3 ms·
The problem I see on FB is less with what people argue about, but how. It feels like people are just saying things at each other trying to "win" an argument.
by romwell 5y ago
The problem I see on FB is less with what people argue about, but how.
It feels like people are just saying things at each other trying to "win" an argument.
Of course, that's a problem with education, not FB. And I think it's a good thing that it's surfaced on FB.
FB can act as toxic behavior multiplier, though.
- nitrogen 5y agoFB can act as toxic behavior multiplier, though. Indeed, the medium can alter the message. For example, supposedly any extra lag in voice communication makes participants think the other person is angry. We also see groups that never had close proximity now interacting directly and finding that they disagree pretty strongly on fundamentals. So there may be ways to facilitate the same discussions, but more productively and humanely. And it simply might not be possible for people with diametrically opposed beliefs to do this -- there may need to be a game of a few layers of telephone, or at least an active moderator as in a formal debate, to help translate meaning and intent across the epistemological divide.
- native_samples 5y agoI don't know if it's a problem with education but more likely, deeply held implicit assumptions that aren't being articulated. Most political disagreements fall into this category. E.g. arguments about COVID stuff are usually rooted in differences in assumptions about things like the trustworthiness of the establishment, the corrupting strength of profit, whether events are best explained as conspiracy or cockup, etc. Because they're sort of all-encompassing and vague people don't or can't easily spell them out, leading to the "talking at" not "talking with" problem. But that isn't to do with Facebook. It's inherent to humanity.