Is social media rotting our brain? (podcast)
Is social media rotting our brain? (podcast)
A 'Forbidden Conversation' with Gurwinder Bhogal
My guest, Gurwinder Bhogal, is a writer examining the intersection of psychology and technology. On this episode of Forbidden Conversations, we explore some of the ideas central to his work—namely—ways in which we tend to get fooled in the digital age. Why have we seemingly abandoned reason? Is the Internet really rotting our brain, or do we share that responsibility? We have more data available to us than ever before, but it isn’t necessarily making us more knowledgeable. And there’s few of us that have been able to avoid the Kruger-Dunning effect. Why is it that smart people believe false things? And why is it so difficult for many of us to change our minds?
Most importantly, what is the antidote?
After working in web development on projects like Microsoft Bing, Gurwinder left the tech industry to pursue a career as a freelance writer. His work has featured in UnHerd, Quillette, Areo, The Humanist, The Sunday Express, and on the blog of the counter-terrorism think-tank Quilliam. He also writes at
gurwinder.substack.com and you can find him on Twitter.The FORBIDDEN CONVERSATIONS Podcast is a series that takes on topics that don't always get attention or are more challenging to tackle and seeks to address them through civil discourse and nuanced exploration. To view all episodes so far, visit here. Please subscribe, like and comment. You know, all the YouTube things. It helps a LOT!
Want to listen only? Find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
☕️ Enjoying this series and essays? Please consider supporting my work by making a donation and buying me a coffee. Here’s how.
Pre-Order my book, No Apologies: How to Find and Free Your Voice in the Age of Outrage―Lessons for the Silenced Majority.
NOTE TO READERS:
Thank you for keeping me company. Although I try to make many posts public and available for free access, to ensure sustainability and future growth—if you can—please consider becoming a paid subscriber. In addition to supporting my work, it will also give you access to an archive of member-only posts. And if you’re already a paid subscriber, THANK YOU. Please also share, like, and comment. Got ideas for future posts? Email me.
What Works Vs. What Sells:
America is spinning its wheels on what sells — never mind it’s not working and never will. I’ve got an idea and a compelling case for why it would work, but its multidimensional depth doesn’t sell.
Righting the trajectory of America by changing the dynamic of debate — just might (over time). But in order to do that, you’d have to understand how we got here in the first place — and therein lies the rub:
"[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it"
— M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
What I have in mind is a framework for intellectually honest debate that allows principles to breathe instead of being suffocated with narrative.
Speaking of which:
"Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it."
Repeatedly rehashing niche-based argument may be honest to a certain extent, but it’s not intellectually honest. If it were, your behavior would reflect the principles you promote regardless of the context. For 20 years, I’ve been practically spit on for practicing principles those same people preach. But no need to reconcile that — when you can just amplify the narrative with new media.
People who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors across the cable clans — think they’re wide awake now. Let’s put that to the test, shall well? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.” It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101.
Narrative makes noise — and that sells like hotcakes.
"That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of . . ."
When the context suits you, such words are solid gold. What you do when it doesn’t — determines the worth of your word. The fairly famous owner of the quote — once called my writing “brilliant” and was “blown away” by this site and signed up. Alas, he wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task.
Never mind his hero’s history of hypocrisy that aligns with every word in that quote (on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, no less). Not to mention he has a habit of toeing the party line. All of which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
Surely someone who’s hailed as a voice of reason would welcome the truth and abide by his own words. Afraid not. He wasn’t about to look at undeniable evidence warranting that he change his mind — so he changed the rules. And lo and behold — his followers fall in line with the same tactics to deny the obvious. That the unquestioning swat away scrutiny with glee — sure sounds a lot like legacy media to me. In the same interview from the source above, that guy said the following:
"We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason."
Only for problems that are popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go? And just where do I go to find the genuine article? People who welcome out-of-the-box thinking and are willing to put the time and effort into understanding why my idea would work — and figure out what we can do to make it better.
The problems that plague America are interrelated — and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. If you want to start solving problems, first you need to clear the clutter that’s crippled this country. To do that, you don’t go after everything, you go after one thing that ties to everything.
Everyone’s trying to plow through problems when you should be going around them (think asymmetrical warfare). My idea calls for fiercely independent thinkers (to be fully realized), but right now — one will do. I have a very specific target audience, so it wouldn’t take much.
One email could set off a chain of events that could open the door to the kind of conversation this nation’s never had: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/07/23/what-works-vs-what-sells/
Crickets -- right on cue!
I am a low level minion in the back end of search tech (That didn't sound right, did it?) I can say everything he is saying is an interesting insight into the way the algorithms work. Search results are indeed a simulacrum of a partial view of reality.