Slide 3: Contribution comments:
Slide 4, 5, 6: Intro: Social Media
The last Two weeks have been largely dependent upon establishing the basic psychological processes that are involved in technology use. The next four sessions, except for the conclusion, are now focused on specific areas within technology or areas that technology exacerbates that we interact with directly. Today we are starting with social media, followed by Video Games, Explicit Content, then Ideas and Worldviews. These four topics are asking us how we engage with the specific areas of technology, and not just with phones, iPad, or consoles.
To Understand the psychological impact of social media use, we must review the last two sessions a bit: (general overview, and not written as it was presented, these are just my guide notes, skip to slide 7)
>Attachment Theory.
Dr Kardaras went on: “People prone to addiction have lower baseline levels of dopamine and other feel-good hormones. These people are more likely to get hooked on experiences and or behaviours that give a temporary dopamine rush.” Essentially, the Addictive quality of anything can be determined partly by the amount of dopamine that is released in the use, and for some people, there is a higher risk than others:
food cravings: 50% Increase in dopamine production.
Porn: 200%
Drugs (from alcohol to heroine) near 350-1200%
Essentially the addictiveness of something depends on how much it spikes the dopamine productions systems. We need dopamine. IT makes us do everything and feel good about doing some things. Dopamine is released when we eat chocolate, after we go for a walk, or have a deep conversation with a friend. But these things are what our system is designed to handle. It can release counter- Neurotransmitters at normal rates and will not need to widen the synaptic gap to compensate for the flood of pleasure-hormones in the same way. However, it becomes a risk when we start to use smaller/less-addictive distractions for to deal with our natural environments.
· Talk about Personality Types
· Discuss Erik Erikson’s Theory of Psychological Development
· The Goldilocks Zone for Social Media Dependency/Attachment
Slide 7: I deleted my Instagram for the first time when I was 16. I left because it made me feel sad and I did know why. Simply disabling it had never worked for me, but by deleting my account, I successfully deleted all my posts, followers, and basically my accumulated reputation, giving me no reason to want back.
At that time: now almost 5 years ago, I jotted down some stats, not thinking much about it:
· 1045 follower:
· Average likes: 870ish
· Average Comments: 3-5
· How many numbers I got before deleting account: 12
(followed by general discussion for parents who are shocked by these numbers, how it highlights the difference between the “follower” and “actual friend” ratio)
For a year I made do with texting as my soul form of communication with friends and peers. And honestly, it was fine. However, in that year I still privately combatted social media. I wanted to know why I had felt so miserable using the platform. I also didn’t understand why some people could use it and were affectively unphased at all. I think I get it now. I have since remade my account and couldn’t care less about my posts. Part of it I have put down to age and maturity (har har) and part to how my expectations for the app and I have changed. Because of this, I no longer rely on, or lean on the social media apps as a crutch in projecting an identity to other people, to feel complete, when in reality, I didn’t yet know who I was.
I wanted to write my own private testimony for this chapter, but the social media stories all play out the same, coming to the same conclusions. The same one I did and will come to in this essay. The risks I lay out are the consequences of misuse, not of the app itself. Take it from me, someone who will honestly conclude that there was a time when I did misuse it. Here is the simple truth: social media and communicative media are not going anywhere. It has become an extension of Western culture, and dare I say of Hutterite culture as well. Nothing we try to do will make it disappear. But we can utilize it into something, if not entirely beneficial, than at least not harmful.
In the age of technology, we need to be aware of the user manual and read the warning labels. Just like any label, they appear like common sense:
“Do not use for any purpose beyond-”
“Do not use under the age of-”
“Make sure you wear the proper safety gear when-”
Social-media-the-Tool is the same way. If we want to use with intent, integrity and for the sake of fun and connection, we need to know the rules. Rules of ages, risks, purpose, and most importantly, what condition, you, the user must be in to properly and beneficially engage with it.
Much of this essay will appear negative, but these are the precautions; the things to be aware of, consequences of misuse, and qualities that affect the vulnerable. Evaluate yourself as you read and determine if that is you, and if you are using this extension of technology with intent and integrity too.
Slide 8: We will explore this Topic in the same way Social Media platforms are all set up:
· The first character present is the Follower. The consumer of our content
· Next, is the Post: the content creator: us
· Lastly, is the form of contract between the Creator and the Consumer- in the form of likes, comments, and messages: The commodity of validation.
Slide 9:
1) “Friends”: What is a Follower?
Just like Conversation doesn’t transfer to online communication, Real life does not transfer nicely onto social media. Indeed, we post real life experiences, we talk to real life people, and we display real life feelings. Sort of. And that is the key. As seen in earlier chapters, relationships must be based on mutual vulnerability and honesty. Social media was not designed or created to communicate these two qualities.
Social media is a platform of connection, not of conversation or togetherness. Only mere connection. However, not only do we forget this, but younger, impressionable users creating accounts for the first time when turning 15, and now much younger still, don’t know the rules of the game. No one ever told them what it is for. And so, they misuse Social media to, even before they meet a peer group in-person, connect with a group online, setting the standards and expectations of this relationship to be what they think is equal to a rela life one. The 14 year old girl who makes a social media account anywhere does not understand the formatting nor purpose of the app:
· Firstly, interaction with others is sought not with a personal and direct greeting, but through posts broadcasted on a platform where only the best is generally displayed.
· Second, the displaying of only the best does not create vulnerability needed for deeper relationships.
· And third, Value and quality of friendship, which in reality is measured by the richness of conversation and fulness of impartial understanding, is not measurable. Remember how I discussed monetary language? In a true friendship/relationship, this should not be our default vocab
· But on the Social Media platform, It is the only way to measure the value of relationship when the person isn’t there: Value has to be determined by rising and falling numbers related to Followers.
When we face the dilemma of how to be close when apart, technology provided a short-term solution in social media to keep us connected between face-to-face interactions. However, social media became not an aid in staying connected, but the creator and perpetuator of surface level and shallow connections themselves. When we began to use it as something more than just a form of connection, we began to replace the quality of deep relationships with the quantity of people who follow us. We mimic togetherness by creating a following of 300+ people we know of, so we can view their content, Comments on our posts, and messages in their DMs in exchange as well. Unfortunately, we as adults- with developed and mostly determined Identities and a stronger security in who you already struggle to disassociate from the content we view and interact with. Now image that perfect Goldilocks person – the teenage, probably a girl, who is struggling with self-esteem and image, and identity. Filling the need for acceptance and connection with a mimicry of the real thing can only lead to insecurities and even psychological changes that may never go away fully.
Slide 10:
Hutterites are more susceptible to the social media phenomena than anyone else for two reasons. We live far apart from even our closest friends and family. Almost every relationship and close friendship we have is long distance. For Hutterites, social and communicative media were God-sent. But we misused. We didn’t use it to stay connected and show friends and loved ones what we were up to in their absence, instead, we went out and followed new people and places and posted everything for everyone to see.
Secondly, the average Hutterite knows a lot of people. Information posted online is screenshotted and reshared at a much farther reach than anything else. And the Hutterite social media platforms are all interconnected as everyone follows everyone. We are now more hyperconnected that ever before, but do not have more meaningful relationships than average to show for it.
This is the flaw at the heart of the digital revolution: it is not entertainment or information that humans seek more than anything. Although they can be fulfilled with new followers, posts to stalk, and people to minimally interact with. Faster and better and more will not result in true satisfaction and contentment no matter how technology advances. A human’s primary dominant need is togetherness.
The Dunbar Number: For generations, average ‘togetherness” of individuals was somewhat measurable, and over the generations and the introduction of technology, these numbers have remained unchanged.
The Dunbar Number, developed by Robin Dunbar, is a theory that argues that there is a cognitive “cap” on the people a single human can have a relationship with. Relationships are the people you know and know in relation to other people in the group, and how they interact with the rest of our relationships. Dunbar called it, "The number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar, regardless of who you are with or what you are doing.” (expund) He measured these relationships with a series of disjoint sets, all within the larger circle that it your cognitive ability to maintain relationships.
· In the largest circle are all your acquaintances. Dunbar notes that the average person can only cognitively maintain estimated 150 casual relations. These are people you value insofar as you interact with them. It’s nothing personal.
· The next circle is 50: You can average a maximum of 50 “friends.” These are the people you laugh with and enjoy the company of. You are not personal with them, but you have shared connections, interests, or experiences.
· The next circle has a mere 15 people. These are your close friends; People you have and will turn to for help, advice, and confidentiality. People you believe really “know” you.
· The smallest inner circle, Dunbar believes is 5 or less: this includes the deepest of friends, lovers, and possibly a spouse. He defined them as “The people or person whose there in a 3 am crisis.”
These numbers have remained the same throughout history, with the average person shifting invariably in the larger circles, but rarely with the smaller ones. These are not numbers that will greatly fluctuate either. They are based on cognitive ability.
You can max out on relationships because there is a certain level of responsibility to any relationship we forge. We can only maintain and take care of a certain number of relationships until people are replaced.
Technology has impacted these circles. Having 300-500 followers gives the impression to us that we have more than 100-200 acquaintances, but we really don’t. We think we are shoving an extra 200 acquaintances into our largest circle through social media, but cognitively we need to compromise for this increased circle. We compromise through making our more superficial. We post to the branded audience of 300-1000 instead of the friends who truly will react and enjoy a post for you, and not for the photo itself.
The next circle of 50 has received some social media shuffling as well: it has grown smaller. If our attention to other people is something finite, then we waste precious energy and resources cultivating and prioritizing cheap relationships of acquaintances, over actual friendships in the 50 ring – as Dunbar says “the people who we actually cry your funeral.”
Lastly, let’s look at the two smallest circles. These friendships are marked by shared experiences. “Deep psychological bonds with another person must be formed through experiences had and formed together,” Dunbar notes. These are the people you have laughed or cried with. You have experienced life together. The shared experiences that create the layers of connection that Dunbar notes however cannot be replicated online. Texting, sharing and liking posts and memes, and messages or watching something a friend has watched can create an understanding of interests, but does not mimic the same connectional bonds as face to face experiences do.
Yet we continue to try, sacrificing the inner circles for the larger outer ones. This is not a result of using social media, but a result of misuse with faulty expectations of what social media should provide. I know plenty of generally older users who maintain average to low follower counts and post for that smaller, more intimate audience. They use and post with intent, and knowledge of their audience. The audience is made up of their smaller circles that genuinely appreciate all that is posted.
Slide 11: Peer Orientation:
Now let’s examine the followers themselves. Is there an equal variety of adult and teen users? Obviously not. Followers and most trendy social media platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, and Tumblr are made up of primarily young people. And this is the next aspect of our conversation: Peer Orientation. Where social media does not reflect the environment of people we are naturally surrounded with. It has a baseline of viewers that we can control, but if we are not careful, they can control us. Here I am primarily speaking towards young people, developing that necessary identity
“Peer relationships connect immature beings.” There is nothing wrong with peer friendships and close relationships, but, as Dr. Gordon Neufeld points out in the book Holding on to Your Kids, it is the implications and outcome that should worry a parent whose child who prioritizes peer relationships over family. And social media drives this orientation.
Perhaps the single greatest and most radicle thing of family is the rest it allows us. Think of the Attachment we discussed in chapter one. We need to form healthy and trusting attachments to people to develop fully as individuals. This is where parents come in: It is the most important attachment a child and especially a teen can develop. “The parent-child relationship is so deeply necessary because it give a child relief (Neufeld).” It is only with parents that we form our first real and unconditional relationships. It is a respite from a judgmental world. The implicit and intrinsic love of parents regardless of a child’s actions provide stability and support in life. A child who is secure in this relationship is not afraid to take risks, be assertive, and go against the grain, because they know they have that relationship that will remain regardless of their mistakes. Peers are different. Dr. Neufeld concludes, “[Young people] are inherently insecure [in their status with the peers], and peer orientation does not allow the rest from the relentless pursuit of approval, love, and significance. The child is never free from the pursuit of closeness.”
Neufeld means by this that we don’t get a mental break. The online world is the peer world, and we are always connected. Our phone’s buzz has our attention first, and this has impacted relationships on all levels. It interrupts conversations in real life, sleep schedules, and friend problems come before family problems. We don't have a break from the game. This is not to say that relationships are fake or something bad, but that the ones forged and considered more important than family are taking away our only real respite. No matter how much we attach, communicate, or connect with peers, they cannot provide the guidance, wisdom, or, most importantly, the unconditional love that the parent can. With peers and social media we are not free of the nuances and judgment of our every word, deed action, etc. of the peer mass.
“The peer world is primarily one of conformity to some standard that is arbitrary and based on a false sense of reality, developed by immature and inexperienced beings.” read that quote again and be aptly offended by Neufeld. But take it to heart. What is the posting format and online trends if not-peer oriented behaviour? A further consequence of a peer-oriented or steered social media is “teen culture.” Something we seem to forget is that teen culture and orientation is relatively new to the world. Hutterites have always had a set time and outlet for “buem and dieneh,” but we can agree this has shifted over the years to mimic the teen years of die welt. Teen Culture was ushered in with the internet and the advertising boom of the late 1980s, when the untapped consumer that is the teen was discovered. It is a culture of fashion, music, film, filters, and fun. It is a construct of advertising and nothing more. You want proof? Think of any pop song, any film, and any aspect of what it is to be a teen today. It is connected to either a consumer good or entertainment idol, (ie: clothes, alcohol, entertainment media, celebrity, etc.) or a faulty message of meaning and life. Teen Culture as it is perpetuated through media, and especially social media sends a message of carefreeness, happiness, and the pursuit of pleasure. And as real life shows us, these are hardly priorities.
( teen as a separate and extended period of Laminal Space- undirected.)
To some extent it is the limited format of the platforms we post on that can be blamed, such as Instagram’s picture-based content, snapchats disappearing messages, Twitter’s character caps, and tok-toks one minute limit. All these not only encourage short and shallow thought, especially if engaged with extensively, but are really good at sending shallow ideas. They say pictures speak a thousand words, but dare I say the internet has largely proved this false. After Highschool how many of us have taken the time to privately write something that is longer than a caption?
Lastly teen culture and teen followers tend to make the user of the platform self-filter their content. While we believe we have created a global village, we are really only engaging more than ever with peers and youth concerns. Today, a teen social life means a social life with same age peers- there is a district culture forged online that exclusively included young people. I will explore this in more depth when we discuss the profile and posts directly, but it is important to note that the more “large circle” acquaintances make up our follower counts the more we care about our content. If we do not know a person, we do not know what they enjoy, and we no longer post something knowing it will be appreciated and so post in order to BE apreciated. No, the Acquaintance Follower creates a beneficiary relationship that becomes a guessing game and a like machine. The impersonalized and unknown profile is dehumanizing you to those who follow for your content and not because of the person they know, and you in turn dehumanize them to one of your “like-clickers” and numbers on your follower list.
To recap, the peer culture and orientation that has moved and been perpetuated online has shallowed our large-circle relationships and left us to neglect the smaller circles. This is a consequence of misusing social media for purposes it was not designed to do. More than that, Technology has meant that we are connected to peers at all times, with no break. We can receive a text at any hour and are expected to respond. As Sherry Turkle notes in Alone Together, “This deprives us of a break, and the reality that life is more than peers; the hyperconnected teen is disconnected from themselves.”Let us now re-evaluate connection itself, and its role on social media.
Slide 12: The Necessity of Connection
Connectivity and Relationship are not synonymous. A Relationship requires connection to be maintained, but to grow and not stagnate Conversation, Communication, and vulnerability are needed. Social media answers only the problem of connectivity and distance.
Social media and technology appear to fulfill the need of relationship. But don’t. Texting as a main form of communication has increased over the last 10 years as texting plans and phones have become more accessible. It's easy and fast. But as we have discussed in chapter 2, the consequence is a downshift in face to face interactions such as in-person, over facetime, and even over the phone. While boys and girls text equally frequently, girls have been proven to develop and further dependence on the texting-based communication format. Social media platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, and WhatsApp are based on and revolve around the Direct Messages sent to individuals, even though content can be posted publicly as well.
But even will all this public and private increase in connection, something went desperately wrong with our ability to communicate and its correlation to social and Communicative media overall. Rates of depression, anxiety, and all other common neurological disorders rose by 75% since our grandparents. This doesn’t appear to make sense. We are social creatures, hardwired to want connection. Social media met that need, did it not? Then why are we developing the neurological disorders related to dysconnectivity and lonesomeness?
The single greatest danger of Social media is its illusion of connection and relationship: being on social media does not satisfy our need for human contact. It is an illusion. The high filters, new and sometimes exciting content triggers our dopamine receptors, and they ping like the Pavlovian dog every time our phone buzzes, a new post is uploaded, or a like is received. In his books Chasing the Scream and Lost Connections, researcher and Journalist Johann Hari concludes, “I’m beginning to think that the connections we think we have, have been like a kind of parody of human connection.” We are given the sensation of connection, which is like a temporary fix. The temporary and easy fix makes us not reach for our closer friends for a true fulfilment of the need for relationships and intimacy as often as we should.
Furthermore, a temporary fix is temporary. It wears off faster, and we are left feeling alone and miserable. But our brain remembers Social media as outlet for a fast fix. And tells us to go back on the next time the sadness and lonesomeness sets in. We become hooked! It appears as though social media is compensating for a deeper underlying need but will only ever be a band aid. Social Media’s inherent shallowness in the format of the posts dictates the nature of the connection. In this binary happy/sad world of social media, it favours the superficial connection over emotional and psychological intimacy.
The end goal of pursuing relationships and connections is to come to rest. To become close enough with another human being that there is a mutual acceptance of you as you are, and social media does not allow this with its current primitive format. Admittedly, I have met very close friends over social media, but by and large, social media did nothing but allow us to meet. The rest of the relationship was forged through face-to-face experiences or other communication formats that allow actual conversation (phoning, facetime, etc.) We can convince ourselves that Friendships and relationships are growing, since much of what we relay online is imaginative. Think of your own account and how much you enjoy your own content. Now think of how you view another profile. It is quite different because the content is not your own. We view other content with more and more detachment the farther out the person moves from our inner circle of friends. The reality remains that there are certain things that Social media will not. Simply will not in its current state be able to do. Here is why:
Over online communication, an invitation for attachment doesn't get across. In face-to-face conversations, this is a vulnerable question, or a question that gives them the chance to give something of themselves away. Online however, the content and often the conversation remains flat and one-dimensional, even when it grows longer, and a level of expression is added through emojis.
Being emotionally fulfilled is a vulnerable experience, so there is a level of defence that few can cross. Biologically we are created to pick up on the other's attention, intuitiveness, expression, and body language, which do not exist online. And so, conversation remains shallow. Digital communication remains by and large cold.
“Being known” and “putting yourself out there” can actually only happen with tiny groups of no more than 5. Presenting yourself online (via posts and pictures) is largely that version of yourself, like in real life, that you want to put forward. The amount of time spent coordinating and working on this profile has been proven to be adopted as a persons’ eventual identity: a 2D caricature of their past potential.
There won’t be fulfilment of the relationship or connection unless the reward is greater than the pursuit: Internet connectedness is 2D- feelings and relationships are equal in ability to communicate, and so the relationship built over text or through social media has the tendency to grow dormant or fade.
Connecting in “sips” is effective only for positive interactions. “I love you’s” and “I had fun this weekend” texts are perfect and straightforward, therefore easily and well communicated online because they are simple emotions. However, apologies and negative interactions that are necessary to build deeper relationships cannot develop as they should on the social media format. Moreover, they don’t post well. They have a “wet blanket” feel, since the negative emotion is broadcast to a most disconnected audience of acquaintances, depending on the follower account, and reads as either and cry for help or an attention grab. Vulnerability does not have a true place on Social Media.
Being torn between wanting to express the real self that the inner circles knows, in combination with the pressure to show our best sides, it is not surprizing that social media is linked directly to rising depression and anxiety across all generations. Technology and social media is a format of short-term fun, engagement, and connection insofar as it can. But unless we come at it from a place of understanding and pre-established healthy relationships, it will impact us. Ask yourself: “Are my real relationships suffering from lack of attention?” and, “Rather than being tools, are our device simply new cages?”
In Joe Rogan’s podcast with Elon Musk and they talked about the continual progressive march of technology. Both men compared the two views of social communication and relationships: While Musk argued that we have the ability and talent to advance, create, and help people more than ever before through technology,” Rogan pushed back: “We also can't just loose what we need [...] We can’t give up feelings and hard work.” Another words, the technology we have today can be used to create so much good and simplify so much of our lives. But it should aid our already existing habits and actions. It should not become a replacement unto itself. Just like our real relationships should not suffer for the sake of online acquaintances.
Slide 13:
2) Identity: What are our posts?
But what of our account themselves? There are no written rules, but teens all know what you can or can’t post. We know what is cool and what is just weird. We all know what online peer culture requires us to post. Indeed, the option to post and cultivate an account against the grain does exist but very rarely will young people do so. All accounts look generally the same in the content that is posted. Why is this?
Moreover, the social scene and “rules” of the cyber-social world are changing. 4 years ago, the rule of the game was to post good times. Posting something genuinely deep, meaningful, or shocking simply did not exist. Instagram as the new posting platform after Google + carried over the same attitude that you the user should post fun, happy, and carefree photos of you and your friends. The positive content, while exactly that -positive, promoted an echo-chamber of emotional stuntedness. The platform does not accommodate complex emotions, and the viewer in turn generally scrolls by, pretending not to notice the post at all. However, in the last few years, strongly influenced by popular media beyond communities, opening genuine dialogues about mental struggles particularly in the realm of rising depression and anxiety rates, has opened a space of content of a more negative emotional variety.
This has shifted peer culture. The 14-year-olds post public poetry, or even talk about mental struggles on their accounts with 500 or more followers. Some pages posted privately submitted “confessions” from Hutterite youth. The new and youngest users still poste selfies, but attach nihilistic and dark captions, short poems, or even blurbs about mental struggles on their posts and stories. While on one hand it appears to be an opened dialogue of emotions beyond the positive half of the online binary, it raises a concern as well.The question I ask is which is preferable: the overly happy or the eerily depressing content? What If the answer is neither?
Both are their own form of shallow. How to tell? Look at the follower counts. It is the mindset that creates the post in the first place that must be evaluated. A 15-year-old who is vulnerable and able to share personal struggles with friends or family does so for comfort and understanding. So then what motivates a public or anonymous teen with 300+ followers to post a picture where they are not clichély happy, or posting textposts and poems and stories that talk about depression, personal struggles, romance, or whatever else, gain from this content?
Slide 14:
Validation. As explored in earlier sessions, attachments are the attempt at gaining a meaning from a substance that cannot provide fulfilment fully. The child who receives no attention from a parent will turn to the peer, and the connected relationships partly stimulates our mind’s need for conversation and relationships. But it is not of the depth required for growth. In the same way, validation is a poor substitute for understanding. The pseudo-vulnerability is validated with the likes. And temporarily the feedback, the private conversations, and the likes are a form of comfort: it is a temporary dopamine rush. Put it will never fix what is actually wrong. It is deeply unhealthy. Validation is the only single advantage that an anonymous profile and a stylized photo has. Thus it becomes false vulnerability. It is vulnerability that is glorified. It is cool to be sad. Do not think that I devalue actual mental struggles. On the contrary, at the heart of this project is the rising number of mental disorders among Hutterite youth, a crisis that can be addressed partly through addressing technology. I do however have deep problems with a stylized and glorified view of mental illness, struggles, and sadness as a display merely to post. A post, regardless of what the message is, is shallowed by the fact that it can be voted up and down on media platforms, thus degrading the complexities and difficulties involved in mental struggles.
This is the deep irony of social media, and we need to understand it so that we don’t contradict ourselves in using the platform: social media as a platform is limited in its communicative ability, and so it begs for positive content because that computes and displays better in a short script. But this creates a shallowness. Why post shallow if shallowness does not represent the human experience. Perhaps it is the platform itself that needs to be reshaped to encompass human emotion more fully. Maybe as of now there is no simple fix. The only thing we can control is our mindsets when using social media platforms.
You care too much. You care too little.
The pressure for young girls on social media (and also young men) is exacerbated because we don’t want to appear shallow online. But what level of care can be shown without appearing strange or weird? Especially when deeper and more personal thoughts do not work from the broad audience of strangers and acquaintances we perform for? I remember my 14-year-old Instagram account and I know how much I cared. I cared too much. I cared about everything I posted because it was what I chose to display to a large number of strangers online. The camera angles, the captions, the conformity to a specific look- it speaks of the peer orientation, of the need for belonging, and the need to be validated. All these are real things, online and in real life, but social media heightens everything because we have full control of what we choose to display; That which you post is selected and made by you, and so you do end up caring if it does not garner the attention you wish it would. You want what you care about to be met with likes, followers, comments, and DM’s. And so, it becomes more difficult to tell a young teen to let it go when a post she cares about does not garner the approval she thought it might.
There is a genuine rush in the validation in whatever form it takes because being approved of by a group pf people you have hand selected to view and judge your content feels very good. This sought-after approval is a reality that we all need to address.
This following exercise was one I found when I was 15 that actually led me to change the way I posted:
Think of your last post:
· Who was it for?
· Why?
· Did it garner attention?
· How did that attention make you feel?
· What message were you sending?
· If the picture had only received say, 5 likes, would you have kept it up?
· Why? Why Not?
These questions raise the connection between this dialogue on social media and if we are truly able to detach emotion need fulfilment from the images presented. But often we are not honest with even ourselves as to what it was that we hoped to accomplish. There is a motive to everything we do if you know it or not. To be aware and to use with intent must begin with an honesty of the self.
Slide 15: Individuality vs. individualism
In his book, 12 Rules for Life, Dr. Jordan Peterson concluded a human being can successfully live a meaningful life by doing a single thing: Always speak the truth, or at least not lie. Especially to one’s self. We live in a world of so much truth that we forget that a Hutterites we don't fundamentally believe in truth, but in a Truth, with a capital T. The big objective Truth is fundamental to Christianity. It is something unchanging and absolute that we should strive for. Truth with a small “t” refers to the individual reality we all live in- “What is true for us.” In the online world of individualism, we have redefined experiences as truth. The Individualism created in our online profiles is a self-praise, glorification, and individualism that we are told brings happiness. When we post our photos, we are displaying those little individual truths that are our lives, while the big Truth that is Christ, is trampled in the self-glorification and pruning of our personal pages.
There is an important distinction to make here between individuality and individualism. Social Media and the world at large extol one, and in affect, unknowingly discard the other. Individualism is the philosophical belief that the needs, desires, and beliefs of one person override those of the community. It promotes success, fame, and a “do what makes you happy” mindset. Individualism promotes the self over the rest, creating a selfish and apathetic culture. The community is abandoned for the individual’s agenda.
Individuality is different still. Individuals make up the body of the community. It is only strong, developed and mature individuals who cooperate to bring about community. Dr. Neufeld believes that it is in the teen year that individuality must develop: To be an individual is to have ones’ own meaning; one's own ideas and boundaries. “It is to value one's own preferences, principles, intentions, and perspectives. It is to stand in a place occupied by no other.”
Social media, however, is being used by a demographic of young, immature, and peer oriented young people. Young people who have not developed individuality. They have not yet found a sense of self, apart from the pressures of peers. These young men and women post niche interests and hobbies then to display something that has the appearance of a individuality and self-identity, but it is in fact simply another form of conformity and individualism.
It must be noted however that there are social media users who have a strong sense of who they are, are honest in their content, and so an individuality comes through. It is the uniqueness that exists on these accounts that cannot be mimicked. They genuinely do not care about follower counts, but posts good, genuine content for the friends they care about. Social media can then be a small reflection of yourself in this way. The account reflects a complete, and wholistic person with individuality, ideals, and thoughts unique to them. But what if it does not? What if one has not developed this insight of themselves? What you post will not reflect a mind, but a disconnected body.
Objectification
The post that is merely an image for the sake of displaying an image is objectified by first, the followers and viewers who do not know the person. They see only the image, and in turn, are disconnected from the person the photo displayed. Second, In the fact that social media interaction in limited to a “like/dislike” formula. A person, or rather a picture of a person, can be approved or disapproved of in a cold up or downvote, or simply ignored.
Dr. Sax cites an experiment done on students right before they wrote an exam. At random each student was handed either a swimsuit or a bulky sweater to wear. They then sat alone in a room with no cameras or observers and completed a math test. The results were not minor differences in scores but were major shifts in the scores of men and women. Men performed significantly better in swimwear than in sweaters. Women, on the other hand, overwhelmingly underperformed against their sweater-clad counterparts. Self-objectification and putting yourself out there, even in solitude like these women were, mentally affected their performance because there is a level of self-consciousness and objectification that we cannot override. Social media is simultaneously a solitary and public event. We are alone when we browse, but we know a large public audience is viewing us. The result can be an overthinking of what we posted to the point of self-objectification. Swimsuit or not.
“The social media image, presented to peers and acquaintances is a self-objectification. The people who do not know the Poster, is thus mentally removed from forming an opinion based on experience beyond the imagery”- thus they view from the outside in. To post to strangers is to actively invite viewers to watch, judge, and admire. “Experience itself becomes an object to display.” (Dr. Hinshaw) Young girls (and men) on social media are self-objectifying: focusing on what they look like rather than who they are because popular social media platforms like snapchat and Instagram are image-based.
Self-objectification destroys individuality and self-identity. Every young person on the internet who posts has become a micro celebrity to their niche audience. Be witty and cute, but don't offend your friends. Be brash and shocking but not offensive. Be spontaneous, but not stupid. There is no room for error or individuality. We are learning to live in front of a crowd. That strain gets to one's head until the performance becomes the self. And this is all happening to kids. We are displaying caricaturized and objectified personas online. If the platform is used by immature users, it can turn around and hurt us. The immature user has an expectation of what social media is. They have an expectation of validation, relationships, and identity. All of which are false.
Slide 16: Obsession Culture: social media too far.
The end result is young girls who no longer know who they are. More and more girls sacrifice individuality for individualism and Truth from truth, latching on to anything real to define themselves with. Namely, Obsessions. Think of the testimonies you read at the beginning, particularly the one where they were trying to find “their thing.” In reality, no one is so one-dimensional. If you do not know who you are, you become vulnerable to obsessions. And girls at every age are obsessed.
I don't believe parents realise the full extent of private obsessions. Yes, they can and most often take the form of small things because almost everyone requires only small distractions: gaming, sports, exercise, or academics. Moreover, these simplistic interests post very well. This is called a false self and it is correlated with depression and anxiety because the mind is at war. The perfect resume presented online creates a dichotomy in the self: who you are and who you display to others.
“These girls can present as models of competence and still lack a fundamental sense of who they are.,” says psychotherapist, Dr Levine. But the online world of social media perpetuates a conformist and peer-oriented self that no one really is. From as early an age as 10, “die wilt” entertainments of videos, posts, and all other content, displays societal ideals with only simplistic happy emotions. And so, we join the online rat-race to seek fulfilment in the validation of others and the garnering of an online identity. Dr. Sax calls this the Anorexia of the soul. Young teens develop a skewed version of reality and self, before the process to develop and discover the authentic self has even begun.
Slide 17:
3) Appreciation or Exchange: What is a Like?
There is, however, the problem of the created insecurity. Social media can be used by people with no underlying issues, and still, they often go away miserable. Social media makes people feel worse. why?
It is based on a theory call the “Social Comparison Effect: if we repeatedly and continuously view content of people and experiences that appear better than our own, we naturally compare ourselves and see that we fall short without realizing that everyone actually falls short as well. Social media appears to be a display of appreciation for people, places, or events, but it is the act of people having the ability to choose whether to like or dislike that disrupts this. Appreciation becomes an exchange. Other viewers are comparing their lives to your posts and account. “It is a strange dance of what to like and who is having the most fun,” concludes Turkle.
Teens are supposed to be silly and carefree, and this does not translate well to the world of social media. Could you play freely with 300 people judging your methods of fun and every move? The carefreeness leaves and we begin a performance. When you become an adult, you put away childish things, but today’s teens put them away far too soon, and then remain in a loop of immaturity and underdevelopment in their lack of growth towards an independent identity.
Another reason for the exacerbated insecurities and depression brought on by social media sessions comes from knowing what we are doing is largely meaningless, but continue to scroll, and like, and post. The brain actually sees browsing and liking social media content as less meaningful overall than normal internet surfing. The frontal cotrex attempting to establish meaning, finding none. We know when what we do is meaningless and knowing what you are doing has no long-term value lead to decreases overall happiness. Meaningfulness directly correlates with mood. It's obvious that when you do something that you don't feel is very meaningful, that you won't feel very good afterwards.
Yet we keep coming back to the monotonous and meaningless activity that is social media. Why? Because The brain has stored scrolling through social media as fun. This is called Euphoric Recall: we remember the short-term good feeling and not the meaninglessness and depression right after. Seeing new posts and interacting in shallow ramble with friends online is an expedient reward. We get the dopamine hit from the short-term interaction, and so it is remembered for future time wasting.
In fact, people who use social media most often are more susceptible to casual depression and anxiety. A well-grounded adult viewing online content will view it with an appreciation of what they see. But a young user views through a lens of social comparison. They are not secure in their place and don’t have a developed individuality, so everything is a comparison. Studies show that people who follow either accounts with more followers than their own, or view more content of a bragging nature like selfies, updates, and pictures of good times (i.e. all social media content) are more likely to develop depression, anxiety and a host of other neurological disorders because they have compared themselves and found that they don’t measure up.
Slide 18: A discussion on Purpose:
On one hand we have discussed what it is that makes social media the mental impactor that it is. But there is the larger discussion of meaning and if it is worth the risk, especially for Christians and Hutterites. It is a platform based around the cultivation of a self-image. A truth with a small “t”. And what of the content itself? I think it is no news to anyone that content grows more sexualized and secular all the time.
The scrolling releases feel-good hormones when we refresh to a new post or text from a friend. But where do the DMs, the connection, and temporary fulfillment leave us? Technologically attached. This hardwired thirst for the novel can overwhelm us in the information age with tweets, texts, and Instagram posts fulfilling this need in the short term. We know to pursue what feels good because of a dopamine tickle. But it presents to us only the immediate fulfilment: sitting on one’s phone can be an hour of entertainment, but in that hour, one could have pursued a hobby, completed a task, or learned a new skill.
Boys are not excluded from the physiological implications of too much social media: body image, popularity, and negative influences. First, men today are bombarded, just like women, with an increased amount of sexualised and idealised versions of the male body. Second, social media creates stereotypes for genders in a way real life doesn't really. Men are displayed by social media and TV as athletic, muscular and powerful. These traits are preferences, and too often determine who is on top. Lastly, there is the meaninglessness of the scrolling. Where women need relationships, a lack of activity actually affects men far more than women. Men seek out activity and require it to feel good about themselves.
However, we keep returning to social media because it is entertaining. Much like most of media and technology, it is a distraction. The appeal is in the convenience of it: in the durability of online content, in the online record, in the ease of sharing content very quickly, and in the ease of finding content. All these can turn around and be benefits of technology. If the user uses with intent. And If the user is aware of themselves, their insecurities, and what social media is.
In the end, the Christian user should post, and like, and talk with other people with intent. The Christian household should discuss the content posted and the content viewed. There needs to be a conversation in every household in what is appropriate and what is not. Moreover, a discussion of what age should use social media. Lastly, the broader community needs to have a conversation about the impact that the individualism and self-promotion has on the foundational principles of community.
I don’t know if I have properly or even affectively laid out the risks of social media as they need to be understood. I’m sure I missed important aspects. But the overall message is the same for every essay I write. What is our purpose in this technology? Or are we again, simply mindlessly scrolling away, neglecting our first priorities to the G’ma and each other?
There should be barriers and ground rules for social media and certain levels of qualifications to meet before we engage with the meaningless content. Early on I mentioned that Hutterites are more susceptible to the pull of technology. Be we are equally the ones who can deal with the negative consequences the best. We have Communities. The internet cannot fulfil the need of connections and relationships, but the community can. We then do not need to turn to social media for that validation.
Next, there is the parent. Reasonable authoritative parents will differ in what is the right amount of social media for their teen. But if you let your child post whatever she wants on their social media, stories, etc., you are engaging in permissive parenting. If we want to view social media to be beneficiary in some way, monitor what is posted and viewed. If you would not let your daughter display any reputation she wished publicly, why would you do so online?
Lastly, there is the defensive line that is your own head. We can start there. We can control who we follow, and in turn, who follows us. We have relative control over the content we view and when we view it. Making Social media a hindrance or an aid comes down to a choice. There is a choice in how we use it- as a tool for connection, not relationship. There is a choice in our mindset when engaging. There is a choice in how we will use our time. There is always a choice.
Commenti