Dr. Michelle Martin
  • Home
  • Political Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Reading Recommendations
  • Contact
  • Counseling-Life Coaching

Some Suggestions on How to Engage People Online Without Losing Your Mind

9/1/2018

 
Many people have commented on my "grace" in responding to people who disagree with me and aren't very nice about it. Well, I wasn't always so gracious—there was a time when I could be pretty snarky. I corrected people's grammar (how funny is that? #karma),

​I bombarded people with facts, I interspersed my comments with "oh please!" or "typical!" and although I didn't engage too much in name-calling, I did use a fair amount of sarcasm (still do at times), and a minor epithet every now and then.

​I'm certain I didn't change a single person's mind with that type of engagement. But what I did do is exhaust myself, make people feel bad about themselves, and drive an even deeper wedge into our already polarized society.

Then I heard about a brilliant researcher named Dr. Andrew Hoffman, from the University of Michigan, who researches the culture wars. Just about everything I've 
​
​
learned about online civil discourse, I learned from his book and his speeches (by the way, I've never met Dr. Hoffman, but I'd love to!). I'm attaching a link to a video of one of his speeches that I use in class. It's long, but worth the watch. He's funny, engaging, filled with wisdom, and he's honest. I strongly believe that regardless of your political persuasion, you will gain something from watching this video or reading his book.


Here is something to keep in mind when you are engaging with others who think very differently from you. Issues have a tendency to become polarizing when they relate to our way of life (or we perceive that they do). For the most part, we are a product of our culture (race and ethnicity, religion, region, gender, etc.). Also, we all have a tendency to cut some slack for those people we know and like; meaning if they falter, we'll likely blame circumstance or other people. And, we have a tendency to not cut any slack for those people we don't know or don't like.

The name of this dynamic isn't really important, but if you're curious and want to read more about this dynamic, it's called "Fundamental Attribution Error." We all do it...every one of us. If I support Obama and someone criticizes something he did, I will likely blame the situation, or Republicans, or fake news (propaganda), and not him.

If I don't like Trump and someone criticizes him, I will be more likely to blame him personally, without considering context (he's a terrible person, he's just not very bright). And of course it goes both ways (switch Obama and Trump in this scenario, and the same is true). This is why when someone we like is criticized we tend to rely on the

"Oh yeah, well what about ___!" argument. This tendency is the bedrock of hypocrisy, but the driving force, I believe, is really fundamental attribution error. What's the solution? Awareness.

Another challenge in remaining rational when we're debating tough issues is our tendency to seek out information that supports our personal biases, while rejecting information that doesn't. That's called "Confirmation Bias," and again, we all have a tendency to engage in this type of thinking. 

​One of the ways we avoid the discomfort we feel when people challenge our perspectives (our biases), is to avoid them, and instead surround ourselves with like-minded people; that way, no one disagrees with us, and we can continue to feel good about ourselves. The problem with this response is that we become very insulated in our thinking and we can easily slip into an "us vs. them" mentality, which is a hop, skip, and a jump away from dehumanizing others. 

When we call people a "Libtard" or "Snowflake" or "tRump" or "Trumpster" we get an immediate jolt of adrenaline, which can make us feel powerful in a disempowering conversation. But...there's a price to that kind of communication, even in its more subtle forms. First, we don't achieve our goal of being heard; second, we don't change anyone's mind; third, we further the divide, rather than contributing productively to the discussion, finding common ground and discovering helpful solutions.

But most important, we take a very diverse population and we reduce it to a single collective identity. They are no longer individual people with full and complicated lives, with painful experiences, with incredible accomplishments and achievements. They are no longer moms and dads, nurses, police officers, or teachers. They are no longer people who have lost children, people battling cancer, or survivors of difficult childhoods. They are a faceless member of a mass population who are evil to their core.

I have felt this tug, and trust me, it's a black hole. It will suck you in if you're not careful, and there's a point at which resistance is futile (Trekkie reference, there). Do everything in your power to avoid slipping into that black hole.

"The Left" is not a monolithic group of God-haters, who despise the military and cops, and seek to destroy the American way of life. And "the Right" is not a monolithic group of white supremacists who hate all immigrants, women, people of color, Muslims and members of LGBTQ+ communities. But (and this is an important but) many politicians want us to think that. In this sense, we all need to become resisters. 


  • Resist the temptation to demonize.
  • Resist the temptation to demoralize.
  • Resist the temptation to stereotype. 
​
Many politicians pander in fear. They control us by making us afraid.

They tell us that some group of people who we may never meet, whose lives have nothing to do with our own, are threatening us in some way: threatening our way of life, threatening our livelihood, threatening our children.

Sometimes this is true, but far more often, it's not.

When we're frightened and feel threatened, critical thinking tends to fly out the window and we have difficulty assessing true threats (kind of like how my smoke alarm goes off every time I take a shower). And who has time to chase down all the facts in the information coming at us at lightning speed? Most of us don't. So we rely on people we trust—our political leaders, our pastors, our wise friends, our media commentators.

Also, simple narratives are easy to believe, and complex ones are difficult. If a narrative is a simple one ("all Muslims are terrorists,"
"all Christians want to control us," "all immigrants are taking our jobs," "all Clinton supporters hate America," "all Trump supporters are racists"), we're more likely to sign on. That's why memes with simplistic narratives are so attractive, and spread like wild fires, although rarely are they useful in finding common ground.

Simple narratives are easy to adopt, but the truth is always complex. So, we all need to try harder to strive for complexity in our narratives and learn to live with dissonance.


And finally, let's all try to adopt a world view of abundance, rather than scarcity. 

​
There's enough for all of us. Maybe it doesn't always feel like that, but I believe this to be true with every fiber of my being. A world view based on scarcity makes us easier to manipulate by those who wish to control us through fear. 

I believe we're going to be okay in the long run, but in the meantime, let's all work harder at keeping compassion front and center toward all people, even those we don't understand and have difficulty relating to.

If someone disagrees with you, don't say anything online that you wouldn't say while looking directly into their eyes. And if someone is deeply ideologically committed (on either side of our current political divide), then keep in mind that maybe they're operating from a place of pain, and again, just let it go.

Remember, people's Facebook timelines are like their home. You can comment on their decorating, but you can't tear down their window treatments and drag their couch to the curb. So make your comment of dissent, and then leave their page, and rant on your own.

And finally (finally), as Dr. Hoffman says, people change through relationships, not by throwing facts (or insults) at them on social media.


Crystal
6/22/2018 09:25:06 pm

SOME SUGGESTIONS ON HOW......to..... ENGAGE PEOPLE ONLINE WITHOUT LOSING YOUR MIND

;)

Pamela Bratsch
6/23/2018 05:49:11 am

Just want to say thank you. Have found and shared your posts on Facebook as I found them so informative. This world today is a scary place and so much of the information we are given is so biased it is impossible to get clear information. I do like to argue with people so I look for information that is backed up and you do that. I have spent days looking online at one article or another and most are just hatespeach from biased sources. So glad to have found you. ❤😊

Dr. Michelle Martin
6/26/2018 06:18:38 pm

Thanks Pamela! I'm typically conflict-avoidant, but am more assertive online (true for most of us, I think). As I share in my post, despite having a career in social work AND having a PhD in peace studies, this is still a struggle for me. If you have a chance try to watch Andrew Hoffman's video. He is so calm and funny and filled with wisdom. I find myself applying his approach in a number of areas in my life! And, I'm glad you found me too ❤️

Laura
6/23/2018 09:22:49 am

Excellent read. That’s the one thing I dislike most about social media is that the extremes seem to dominate the newsfeed with little civil behavior. Polarizing behavior never laid the foundation for compromise and understanding. I tend not to engage in political debates because no minds are changed within these platforms and much time is wasted that could be spent doing more enjoyable activities. If only your rules of engagement could be embraced by those who choose to debate and comment.

Dr Michelle Martin
6/26/2018 06:24:11 pm

Yesterday I had to delete three tweets because upon reflection they were snarky and had an "Ha! How do you like it?!" tone...it's a struggle, but I believe with practice, we can all get there (well, at least most of us). I think they key is to manage our outrage. It seems as though there's something new to be outraged by every single day and we lose sight of what's Level 10, versus what's Level 1. Keeping our focus on the horizon and not straight down on our feet, and also recognizing that in some respects, we're kind of all doing the same thing to each other. Sometimes compromising seems like a betrayal to our cause, which is why it's so difficult when we're talking about such important issues. Anyway, thank you for commenting and let's hope we can change the online culture, for the better (one tweet at a time!) ❤️

Ron Haupt
6/23/2018 02:11:25 pm

Dr. Martin: I appreciated your article debunking the various myths surrounding this last weeks events re: "zero tolerance". Further, I applaud your suggestions about how to engage people who disagree with you. I am an engineer and have many engineering friends, most from the mid-west, who are, I believe, misinformedly supporting Trump's efforts, including his efforts to cast immigrants as the worst kind of people. You state "resist the temptation to demonize" and I agree, but in article after article, by you and others, the phrase "ripping children from their mother's arms" or words to that affect are used. These words are loaded and "demonize" anyone who supports taking children and infants from parents who are under arrest. I do not support taking children from their parents in these misguided national security efforts. I believe in stating the facts, but not stating them in such a way as to increase the chasm between communicants.

Dr. Michelle Martin
6/26/2018 06:29:59 pm

Hi Ron,

I can absolutely see your point, and I thought about that when I wrote those words. I work hard not to use "coined" language that will evoke reactions in people, because they'll stop reading, thus it defeats my purpose. But with this one, I felt strongly that I needed to use a phrase that represented what was happening—as a mom and as a social worker, who's worked in child welfare. The parents weren't under arrest. They were detained because the majority are seeking asylum. There was no legal reason to separate them, and the majority will likely not get their children back. So I simply cannot frame this any other way. But again, I do see your point, and agree (more broadly). If you notice that I do this in other blog posts, I welcome you calling me on it...we all get used to using certain terms and we don't always understand how others interpret them. My next post is going to be about the Flores decree and whether the family separations were legally mandated (they weren't). Also...I lived in the Midwest for 20 years...❄️

Laura Stemle
6/25/2018 06:48:50 pm

I am so appreciative of your insight and perspective. Thank you!!!

Dr. Michelle Martin
6/26/2018 06:30:18 pm

Thanks Laura!

Steve Duplantis
6/27/2018 05:05:18 pm

Thanks Dr. Martin,
I have found blog! It took a little time but here I am. I am just starting to go thru some of the material and just want to thank you for the information presented. It's nice to find at least one place where the debate over immigration can be discussed. The problem I have right now is that in regards to immigration is that you hear so many different things presented as facts. Perhaps this is at least one place, (and I am glad for the interaction) that we can glean out what is true and what is not. Thanks again, Steven D. P.S. I can't believe you have the time for all of this and you answer messages!


Comments are closed.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018

    Picture

    Author

    Dr. Michelle Martin is a social worker, policy specialist and Assistant Professor at California State University, Fullerton in the Department of Social Work, where she teaches social welfare policy, and researches dynamics related to immigrants, political asylum-seekers, refugees and other displaced populations.


    ​

    Categories

    All
    Anti Immigrant
    Anti-Immigrant
    Border Crime
    Border Wall
    Bush
    Central American Immigrants
    Child Labor
    Cognitive Dissonance Theory
    Compassion
    Confirmation Bias
    Credible Fear Interview
    Culture Wars
    Cyberbullying
    Democrat
    Democratic
    Department Of Homeland Security
    Dr. Christine Blasey Ford
    Drug Flow
    Drug Trafficking
    Expedited Removal
    Facebook
    Family Separations
    Farmers
    Fundamental Attribution Error
    GOP
    Homeland Security
    Human Rights Violations
    ICE
    Identity Politics
    Illegal Immigration
    Immigrants
    Immigrants And Crime
    Immigration
    Immigration Legislation
    Jane Addams
    Kavanaugh
    Meatpacking
    Mexico
    MS-13 Gang
    Obama
    Patriarchy
    Polarization
    Political Asylum
    Political Divide
    Political Polarization
    Politics
    Racism
    Radical Social Work
    Republican
    Right Wing Populism
    Right-Wing Populism
    Rigid Thinking
    Self-Identity
    Separated Children
    Separating Parents And Children
    Sessions
    Sexism
    Sexual Assault
    Sexual Harassment
    Social Justice
    Social Media
    Social Work
    Supreme Court
    The Border Wall
    Trump
    Twitter
    Unauthorized Workers
    Undocumented Immigration
    Zero Tolerance Policy

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos used under Creative Commons from Resa Sunshine, Tony Webster, The Epoch Times, Ninian Reid
  • Home
  • Political Blog
  • About
  • Contact
  • Reading Recommendations
  • Contact
  • Counseling-Life Coaching