Facebook: Soapbox of the Stupid — Part 1
First, and importantly, let’s clarify stupid.
The term stupid, as I use it, is an action and part of a process. A person isn’t a stupid person, stupid is something the person does. For example, “he acts stupidly”, or “she says stupid things”. I also see the act as part of a process, with ignorance preceding the act of stupidity. You can read about these terms and this process in another article I wrote here, where I define them further.
Now, moving on . . .
“FB users . . . have higher levels of narcissism or lower levels of self-esteem”
During grad school, I was often asked by other students why I was not on Facebook (FB). My answer was sincere and consistent — because I don’t have low self-esteem. It always seemed obvious to me that there was a direct correlation between one’s level of self-esteem and the amount of time spent on FB. Later in my grad school years, research studies began appearing demonstrating this. For example, Mehdizadeh’s (2010) study, published in the peer-reviewed journal, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, found FB users to predominately have higher levels of narcissism or lower levels of self-esteem.
When commenting on a FB post, the chances of engaging one of these individuals is significantly increased simply by the sheer number of people who can view a FB post, and the unrestricted and amateurish nature of FB (as opposed to Linkedin, for example). Consequently, a harmless comment on a post can soon turn into a futile effort at an intelligent conversation with an individual you’ve never met, and who has no comprehension of critical thinking and/or suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect; “a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area” (Psychology Today, n.d.).
“Dunning-Kruger effect; ‘a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area’”
This is not to say that an intelligent conversation is not possible with one suffering from this condition, however an established relationship would likely be necessary to provide a foundation of mutual respect. Engaging a stranger on FB, one suffering from narcissism or low self-esteem, can be an entirely different ball-game. Here, the individual has an agenda, to seek the attention required by the narcissism or low self-esteem. The ability for this individual to critically think becomes redundant, as it does not serve his/her purpose of the engagement.
“It’s like throwing a piece of stale bread amongst a flock of starving seagulls”
Since this realization, if I post a comment on FB, depending on the context, it is not with the expectation of an intelligent conversation, but rather with the expectation of numerous mindless comments emerging from individuals desperate for recognition and validation. It’s like throwing a piece of stale bread amongst a flock of starving seagulls.
These individuals feel strengthened throwing mindless comments from the shelter of their cave of ignorance. They feel insulated from the repercussions of their stupidity. They have no fear, no shyness, no shame, no self-awareness, no self-regulation, no no no no . . . the list goes on. They are insulated by the safety of the digital world; distance, and in some cases, anonymity. Foolish bravado.
“They feel insulated from the repercussions of their stupidity. . . . Foolish bravado”
While the vast majority of these people are strangers, some are FB friends (a term I use very lightly, as friends established on FB exhibit none of the characteristics of an authentic friend, in the true sense of the word), and, some are authentic friends, established before connecting on the FB platform. It is this last example of a friend whose post I examine in this article. This is the friend that becomes a different person on FB. The one that, on FB, displays his/her cave of ignorance like a realtor at an open house event, so desperate to make a sale that he/she rants and raves about the contrived fine points of a property, while disregarding the blatant flaws and faults glaringly obvious to the viewer.
With these friends, engagement warrants discernment for the value of the friendship versus the topic in question before responding. Is it really worth engaging their moment of stupidity knowing they’re there, not for intelligent conversation or for critical analysis of a given topic (of which they actually know nothing about), but for self-validation only?
In most cases it is pointless engaging with these friends on the specific topic (and sometimes any topic); a valuable realization if one wishes to maintain a friendship. However, I have deduced what I believe are the three best options/directions for these friendships.
- Maintaining. This is because it is a mutually beneficial friendship. These friends have self-awareness. They recognizes their ignorance, the boundaries of their knowledge (or lack thereof), and know not to jump the fence. Instead, these friends seek out people who have demonstrated intelligence in the given area (experience, education), or factual information sources (not FB), to increase their own knowledge on the topic. Consequently, these friends have potential as although ignorant on the given topic, they have demonstrated intelligence by not jumping the fence into the field of stupidity. These friendships are therefore worth maintaining as they are likely to be mutually beneficial.
- Distancing. This is for the friends who have a reliable history of jumping the fence, but have demonstrated signs of intelligence also. Distancing allows for personal understanding and growth. We disengage from these friends, keeping them at a safe distance. We can observe without attachment, engaging with them on our own terms. This may seem selfish, but it’s not. It’s setting boundaries! There may still be hope for the friendship . . . if the friend develops, or has some self-awareness. If they do not, we’ve positioned ourselves perfectly to cut all ties and drift away safely and relatively unnoticed. These friends rarely notice that we’ve moved on, as they’re generally only attentive to those who validate them.
- Dumping. There’s nothing to salvage from these (dead) friendships. These friends live in the field of stupidity. They have repeatedly demonstrated that they are too stupid to realize how stupid they are, literally, not insultingly. These friends have no self-awareness, and are completely self-indulgent. We realize that we have outgrown these friendships, the relationship has ended. It is time to cut the ties and move on. One does not soar like an eagle from hanging with chickens, so let the chickens be.
“One does not soar like an eagle from hanging with chickens, so let the chickens be”
Periodically, I will share an experience of a friend who I have placed in either the distancing or dumping category. This is not to mock, embarrass, or chastise them, but rather to use the example as a lesson in thinking; and, to show how we can easily fall into the trap of reacting without thinking (I think it’s called foot-in-mouth disease). Because, I would bet that all of us have committed this faux pax at least once in our life. I know I have.
On that note, I’ll leave you with a quote from Aldous Huxley.
“At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice, and those great motivators and justifies of malice and stupidity; idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.”
Psychology Today (n.d.). Dunning-Kruger Effect. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect
Mehdizadeh, S. (2010). Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on Facebook, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(4). https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/cyber.2009.0257
