Episode 3: Echo. Alpha. Dunce
“Empty Vessels Make The Loudest Noise”
In recent years, there has been an attitude of arrogance which has spread throughout all areas of popular culture and public discourse. An epidemic so damaging that it has forced our present-day society into various enclaves of political isolation. These enclaves are known as echo chambers. I’m sure that many of us have seen an acquaintance on social media publicly declare that if anyone in their friends list holds a certain view or supports a specific political candidate, they should remove themselves from this persons network. It usually goes along the lines of “If you’re a Trump supporter, we’re not friends. Remove yourself/ unfollow me!”. This exclusionary stance positions people at the centre of their very own ideological echo chamber.
An ideological echo chamber is a space in which the same opinions and beliefs are repeatedly voiced and promoted. This is both dangerous and fanatical. It creates a constant feedback loop of “approved” ideas which conditions people to accept a world view that only ever considers one perspective. When people are able to isolate themselves from criticism or correction, they end up radicalising themselves. They become ideological fanatics where anything that is not a part of their approved beliefs or facts is deemed a threat to their ideological sanctity and should therefore be exterminated. They become part of a cult where they share empty ideas with brutal conviction, validated by the sound of their own voices thanks to the never ending echo around them . As the saying goes, empty vessels make the loudest noise. On top of this, social media networks and platforms have given people the ability to curate the kind of content they want to see. Now I’m in no way suggesting that social media companies started off with any kind of sinister intention, but there’s no doubt that algorithms have gradually been weaponised over time. Before this weaponisation, algorithms were used to help keep users engaged on the platform for as long as possible. So this makes sense: show people more of what they like, and they’re more likely to stick around. Show them what they don’t want to see, and they’re more likely to leave. So like I said, it all makes sense. However, once certain opportunistic entities realised that they were able to isolate entire sections of the general public from certain information, the ball started rolling pretty fast and in the wrong direction. What’s worse, tech companies have empowered people to move this ball themselves. Think about it. When we no longer need to face the tension of unfriending someone we know, the ground starts to shift. We no longer need to engage with any conflict because we’re able to simply restrict other peoples profiles so we don’t get exposed to how they think or what they share. We are essentially alienating ourselves from situations of conflict. This is a major problem because when unavoidable conflict arises, we are ill prepared to handle it or conduct ourselves with respect because we take a defensive stance given that we feel like we’re drowning. This makes us fear conflict even more which means we do even more to avoid it in future. And the cycle continues. The consequences of this kind of ideological isolation are frightening. Refusing to face that which challenges where we stand is not only entitled, but unhealthy. It inflates our sense of self where we feel we know everything there is to know about a topic and anyone who disagrees is simply an idiot or a conspiracy theorist. And thus the divide gets even bigger and the cultural rot continues.
So how do we remedy this? How can we possibly begin to reason with radical people who refuse to engage with others unless they submit to their beliefs? The answer is fairly simple. We lead by example. In order to remedy the many occurrences of ideological rot, we need to first remind ourselves that we do not have all the answers. We need to exercise the humility we claim to want from the world around us and accept that we can’t possibly know everything about everything. By actioning this sense of humility, we are able to bring balance to our position in the world. Once we accomplish this within ourselves, we then need to do the work of understanding others. We need to choose to look passed the initial judgements, no matter how accurate, and appeal to others on their level. We must sincerely understand their fears and genuinely hear their concerns. Only when we are able to make others feel heard will they, themselves, feel safe enough to allow us to be heard as well. And that’s when people come together.
In my observations I’ve found that the reactive behaviours people exhibit whenever politics is discussed often stems from the instinctive need to protect themselves. This is because they identify with their beliefs and opinions. When someone has embroidered their opinions so intimately with their identity, any criticism or attempted correction of their perspective is received as a personal attack. Earlier in this essay, we acknowledged that those who radicalise themselves will often hold the view that anything which challenges their belief should be exterminated. They shield their ideological sanctity because they’ve been convinced that the world they live in is not only cruel, but also collapsing. This initiates the “fight or flight” mechanism, where the only option is to kill or be killed. The echo chambers in which they take up permanent residency continuously tell them that their way of life is under threat. It repeatedly tells them that it should be protected at all costs. They must be willing to lose friends, family and status in order to protect their beliefs otherwise their world will collapse. The sad reality is that it’s true. Their world will collapse because everything they claim to be true about the world around them isn’t an honest representation of objective reality. There are so many factors they have refused to consider. As soon as they begin to entertain a broader perspective, they have to face the uncomfortable reality that what they thought they knew is, in fact, false or at least misguided. Obviously this is not the case with all aspects of their world view, however, it doesn’t take much in the way of imagination to see that these ideologues have built their stance on a house of cards. Just one revelation can topple their entire shrine.
And again, this touches on the idea that debates are threatening because when people can feel their house of cards beginning to tremble, they fight to secure a sense of stability. In my experience, this instinctive reaction results in people returning to their default setting and regurgitating all the zombie statistics and talking points that found them peace in previous debates. They do this to the point where they are no longer listening to what others are saying. This breaks my heart because it’s unfortunately the reality for a lot of people. They identify with views that don’t holistically represent the world around them and, on top of this, refuse to consider that they may be wrong. One of my biggest personal hurdles has been accepting that I have been so wrong about so many things. And I’m not afraid to admit it because it means that there has been growth. It hasn’t been easy, but being able to recognise what I’ve said and done in the past as wrong is a good sign. Remember that it’s relative: in order to know what was wrong, it requires a recognition for things that are right and correct. For a long time I had to convince myself not to hold onto the sense of guilt and shame for not seeing things sooner. Not realising my faults faster. On my personal journey I’ve learned that humility is one of the greatest assets we have at our disposal. By using it correctly, we are able to fortify our position in the world in almost any context. When humility is the currency and debate is the exchange, success is the outcome and community is the return.
