Our obsession with negativity is the real hidden pandemic of the 21st century

This post won’t be for everyone.  But if you find yourself loathing people or feeling wrought with anger after spending time on Facebook or Twitter, then I hope you'll read this. And let me first admit openly that at one point, this applied to myself as much as ANYONE. That is until I finally woke up.

Ask yourself a question; Do you have the same types of interactions with family, friends and even complete strangers in person the same way as you do online? Arguing, swearing, condescension, accusations, hurling insults, walking away thinking everyone is out to get you, or God forbid “unfriending” them? 

Unless you are truly sociopathic, then that answer is likely NO.

And there is a logical reason for this.  Being online changes our behavior. And this is not an accident. We joined these "communities" out of good intentions.  But there are extremely clever developers out there creating algorithms that can literally "learn" how to influence our actual behavior while online. These behaviors literally have cash value to them. 

These words are critically important to make clear:

It is highly likely that everything you think you know about people online is either false or severely skewed information that is causing you to develop an unjustified feeling of resentment toward them. 

This is driven by false information, cognitive biases and assumptions we make about people we simply do not know as well as we think we do. We cherry-pick obscure news resources that validate our opinions and reject those that say otherwise, all without confirming that either of them are accurate. We identify a microscopic community of extremists on either the far Right or the far Left and then extrapolate that outwardly in our minds to represent the ENTIRE philosophical movement of either Conservatism or Liberalism.

Every issue, no matter how isolated, becomes politicized and people take sides and begin to dig their heels in. There is scarcely little real "constructive" dialogue on social media. Instead it has become an outlet for people to lose their temper, letting fly all of the things you wouldn't dare say in person. 

This needs to stop NOW. If you want to close out 2020 with something positive, here is an ideal place to start.

Social Media was supposed to be safe, casual, fun and yes… SOCIAL.  However unintended consequences are a real thing. And so here we are.

What is happening is we are being duped into believing there REALLY is a serious “us versus them” Battle Royale taking place in our country.  The truth is, there is NOT; at least not yet. But things in life can become self-fulfilling when left unchecked.

Unfortunately our behavior on these platforms is now beginning to overflow into our personal lives and it is manifesting itself in how we treat one another face to face.  You can’t possibly tell me that all of this frustration and resentment you feel on social media makes you emotionally fulfilled as a person. So what do you do to try and quell it? You attack others. “They” are stupid, racist, crazy, ignorant, evil, fascist, trying to ruin our lives or steal our freedoms, etc. We begin telling ourselves stories in our minds about other people with VERY little accurate information by which to go on. The lack of direct interaction with those people allows us to easily trick ourselves into believing those stories to be true.  We begin showboating, creating aggressive posts in cold blood that take personal jabs at other people with the false sense of security that if we avoid using names, nobody gets hurt.  This lack of empathy is a critical error. There will be plenty of people who will believe you ARE in fact referring to them.  Good luck putting out that dumpster fire you just lit. 

Stop trying to "fix" those people on social media. You hardly know "them" and in most cases, they don't need "fixing".

Social media was meant to be an online community. Communities only thrive when the majority of its members actively desire to get along with and to accept one another.  It's when people agree to communicate directly with one another and to find ways to exist cohesively. This little miracle happens when we focus on the 80% of which we share in common while finding ways to accept the other 20% as differences we can work with. And actually, sometimes those differences, when faced head on, can yield incredible solutions to complex problems. It is literally what allowed us to evolve from small tribes of nomadic hunter/gatherers always on high alert against potential invaders, into cooperative civilizations.

But whatever in our lizard brains that drives that, it appears to be null and void when online.

Look, the original intent of Social Media was not inherently bad. It was to gain as many “users” as possible and then monetize that community of users by connecting everyone with advertisers offering products or services that more closely align with each individual user based on exclusive user data.  As a “user”, you have a measurable cash value based on your behavior online and how much time you spend on Social Media.

Now this might sound contradictory coming from a staunch, free-market capitalist like myself but RIGHT HERE is where the quest for profits with ZERO regard for human dignity can begin to do more harm than good.

Developers and advertisers have discovered that keeping you online LONGER and BEHAVING in specific ways can actually increase your cash value to them. As a result, they have creatively engineered ways to make this happen. They do this by getting us pissed off at one another. They literally cause us to pick fights while they simply step back and watch.  (And count the money)

How does this actually work? When people are angry and stressed, it triggers a subconscious urge for a quick dopamine hit which can temporarily alleviate that stress.  So they create the disease, administer the cure, and then the cycle repeats itself.  We are now addicted not entirely unlike like substance users. This ironically causes MORE scrolling through newsfeeds, more “liking” and more “shares” of controversial content. When the "likes" start to roll in, the feeling is so strong, we begin to actually crave the sources of resentment which cause the stress in the first place because it allows for another little "bump".  We literally get hooked and can't put our phones down. The LONGER they keep you online and behaving in this fashion, the more money they stand to make.

And the cost? Well, they may not care but you and I should. Because our ability to function as a civilization is what is at stake. If you look at our current trajectory, something HAS to give or we are in trouble.

The amazing thing is it you can get away from all of the negativity for a few hours and spend some time in the real world, you'll realize that things are actually pretty good out here. Even despite the current circumstances. Most of us are going to be fine. 

And there are NO political leaders in this country that we need to fear are going to quickly advance to dictators, regardless of their ridiculous rhetoric. Remember that in our society, we have a Constitution and laws and we the people, are of the highest level of authority in the land. Neither the current president, nor Joe Biden, regardless of whom wins next month, has the authority to “destroy” our society or to become authoritarians. That only happens if we willingly hand that power to them.

I should point out that I am not making a case to defend one side or the other. The reality is we have more in common that we do not. But as humans, we are wired to focus on the negative. (I’m serious, this is real documented psychology. It’s easy to fixate on the minority of our disagreements rather than the majority of our alikeness. 

Who is more intelligent? The correct answers is: "It doesn't matter"

Social media is NOT real life. Yet I’m finding that on occasion, people in the blogosphere still can’t resist the temptation to dust off the “I’m smarter than you” defense when discussing a current hot take on social media. There are fewer worse ways to engage in a conversation with someone in your life whom you care about than to start bickering about “Who has the higher IQ” and thus try to extrapolate “Who is therefore RIGHT?”

If you are debating an issue with a friend or colleague and you feel the need to resort to the “Studies have shown that my group has a higher IQ than yours …” as late game means of trying to score some points and potentially convince your opponent that the truth and facts are on your side, I have some disappointing news. You have subconsciously forfeited the argument.

Here’s why…

You’ve reached the point where you can no longer present compelling ideas nor analytical data in any format whatsoever in order to bolster your defense and attempt to align other people into accepting your viewpoint. (not that anyone typical ever wins a political argument but anyway…). Or you are struggling to accept the reality that the opposing party simply doesn’t agree with you. Shocking, I know. Pride comes in large bites and often gets stuck on our throats.

Here are a few key reasons that the IQ defense has no teeth.

First, IQ does NOT represent how exactly intelligent a person is (or isn’t). To be more blunt, it simply is an estimator of what type of intelligence “capacity” a person may have.  It is calculated by measuring only a few factors such as memory, attention span and speed. IQ, might demonstrate a person’s ability to think “fast on his or her feet”. I’ve personally been around the sun enough times in my life to where I will acknowledge that yes, fast thinking can be  a viable skill and possibly indicative of an intelligent person. But it is most certainly not the only factor involved. For example it discounts highly analytical people that like to collect all of the data and let it simmer for a few minutes before responding. I’ve seen those who when you give them five or ten minutes to collect their thoughts and review their notes, come back in to the room with some responses that completely drop the hammer on everyone in the room. Fast thinkers can yield a decent answer. Slow thinkers can often craft an exceptional one. 

Second, IQs vary over time. Some cases have shown significant fluctuations that can change over relatively short periods of time.   I’ve personally had THREE IQ tests in my lifetime, with a 32 point deviation between my lowest score and my highest. IQ alone is only going to demonstrate a “capacity”. High IQ alone is like having an enormous warehouse. But if you choose not to fill it with any incoming and outgoing inventory, it will remain empty and untapped.

Third, attempting to calculate a given demographic’s ENTIRE population is essentially impossible. If you are querying a given ethnicity, say you want to calculate the average IQ of a Hispanic person. You’ll see variations in your results based on what part of the world they live in, what religion they belong to, their age, marital status, number of children, gender, sexual orientation, social upbringing, educational level, current salary, etc. The list of control factors is virtually infinite. Which means you can pivot this data whichever way you’d like, adding and subtracting certain sub-factors and fine-tuning your data until you reach the desired output that aligns with your narrative. (Also known as “cherry picking” data). The same applies if you attempt to determine the average IQ of an American Conservative or an American Liberal. You’d have to also control for factors such as age, region, state, education level, employment, salary, marital status in order to find any data points worth investigating. Which brings me to my final point.

What possible value can come out of knowing the “average” IQ of a select demographic? Unless you can test every last living breathing soul in a demographic in order to “average out” their IQ, you’ve failed before you’ve begun because the task is simply too daunting and wrought with factors which will skew your results. If you desire that people view you as a caring soul with good intentions, you couldn’t be much more misaligned with that notion by trying to discount the social value of an entire demographic of people based on a aggregate number that doesn’t reflect any one person in particular in that group. Instead, it only uses it as a means to discriminate against them.

Your IQ is yours and nobody else’s. You can not be given an IQ nor can you assign yours to anyone else on this Earth. Regardless of what group a researched wants to lump you into and then average you out, if your IQ is 145, yet the average in your demographic is only 128, yours is STILL 145.  Trying to stuff a high IQ person into a group where the mean is lower is horribly unjust. It is equally so to judge one group against another based on unsubstantiated averages.  

Please avoid attempting to leverage a random and invalidated study that states; “The average American liberal has a higher IQ than the average American conservative and therefore when the two disagree, the Conservative must by default ALWAYS be wrong”. It is also often a place for the poorly educated and/or misinformed to try and find an inter-sectional group with higher numbers they can attempt hide behind. I have yet to see any intellectual powerhouses using this argument. Left or Right, they do not need to. Truly intelligent people do not need to remind others of it.

Modern SJW's are righteous in their battle for equal pay. There is only one snag...

First let's quickly review the definition of a "Social Justice Warrior". They are generally kind and decent people with kind hearts and good intentions. But despite these positive attributes they share a level of irrationality unintentionally masked by their own sincerity. I mean equality in itself is a good thing, correct?

Well, usually YES but in some cases it depends on the context.

SJW’s tend to lean a little farther to the political Left than your run of the mill Liberal. A Liberal tends to favor “equality of opportunity”, which is in itself a decent a noble cause. SJWs on the other hand tend to gravitate toward a notion of “equality of OUTCOME”. There is a critical difference between these two philosophies.

Equality of opportunity is rational because it focuses on the “input” of a given project with a desire that it will positively affect the “output”. Equality of OUTCOME on the other hand, disregards this critical first step of input and ONLY focuses on OUTPUT. This is a gross violation of the first Law of Thermodynamics, which you might remember from science class as The Law of Conservation of Energy. This states that energy can NOT be created nor destroyed in a given system. At the most, it can only change in form.

An excellent example of this resides in the current hot takes on the US Women’s very much deserved World Cup title and their disparity in pay between their division and the men’s.

Now the difference between genders in sports is an icky topic that for men like myself, we don’t like to discuss it much. It is an awkward subject that makes us feel a little uncomfortable if not a tad guilty.

For whatever reason and I do not know why, men were designed a little bigger, faster and stronger on average than women on this earth. And due to that, they tend to perform at a different level. Not “better” per se. Just “different”. By no means am I using the word “better”. If we want to talk about who is better, if you consider which gender commits the most violent crimes, workplace violence, spousal abuse, drug trafficking, fraud, etc., I think it would be fair to say the ladies are crushing the men in overall quality of humanity.

What does this all mean? I personally love the fact that we have women’s divisions in sports. I can watch women’s college softball all afternoon. I also enjoy watching them play volleyball, ice hockey during the Olympics and the occasional soccer match. I remember 1999, jumping up and down in my living room when Mia Hamm and her crew defeated a ferociously talented team China for the World Cup. I’ll even argue that women’s volleyball and tennis is actually more exciting to watch due to their abilities to return the serves and create some exciting back and forth. Men’s leagues tend to be an extreme serving competition and rounds are over before they even start. (snooze)

The most recent championship, which I sadly missed due to recovering from surgery, is equally as exciting. Congratulations, ladies. You are all bad asses and you make us all proud. But out of this recent title has reemerged the narrative of the ladies not getting paid the same amount as the men’s division. I mean on the surface, it does seem a little unfair. Our ladies have won FOUR titles and our men, ZERO. This year the men didn’t even qualify for the tournament. Our ladies on the world stage most certainly stack up better against their competitors than our men do against theirs. So why the pay disparity?

First we have to remember that pay is not based on championships. That is what trophies, medals and belts are for. Pay is one of the OUTPUTS we just mentioned above, an output that is contingent on the initial input. The men’s FIFA league generated 6 billion dollars in revenue this year. The women’s generated 131 million. Those numbers are not the fault of the men’s league nor any possible level of sexism existing in the upper offices. It is a direct result of the input. The input is ticket sales and merchandising.

You can complain all day long about men spending more money on attending sports in a men’s league more than those in the women’s. But the problem here is not sexism because the women are doing this as well! Women attend more NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB games on average than they do ANY of the women’s sporting leagues. This despite women in the US making up about 51% of our population. For those not good at math, that is slightly more than HALF.

So ladies, why are you not buying tickets to soccer matches nor purchasing player jerseys? That is the input. If you start selling out soccer stadiums, the revenues will increase and the women’s soccer team will get paid more. You can’t increase their pay to a level that causes the league to operate at a loss. They would no longer be able to operate. And is it fair to force the men to take a pay cut down to the level of what the women are making? I mean I suppose you could argue in favor of that. However if they have done nothing wrong so why punish them? If they are pulling in ticket sales, why is it important that they surrender a portion of their salary to subsidize the women’s division?

By the way, I should point out that female models on average earn far more than male models for the same work essentially. There is a simple explanation for this. Women make in the upwards of 85% of all consumer purchasing in the US. A significant percentage of this is apparel. Their side pulls in more revenue. The models earn more, period.

So in closing, look, I don’t disagree with the notion that I’d love to see a world where everyone makes an equally large bit fat salary for the same jobs. But that is Utopian and irrational because it discounts all of the factors that go into the equation that actually generates that money in the first place. If there is no input, you can’t expect an output. And you certainly can’t demand a higher output  of cash from an lower input of sales.

Let’s spend a little more time understanding the input and what changes we need to make there and THEN we can begin to see a more desired output.