarly but at some point realized that instead of each of our little in groups killing each other, if we worked together we would become even stronger and able to kill even more groups to our mutual benefit. Add in some basic rules we agree to abide by, and you have what would be the seed of what would become 'society.' So as paradoxical as it sounds, I would argue that directly seeking approval as a means of self affirmation could even be a regression away from what creates society. Because working with the 'enemy' is hardly socially acceptable, yet that is precisely what's required for societies to continue to function. You'll never be accepted by everybody so it drives people into ever smaller insular chambers, which then go to metaphorical war with all the other groups, that may over time become less metaphorical. Come to think of it, this does not really seem all that far off from the state of contemporary society. So I would hypothesize something relatively similar sounding, but fundamentally different. In that social media is perhaps driving some to form these 'chimp style' groups, yet the nature of the internet and worldwide communication has turned these warring insular groups drive largely by acceptance, from the tens of people into the millions of people.