One of the joys of experiencing life cross-culturally, (or indeed, cross-sub-culturally), is that you gain a window into the unprejudiced mind. As we experience our own culture, (or indeed, the various sub-cultures that we are involved in), we begin to form opinions of other cultures. A classic example comes from American politics, most particularly the Obama period of electorate campaigns. Within this there were three main cultural players: the Libertarian party, the Republican party and the Democratic party, with each party spawning their own unique dialogue, opinions and content curation. In a sense, these three sub-cultures were interesting in that a huge part of their cultural identity came from their stance on the other two parties.
From those within the sub-culture, certain arguments and political stances become second nature. To simplify things, a lot of narratives boil down to X vs Y. For example, a free market vs socialization. For those deep within the sub-culture, certain opinions become fervent – for example, that the free market is inherently biased towards evil, or that socialization always leads to totalitarianism. Because of the interestingly fascinating echo-chamber created by social media, where those of either agreeing dispositions or stark opposite dispositions tend to be exposed to one enough, introducing a third party into the conversation can often be mind blowing.
Opinions formed from sub-cultural narratives
For someone outside of a certain sub-culture, suddenly introducing them to it forces them to make up their own mind on the subject immediately. They may opt to do further research at a later date, but as long as the introduction is limited to a quick “What do you think about this…”, in many cases you have forced them into only a few options. Either they will take the safe, neutral route, giving you an inoffensive answer; they will claim ignorance of the subject; or they will give you their own opinion, coming from a place outside the dominant subculture. It is this last type of response which can be suitably mind-blowing.
Most sub-cultures tend to gravitate towards fixed ideas. Once a couple of people have settled on a popular opinion, the “narrative” of that sub-culture will then fixate on this popular opinion, which new members to the sub-culture will then adopt unthinkingly. This does not just happen in politics, but everywhere. Of course, some of these opinions have more legitimacy than others, but despite that legitimacy, these ideas often go unchallenged not because they are good ideas, but because the strength of the cultural narrative becomes so strong that people eventually give up trying to challenge them. In the rare cases that people do challenge them however, they may end up making history within that sub-culture.
A quick example from above. Anyone familiar with the genre Fighting Games will know that the dominant narrative is that a classic arcade-style fightstick is superior to a common console controller for playing these games, and as such, most players wanting to play at a high level will purchase these expensive fightsticks in attempt to get good. Despite the fact that this narrative is so strong in the fighting game community, that did not stop one player from winning one of the most competitive tournements in the community, whilst playing with a common console controller, and also using what was regarded at the time as the worst character in the roster. This example demonstrates quite clearly the power of free thought. One must also consider the doubt which naturally occurs when deciding to put oneself at what is commonly agreed to be a disadvantage, this is a doubt which can be avoided by learning to trust oneself rather than a dominant narrative.
This is why talking to someone else outside of the dominant sub-culture can be extremely relieving. It is why businessmen consult their wives, and network outside of their industry. It does not take a genius to be the outside pair of eyes which sets your silly ideas straight. It is all too easy to become lost in the stranglehold of sub-culture, especially when many of these sub-cultures are cultivated to cause people to buy certain products or services as a result of being part of that culture – making them that much more insidious.
Although this has existed at least as long as the printing press, and most likely for as long as the young kept their ears unwavering obedient to the construed wisdom of anyone who was older, the new and ubiquitous font of ever-growing knowledge known as the internet has created an interesting, negative, feedback-loop on our minds when it comes to forming new ideas on our own.
The Beast That Keeps Growing
Being part of a generation who lived through the eras of, “The internet is a cool new place” and “The internet has literally every piece of information fathomable stored in its servers”, I’ve had some interesting experiences as to how the very presence of the internet itself creates a different attitude with respects to knowledge. Now, I’m aware we’ve all heard ad verbatim: “The internet causes addiction”, and I am also aware of the plethora of arguments as to why and how social media rots our brains. In fact, most of the “Internet is bad” arguments tend to focus around two aspects – Social Media and Advertising. And whilst I write this article with due recognition of the harmful affects that both of those may have on our psyche, I would like to draw the readers attention to something which, insofar as it goes unnoticed, may be a little more insidious. Namely, the affect that access to limitless information has on our ability to think strategically.
Back when the internet was just a “cool new place”, the world was in a kind of informational transitionary period: video games had cheat codes to unlock bonus stages, DVD movies had unlockable easter eggs that only the most dedicated fans would find. And those who didn’t have the time to discover either of these themselves would be able to keep up to date via magazines and pop culture booklets. Rumors about unlocking this or that, secret endings and developer commentaries would spread and it was, for the most part, an addition to the light entertainment that these media were providing. During this era of abundant media and informational scarcity, a particular joy of the filmmaker was to create a head-scrather – something that leaves the audience thinking “What?”. Or otherwise, a subtle invitation to work out the finer details of the plot without exposition. Videogames did this, movies did it, even novels have been doing it for an insanely long time.
Of course, back then, you couldn’t just make a quick search for “American Psycho Ending Meaning”, you had to do the thinking yourself. Media was inviting you to use your brain to figure it out, and for the most part, dedicated little kids like myself spent their time pondering and discussing until they thought they found an answer.
The Internet Feeds, And My Mind Bleeds
Brain functions get better the more you use them. People who are good at writing tend to make a habit of writing, shooting ranges exist for the practice of shooting, the act of doing creates neural pathways which strengthen areas of your brain, and therein creeps the temptation not to do, but to have done for you. Why try and dismantle the complicated plot of Donnie Darko when someone has done that years before you? After all, the joy is in the knowing, not in the finding out.
This doesn’t just apply for plot either, video games with deep levels of customization would develop Meta-Tactics in the era of abundant information. Players would congregate online until they have discovered the most viable strategy for taking on the challenges of the game. Now, even before you have played your first hour on any game, it can be tempting to make that quick search to ensure that the choices you make early on cause your in-game character to align with the Meta with minimum effort and investment from your part. Eventually this creates an agent who is inadept at experimentation, proportionally to the extent that he or she is willing to have the answers spoon-fed to them by the ones who got there first.
Not only does this weaken analytic and interpretive skills, it also creates the interesting phenomenon that earlier or more popular ideas tend to be the most accepted. With less engaging in the discussion, (including those who ponder and create new ideas privately as well as on online spaces), this means that there is a net loss of these skills being used in general.
What is also quite interesting is the phenomenon of reduced social credit in regards to the use of these skills. Before information was so abundant, having answers to movie riddles or obscurely laid out plots translated into a form of social currency, denoting intelligence and the abstract on limited information. Now that it is common knowledge that every answer can be found somewhere on the first page of your favourite search engine, that currency has become somewhat devalued. This lack of social currency attached to the mechanism of analyzing difficult puzzles presented in media has the knock on affect of negating any feelings of personal pride, (that is to say, without the social currency to back it up, it is hard to feel proud of ones accomplishments when they could have easily been achieved in a fraction of the time via a quick online search), further constraining the motivation to think deeply about media in the first place.
As with any negatively affective feedback pattern, it grows at the rate in which it becomes habitual, and when the answers to literally everything are constantly at our fingertips, (more pronounced when it is to do with media, often consumed on the same device from which we can access that information), the habit formation process could not be any simpler.
Free thinking is not easy
We imagine smart people to be those good in certain areas, usually areas in which we are not so skilled. Programmers, inventors, scientists. Even a mechanic can seem like a genius to someone who knows nothing of mechanics. We also imagine these sorts of people to be generally better decision makers and opinion formers, owing to the intellect required of their professions. The truth however, is that we are all suspect to the perils of thinking in line with a group rather than reason and evidence. There is good cause for this, however, as were we to do the science required for every opinion, we would soon grow old and die without having done much other than work already done other people. In this respect, we can appreciate how there is simply too much to know. Attaching ourselves to groups and belief systems can alleviate the time and energy one may need in order to form their own opinions, and can also offer us much needed support in the form of a peer group. On the other hand, however, it not only increases our chances of being wildly wrong about things, but makes it more and more difficult to even realise we are wrong, due to the social pressures in place in such belief groups. Indeed in this scenario, wherein one can not find the answer oneself the best alternative is not to blindly belief what others tell you, but instead to admit that you just don’t know.
Taking a step back every now and again to evaluate what you think you know is of paramount importance. Much of what you are told is often missing crucial pieces, especially since reality is often too much for anyone to know, including those from whom you are getting your information. You may think some of what you know is inherently obvious, but it only takes talking to someone who doesn’t know to point the equally obvious flaws in your reasoning. The more one considers the point, the more one shall realize that much of what you think you know, you don’t actually know at all. And admitting this fact is the first step in becoming intellectually integral, an important skill one must have if they are to properly face the challenges of life and reduce their own suffering.
