Thanks for this! The internet can function similarly to support groups in some ways, offering a sense of community and shared experience. However, the internet also has the potential to negatively influence behavior. Recognizing these mutual influences is key to finding a balanced and healthy relationship with the online world.
Brilliant. Didn't see that conclusion coming but it was a very fitting takeaway for me as a reader. These are some highly vital points to remember. As a student of literature, I also came to realise how much of everything we do is merely that-mimesis. Imitation.
It was gratifying to see you echo that so well here. You're right, we are also beacons of influence.
P.S. That Gen Zers stat screwed with my brain. Yikes, my earlier notions about society will have to be chucked out of the window now. :((
“Why are we so easily influenced” is a great question, but you don’t really answer it. Here’s a hypothesis: it’s because there’s nothing to get right. The only evidence we have that we’re not delusional — that the world is as it appears to us — is the testimony of others. So we take that testimony very seriously, even when it contradicts our own appearances.
Fair point. (I do have a tendency, as promised in my About page, to leave my questions "beautifully unanswered.") I'll say that the main takeaway here should be that the human mind depends on other people to learn critical information about the world, leaving us vulnerable to all sorts of influence -- which aligns closely with your interesting hypothesis.
Thanks for reading & subscribing here. More to come.
I love Bregman's book Humankind - I must read that again! Utopia for Realists was fascinating too.
While Bandura's (RIP) work does provide a useful insight into behavioural change, I am not sure that the research you mention regarding his bobo doll experiments entirely supports the point you make regarding learning emerging from the daily work of observation.
Bandura and the team of researchers were investigating anti-social behaviour (aggressive and non-aggressive behaviour specifically). The experiments did not explore pro-social behaviour such as what Bregman discusses e.g., kindness. Some of Bandura's later work explored the role of motivation in influencing behaviour, which I would argue links to when you refer to types of behaviour being valuable - i.e., it could help keep us alive or form a closer bond to a group. Certainly, for influencers and in advertising generally, companies rely on us desiring a closer link to a product or attached personality - so motivation would play a crucial role too.
I would like to read Utopia for Realists -- I enjoyed his writing so much. Humankind was very eye-opening for me.
That's a very good callout about Bandura. His findings show us that under certain conditions, children are more likely to behave a certain way, but they can't necessarily explain all types of behavior. The choice to carry out the behavior really does come down to the "deciding whether it's valuable" step -- which is where the number of variables quickly explodes. And motivation is a very interesting one.
I have to say I'm not aware of when I do influence others' choices or behaviors, although it's clear it happens. It's an interesting perspective shift to pay attention to.
I guess you know about the substack newsletter called Mimetic Desire? It treats similar topics.
I didn't want to commandeer Ms. Pattni's Restack, so I thought I'd bring this where I probably should have left it to begin with.
-
"You are, in many ways, a product of all that you’ve witnessed the people around you do."
-
C'est moi: "Almost the opposite is true. You aren’t a product to begin with, but the world and life shows you a vast array of things. Everyone picks and chooses which of it to pay attention to, which parts to ignore, to fight, to explain away, to pretend doesn’t even exist, etc.
-
C'est toi: "Precisely. I go into some detail about that in the piece — because the concern is that we aren’t choosing what we pay attention to/value as much as we like to believe. That being said, we aren’t passive receptacles of influence, either."
-
Alors: I don’t know what the royal “we” believes on this stuff, but barring people with rare disorders and such, adults decide what to pay attention to.
It’s just not all conscious, but even with subconscious and unconscious filters, or whatever you’d call the opposite of filters (highlighters? let’s invent a term. ha), those are habits we have the ability to change.
We even mostly control what social media algorithms show us, which is precisely why the very same algorithm will display a vastly different feed to different people, and show the exact same feed/content to different people and the aspects of it they focus on, ignore, blind themselves to, get triggered by, etc etc etc are so different. That, on top of not using apps, which we all do because there are millions and most people only use a handful regularly.
If people choose not to use this agency, it doesn’t go away. It’s still their choice to be a weathervane, and what part of the attention-verse to plant that weathervane in.
First of all, appreciate your solid responses to the big questions I want to raise here.
I admire your faith in human agency and individuality. It’s where I take the article at the end, too. We (the royal “we” again) should not just let the world influence us without recognizing our own inherent power to “plant the weathervane” as you say.
The problem, for me, emerges from the fact that planting the weathervane isn’t enough. You might have a decent amount of say over the exact content the algorithm shows you based on your clicks, view time, etc. but once you view it, it influences you in some substantial way. You aren’t the same after viewing it. And then multiplied by the amount of content in light of your individual susceptibility to it, we end up with a once adaptive feature gone awry.
Thanks again for adding to the larger conversation here.
It's not faith. That's just how it works. These are not external processes. If we didn't have any control, then we wouldn't be able to succeed at working at changing, which we can.
-
"The problem, for me, emerges from the fact that planting the weathervane isn’t enough."
Absolutely. Some never even get this far, but most seem to stop here, thinking that just aligning with the right group/religion/ideology/tribe is all it takes.
-
"but once you view it, it influences you in some substantial way."
Here's where we diverge.
As I pointed out before, we come into contact with an enormous amount of information each day, and the vast majority of it has virtually no impact at all. That can be because we just phase it out, it gets lost in all the noise, we actively reject it, or even that deeply ingrained ideological belief conflicts so much that we refuse to really see it clearly even, etc etc etc.
Very few things have "substantial" influence, and most of that is based on what we direct our attention toward. The rest is a wash, since it mixes with everything else, so we're seeing a thousand things pulling in a thousand different directions.
I really like how this has been written. I think that we sometimes think of our peers in teens having influence over actions but it really does continue throughout our lives. Thanks for this.
Thanks for this! The internet can function similarly to support groups in some ways, offering a sense of community and shared experience. However, the internet also has the potential to negatively influence behavior. Recognizing these mutual influences is key to finding a balanced and healthy relationship with the online world.
Exactly — mutual influence is a really useful, adaptive feature of the human mind. But in the digital landscape, it can often get a bit one-sided..
Thank you for reading!
Brilliant. Didn't see that conclusion coming but it was a very fitting takeaway for me as a reader. These are some highly vital points to remember. As a student of literature, I also came to realise how much of everything we do is merely that-mimesis. Imitation.
It was gratifying to see you echo that so well here. You're right, we are also beacons of influence.
P.S. That Gen Zers stat screwed with my brain. Yikes, my earlier notions about society will have to be chucked out of the window now. :((
Yes, we’re such social, connected beings! Thank you for reading 🤍
“Why are we so easily influenced” is a great question, but you don’t really answer it. Here’s a hypothesis: it’s because there’s nothing to get right. The only evidence we have that we’re not delusional — that the world is as it appears to us — is the testimony of others. So we take that testimony very seriously, even when it contradicts our own appearances.
Fair point. (I do have a tendency, as promised in my About page, to leave my questions "beautifully unanswered.") I'll say that the main takeaway here should be that the human mind depends on other people to learn critical information about the world, leaving us vulnerable to all sorts of influence -- which aligns closely with your interesting hypothesis.
Thanks for reading & subscribing here. More to come.
I love Bregman's book Humankind - I must read that again! Utopia for Realists was fascinating too.
While Bandura's (RIP) work does provide a useful insight into behavioural change, I am not sure that the research you mention regarding his bobo doll experiments entirely supports the point you make regarding learning emerging from the daily work of observation.
Bandura and the team of researchers were investigating anti-social behaviour (aggressive and non-aggressive behaviour specifically). The experiments did not explore pro-social behaviour such as what Bregman discusses e.g., kindness. Some of Bandura's later work explored the role of motivation in influencing behaviour, which I would argue links to when you refer to types of behaviour being valuable - i.e., it could help keep us alive or form a closer bond to a group. Certainly, for influencers and in advertising generally, companies rely on us desiring a closer link to a product or attached personality - so motivation would play a crucial role too.
Thanks for sharing, this got me thinking!
I would like to read Utopia for Realists -- I enjoyed his writing so much. Humankind was very eye-opening for me.
That's a very good callout about Bandura. His findings show us that under certain conditions, children are more likely to behave a certain way, but they can't necessarily explain all types of behavior. The choice to carry out the behavior really does come down to the "deciding whether it's valuable" step -- which is where the number of variables quickly explodes. And motivation is a very interesting one.
Thank you for reading and sharing your insight!
I have to say I'm not aware of when I do influence others' choices or behaviors, although it's clear it happens. It's an interesting perspective shift to pay attention to.
I guess you know about the substack newsletter called Mimetic Desire? It treats similar topics.
Ah, I didn’t know of it, but thank you for making the connection. It looks so interesting!
As always, thank you for reading 🤍
Ahh it changed name, now it's called Luke Burgis Newsletter.
I didn't want to commandeer Ms. Pattni's Restack, so I thought I'd bring this where I probably should have left it to begin with.
-
"You are, in many ways, a product of all that you’ve witnessed the people around you do."
-
C'est moi: "Almost the opposite is true. You aren’t a product to begin with, but the world and life shows you a vast array of things. Everyone picks and chooses which of it to pay attention to, which parts to ignore, to fight, to explain away, to pretend doesn’t even exist, etc.
-
C'est toi: "Precisely. I go into some detail about that in the piece — because the concern is that we aren’t choosing what we pay attention to/value as much as we like to believe. That being said, we aren’t passive receptacles of influence, either."
-
Alors: I don’t know what the royal “we” believes on this stuff, but barring people with rare disorders and such, adults decide what to pay attention to.
It’s just not all conscious, but even with subconscious and unconscious filters, or whatever you’d call the opposite of filters (highlighters? let’s invent a term. ha), those are habits we have the ability to change.
We even mostly control what social media algorithms show us, which is precisely why the very same algorithm will display a vastly different feed to different people, and show the exact same feed/content to different people and the aspects of it they focus on, ignore, blind themselves to, get triggered by, etc etc etc are so different. That, on top of not using apps, which we all do because there are millions and most people only use a handful regularly.
If people choose not to use this agency, it doesn’t go away. It’s still their choice to be a weathervane, and what part of the attention-verse to plant that weathervane in.
First of all, appreciate your solid responses to the big questions I want to raise here.
I admire your faith in human agency and individuality. It’s where I take the article at the end, too. We (the royal “we” again) should not just let the world influence us without recognizing our own inherent power to “plant the weathervane” as you say.
The problem, for me, emerges from the fact that planting the weathervane isn’t enough. You might have a decent amount of say over the exact content the algorithm shows you based on your clicks, view time, etc. but once you view it, it influences you in some substantial way. You aren’t the same after viewing it. And then multiplied by the amount of content in light of your individual susceptibility to it, we end up with a once adaptive feature gone awry.
Thanks again for adding to the larger conversation here.
It's not faith. That's just how it works. These are not external processes. If we didn't have any control, then we wouldn't be able to succeed at working at changing, which we can.
-
"The problem, for me, emerges from the fact that planting the weathervane isn’t enough."
Absolutely. Some never even get this far, but most seem to stop here, thinking that just aligning with the right group/religion/ideology/tribe is all it takes.
-
"but once you view it, it influences you in some substantial way."
Here's where we diverge.
As I pointed out before, we come into contact with an enormous amount of information each day, and the vast majority of it has virtually no impact at all. That can be because we just phase it out, it gets lost in all the noise, we actively reject it, or even that deeply ingrained ideological belief conflicts so much that we refuse to really see it clearly even, etc etc etc.
Very few things have "substantial" influence, and most of that is based on what we direct our attention toward. The rest is a wash, since it mixes with everything else, so we're seeing a thousand things pulling in a thousand different directions.
I really like how this has been written. I think that we sometimes think of our peers in teens having influence over actions but it really does continue throughout our lives. Thanks for this.
Thank you for the kind words, Jon. I’m so glad it resonated.