In an exchange I had with a friend from university, we were wondering about the cause of this general breakdown in civil debate and meaningful conversation. Obviously, the reasons are multiple. But beyond the notion of the immediacy of and excessive access to our attention-devouring devices, it’s also true that we are faced with easy access to an excessive amount of information. As a result, it’s no longer about finding or even relaying the facts. We’d rather talk about beliefs and feelings. In so doing, we are expressing our individuality. And the passion with which we express our positions makes us feel enlivened. As argued by Rust and Huang in their book, The Feeling Economy, with the mounting strength of AI in its thinking capacity, outgunning us in our cognitive capabilities (after having outdone us in our mechanical abilities), our penchant is to move to the more human skills of creativity, emotion and intuition. In such a world, we are less reliant on facts, analysis and rationality. We prefer to drive the emotionally charged narrative. And, to whet our appetite, if not pander to our passion, media prefer to enrage rather than inform.
Your reaction?
DIALOGOS is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I'd like to start by suggesting that it's not either/or between access or excess, but rather access AND excess.
The problem seems to be the introduction of false facts. A perilous way to build a society.
Passion is important, even essential. But the lack or avoidance of verified facts and reason is troublesome if not deplorable.