3 ms·
I believe it's more awareness of these issues, and engagement-driven algorithms presenting them over and over (because they're engaging). The world has always
by armchairhacker 2y ago
I believe it's more awareness of these issues, and engagement-driven algorithms presenting them over and over (because they're engaging).
The world has always been filled with negativity, but for most of history, most people only really knew what was around them. Now people are online more than ever before, which means they are exposed to more non-local content than ever before. People seek out engaging content, and negativity, especially fear, turns out to be particularly attention-grabbing due to human instinct formed through natural selection.
You can blame currently social media (Facebook, Tiktok, etc.) on this. But I believe even if it were replaced by the Fediverse and IRC, the current generation would still form a more negative outlook than previous ones. It's human nature to seek out negative content, so an algorithm would need to hide this content to prevent people from finding it.
Personally I still believe it's a good thing overall that people know about bad things in the world. I think it's better than the alternative, where most people are blissful and ignorant, and other people suffer with no-one to save or support them. Some negativity is important: just enough to motivate the feeler to do something and make a positive impact on the world.
I agree that part of a solution is "a framework to understand the harshness of the world". The world has a lot of bad but it also has a lot of good, and the massive amount of exposure is only an issue because negativity affects people and grabs their attention more than positivity. It would help people to understand this, so when they catch themselves hyper-focusing on something negative, they can take a step back and realize that e.g. it only affects a small percentage of the population.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI think a big part of this is changing social values. It takes a certain amount of callousness and abstraction to not obsesses over distant problems, and western society has deemed these characteristics shameful. Instead unbounded compassion carries more social currency and esteem. Maintaining mental health requires the ability to balance these skills and perspectives.
- prawn 2y agoWhich distant problems? How many? It would be endless. Maybe at college level there is a bit of 'If you aren't vocal about issue x, you're an uncaring person'? I don't see it amongst peers at 40-50yo that you would be considered callous to not obsess over a given issue. (I'm accounting for some level of exaggeration with "obsess" and assume it would mean making public comments, donating, protesting, etc?)
- s1artibartfast 2y ago>Which distant problems? How many? It would be endless. That's kinda the point, they are endless. I have some peers that are continually in a state of distress, concern, and preoccupation. If you are inclined to fixate on these things, you wont ever run out of topics. I have serveral friends in their 30's who will be at a beautiful summer BBQ with friends and be unhappily fixated on negative news of police violence, foreign wars, or other things happening thousands of miles away. Im not saying paying attention to these things is bad, but the inability to stop and smell the proverbial roses is. In my opinion, the phenomenon is more pronounced with younger generations, and also mellows somewhat with age. I think cranking out a kid or two certainly helps draw ones attention to the "here and now".