An Open Democracy article by David Beer, dated July 19, 2017, highlights the realities of the \"backfire effect\" on collective social media usage. He questions, \"[When] on social media, when exposed to opposing views, are we likely to change our minds? Or is there a 'backfire effect' which in fact consolidates communities around common 'bad objects'?\"<\/p>\n
In the last year the concept of the \u2018filter bubble\u2019, developed by\u00a0Eli Pariser\u00a0back\u00a0in\u00a02011, suddenly seemed quite urgent. I probably don\u2019t need to say\u00a0why. Its frequent use meant that it even became a cliche of sorts. In contrast to this popular vision of how social media limits our window on the world, Jamie Bartlett has used a\u00a0short piece\u00a0to explore why the \u2018backfire effect\u2019 is a better way for understanding the damage that has been done to political debate.<\/p>\n
In this case, the \u2018backfire effect\u2019 is used to describe how our encounters with opposing views actually reinforce our own existing views \u2014 rarely are people persuaded to change their minds\u00a0by ideas\u00a0or\u00a0arguments that\u00a0run counter to their established\u00a0notions.<\/strong> Bartlett\u2019s intervention neatly describes how this concept can be used to understand social media interactions. One key point he makes is that rather than simply filtering out alternative points of\u00a0view, social media constantly present us with views that frustrate, annoy or anger us.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s an important observation. Before last week I don\u2019t think I was aware that Andrew Adonis was even on Twitter. Following some bizarre comments he made about academics\u2019 summer holidays and his subsequent goading of\u00a0the\u00a0academic\u00a0community, I\u2019ve repeatedly seen a handful of his tweets as people, understandably\u00a0riled, have shared and responded to the comments. I suspect that no one\u2019s views of what academics do has been changed. It seems more likely to have entrenched existing views\u00a0on\u00a0both\u00a0sides. That\u2019s just one example of what, I think, Bartlett is pointing toward. You won\u2019t need to look far to find lots of others.<\/p>\n
Having said this, Bartlett\u2019s vision might be overlooking (or at least understating) the collective way that this \u2018backfire effect\u2019 often works. It seems to have a kind of community forming property. This might be negative, with collective adherence to damaging or prejudicial views becoming harder to challenge. Reductive and populist ideas might find purchase by creating accounts of the world to act against rather than persuade otherwise.<\/strong> Yet, in the case of Adonis\u2019 comments, a good deal of solidarity was expressed within the outrage. People shared their frustration as they shared comments. It might be that social media are based around the connection forming properties of \u2018the backfire effect\u2019 that Bartlett refers to \u2014 as well as the individual cementing of views that it is said to cause.<\/p>\n
This can happen algorithmically as well as being a product of how social media are used. Algorithms are unlikely to hide counter-intuitive content from us, they like things that stimulate activity of any sort. The \u2018backfire effect\u2019 is one way that activity can be provoked. But it is also significant as a phenomenon because of the way social media are used.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Bad Objects<\/strong>
\nThe sociologists Imogen Tyler and Bruce Bennett have discussed how certain celebrities act as \u2018bad objects\u2019.<\/strong> As people distance themselves from those celebrities, they share in that act of distancing. The bad object becomes a symbol that people can collectively differentiate themselves from. So, the bad object enables social connections to be forged and maintained \u2014 whilst also perpetuating various social divisions\u00a0and\u00a0patterns\u00a0of\u00a0abjection.<\/strong> We could see the content that enables this shared backfiring as being like these bad objects \u2014 with people connecting by acting together to distance themselves from that content. Collective backfiring.<\/strong><\/p>\nRather than representing a totally different way of understanding social media, the backfire effect can even contribute to the filter bubble. When these alternative perspectives or narratives arrive they are shared within a network they are often explicitly identified as some sort of illustration of what is seen to be wrong, what shouldn\u2019t be and what falls outside the accepted positions of that network.<\/p>\n
When we see \u2018backfire\u2019 type content \u2014 i.e. stuff that we don\u2019t like or agree or which goes against our logic, but which ultimately solidifies our existing views \u2014 it often comes with commentary from other social media users that contextualises our potential disdain and cements its \u2018backfire\u2019 credentials.<\/strong><\/p>\n
We don\u2019t necessarily need to reject the idea of the \u2018filter bubble\u2019<\/strong> to explore this backfire effect. The filter bubble doesn\u2019t mean that we only see things we agree with\u00a0or\u00a0see\u00a0as\u00a0rational, it means we see things that support our world view.<\/strong> These could be things we feel are wrong but which we and others are using to create the boundaries of our bubbles and give our social networks inward coherence. This includes things that we despise, feel we know to be wrong or which we think are misleading. It\u2019s just that these things are deployed within networks to distance and create boundaries and norms. It might be that the backfire effect is part of how the filter bubble operates and how social media reifies perspectives. It might not be, as Bartlett argues, the \u2018reverse\u2019 of a filter bubble or echo chamber.<\/p>\n
Either way, the shift here is in thinking of the power of a kind of collective backfire effect, rather than seeing it as an entirely individual response. Understanding any possible damage to political debate might require us to understand social media\u2019s collective backfiring.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Source:\u00a0https:\/\/www.opendemocracy.net\/digitaliberties\/david-beer\/backfire-effect-bad-objects-and-changing-our-minds-online<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Possibilities for Consideration<\/h2>\n
\n
- How do we\u00a0<\/em>communicate with groups of people who are invested in being right?<\/li>\n
- How do we<\/em>\u00a0gently awaken people to discover and explore both sides of the story?<\/li>\n
- How do we<\/em>\u00a0communicate with people who DO NOT CARE ABOUT TRUTH, ONLY ABOUT BEING RIGHT?<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Add Your Insight<\/h2>\n
Although to our automatic brain, change always means potential danger.
\nIn order to calm that brain, it means embracing change
\nso to turn on the light in our mind and open the door to our true potential.
\n<\/em><\/strong>CHARLES F. GLASSMAN<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"