A Societal Denial

So many issues and challenges surround our daily lives. Our level of concern for ourselves and society at large has continued as a perpetual buzz that lies slightly below our conscious awareness.

To become desensitized to the chaotic nature of these times is one response to the presence of fear. There are other ways to respond to fear, such as fight, flight, freeze, or fawn (e.g., people-pleasing). There is plenty of accessible information about these types of stress responses, and I do not mean to belittle the importance of this information; instead, I am shifting my attention away from the more abstract realm of psychoeducation and to that of societal analysis of the variety of ways these fear responses are presenting.

As calamities have accumulated, social norms have broken down or altered to such a degree that they are no longer recognizable to their previous versions. This change is just one indicator that our physical bodies, on the individual level, and our societal body, on the collective and symbolic level, are being reduced further and further down to the level of base needs and primitive reactions. The most central fear (reaction) to security concerns (need for safety).

Similar to the individual needing the safety provided by having shelter, the citizen (i.e., the “mass man” as Carl Jung describes it) views the government as being the protector who provides some level of security; in fact, this is the most basic agreement of the social contract that connects government with the people it governs.

But what happens when components of one’s shelter break or deteriorate? When the A/C breaks in one’s house, stress levels rise as the discomfort sets in and frustrations build, as patience must be exercised while waiting on someone to fix it. What if a break in the mainline and the house’s water supply is disrupted? Would this result in the same kind of stress as that of the A/C breaking?

The responses are likely similar, but a house’s water supply disruption would evoke far more fear than the A/C disruption (in most cases). Moreover, in both cases, the hope of someone coming to fix and repair these issues allows for this stress, fear, and associated negative emotions to abate.

While most people might opt for some skilled professional to come and repair these types of issues with their shelter, the someone who fixes the problem and eliminates the associated fear needn’t come from the outside. That is, it could be the house’s inhabitants who fix their A/C or broken water system by taking matters into their own hands. Of course, this could also worsen the issue due to the lack of professional knowledge and understanding.

Say this situation happened to you: the water system to your house is malfunctioning so that the supply is disrupted, and you decide to take matters into your own hands to fix the issue, only to compound the issue, making it far worse than the initial issue.

What do you do? Would you be developed enough to recognize the error in your decision and reach out to ask a professional for help, or would you double down on trusting your own abilities to fix both the initial problem and the problem that emerged from your attempted remedy?

To extend this line of questioning further, which of these responses would most likely lead to a reduction in general distress, both for the person who is attempting these repairs and those witnesses to it?

It seems relatively clear-cut within the context of home repairs, but what if the context is transposed to the societal plane involving the relationship between citizens and their government? Sure the citizens may be able to identify breaks and/or deteriorations in their societal shelter, but does that translate into having the necessary understanding to attempt to remedy the situation by taking matters into their own hands?

As the saying goes, “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it,” and what then? What happens when you are the person attempting to fix a problem but refusing to acknowledge your incompetence and need for cooperation because your fear of being embarrassed is blinding you? What happens when you decide that the citizens are the only ones who can successfully remedy the complex societal problems yet only make matters worse with each successive attempt to remedy these ails? The dripping leak within the system turns into a raging torrent of your own making.

But is it actually your fault if you were only trying to help? If there is already water dripping from a crack in the system, how is it your fault if it worsens when you try to fix it? And away we go – swooshed up and transcended from these terrible and frightful discussions of matters of reality and into the realm of argumentation, semantics, and logical fallacies to pacify as illusions for the weakened (or undeveloped) ego to, once more, evade looking into its shadow avoid taking responsibility. Both to ignore the damage it has done through over-estimating itself (ego inflation) and for denying the seriousness with which the reality of the situation demanded.

It is not an excuse to say, “I didn’t know that would happen,” when trying to perform home repairs on issues you are not qualified to do. Neither is it an excuse to perform fallacious lines of questioning in such a way as to distract from the real issue at hand and then pretend as if the distraction is a solution. Nor is it one to become entrapped in perpetual argumentation about the right solution does not resolve any given problem in itself.

Whether it is performing home repairs or seeking to address societal issues, operating from an inflated sense of self-confidence, blind sense of duty, and uncompromising stubbornness in admitting one’s mistakes not only does nothing to work toward a solution, but it also actively resists the necessary cooperation required for any meaningful and sustainable solution to be achieved.

Image: “Arrogance, Fear, and Pride.” Self-created image using AI Generator: https://nightcafe.studio/

Voices of the Collective

If only we changed this single aspect, then these types of tragedies would be reduced or elminated; it’s too much of that and not enough of this; it’s actually too little of that and too much of this.

In fact, it’s not so much either this or that but rather another singluar aspect that hasn’t been taken into account appropriately: mental health. Actually, saying this is only a way of scapegoating the real issue of gun control and is even harmful to the work to destigmatize mental health.

I think it’s the effect of these new and extremely life-like video games that are normalizing violence, even encouraging it. Actually, the research doesn’t support the connection between violence in video games as a predictor for the committment of violent acts.

It’s probably the constant coverage the news media provides that serves to amplify the perpetrator and allow for others to seek that kind of recongition, especially because of our culture’s emphasis on celebrities.

Whatever cause or combination of causes that resulted in the action does nothing to erase the actuality that it happened, and it hurts — it should hurt because it is a tragedy.

Often we become lost in muddled arguments and too quick to avoid genuine engagement in them. However, without the proper usage of argumentation and discourse within the public square, nothing has been processed nor any action taken toward the prevention. Consequently, we are just taken back to where we started; another repetition completed.

What was gained this time around?

A Partisan Ceasefire

“It is quite conceivable…that a man who…correctly foretold a disaster…should get pleasure from his suffering because he was right, because he knew it. It is curious how universal man’s will to be right is, to have been right.” – Theodor Haecker (June, 1940)

Whether you love, hate, or are indifferent toward Biden, or believe Trump would have done better in preventing this conflict from happening, neither of these political attitudes do anything to negate the reality of the international crisis that is now here. Instead, our internal political bickering about such matters only serves to fuel our domestic division and, in turn, strengthen Putin’s hand by weakening our unity and faith in democracy.  

Say what you will about the current state of our democracy, but the Ukrainian crisis should allow us, at least for a brief moment, to transcend partisanship.

We, the individual citizens of our nation, may not be able to take direct actions that serve to help or ameliorate the crisis abroad, but we certainly can, if merely out of respect for the ideals of democracy, put aside our internal quarreling with our neighbors’ different views of the future of our nation’s democracy and recognize and pay homage to those in Ukraine who no longer battle for their democracy with words, but actual, direct war on democracy that is being waged upon their lands.

A Psychological Survey of Current Events

“When a speculative philosopher believes he has comprehended the world once and for all in his system, he is deceiving himself; he has merely comprehended himself and then naively projected that view upon the world.” – C.G. Jung

The beliefs held by individuals comprising today’s society have become increasingly separated from one another; that is, the foundational beliefs that previously were points of overlap are following the trend of polarization.

Most recently, this pattern of civil disagreement is being illustrated with the rising tensions between the West and Russia. Interestingly, those in the United States who align with the political Right have taken an almost sympathetic approach to Russia, during this geopolitical event. While legislation about addressing this issue has been, relatively speaking, met with bipartisan support, conservative media figures and influencers, such as Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk, have continued to focus on domestic suspicions related to the situation.

One example that illustrates this point is what Donald Trump Jr. stated to Sean Hannity of Fox News, speculating that the U.S. intelligence agencies could be “lying to us to try to instigate us getting into another war.” This statement provides insight into more than merely thoughts about the elements of this particular world event; it serves to highlight the core issue of our current civil differences: doubt and distrust.

The focus of this article is not about the given political ideologies themselves, rather I have selected this quote about this current event to serve as a point of inquiry for investigating the broader societal and psychological changes that are associated with and have contributed to this way of thinking about the government. Moreover, this particular geopolitical issue is a significant indicator to explore broader trends because both party’s stance toward Russia has historically been united and, particularly, this political issue previously was a point of emphasis for the political Right and central reason for the lasting influence of the Regan administration on the conservative movement.

However, it would seem that this historical precedent has been less than influential than that of the checked past of the United States intelligence agencies on shaping conservatives’ views about the current international issue. This seemingly indicates that distrust of government is stronger than that of historical precedent related to political part.

Furthermore, even if the point of the intelligence agencies is conceded, and we adopt the belief that these agencies have and continue to operate nefariously, the counterbalance, in this particular situation, is believing Russian intelligence. Additionally, this situation is broader than merely the United States’ intelligence agencies against those of Russia, but it includes the collective intelligence efforts of Western countries comprised in NATO. Therefore, the scope and magnitude of the current situation implies not only a doubt of the U.S. but also of those Western countries unified against Russia.

Some political analysts have explained that the current situation is similar to two different types of civilizations trying to determine a way to coexist. China’s tacit support of Russia appear to substantiate this notion of the current situation being that of a standoff of the East and the West.

However, this makes the statement doubting the United States intelligence agencies more confusing, given the popular conspiratorial belief that President Biden and Vice President Harris are puppet leaders installed by the Chinese government. Since the second half of initial statement insinuates (arguably outright accuses) that the U.S. intelligence agencies are stoking the tensions between Russia and Ukraine to initiate a war, then it would not be logical to hold both of these beliefs simultaneously; that is, the current administration are puppets of the Chinese government and that the intelligence agencies are trying to start a war that would poise the U.S. and China against one another (as U.S. officials have asserted their intention to hold China responsible for their enabling of Russia were war to occur).

This is one of many examples of cognitive dissonance that have been more clearly elucidated by the current geopolitical situation. From a psychological perspective, to assert claims of doubt and distrust toward the U.S. and Western intelligence agencies necessarily implies a belief in another information source that is considered to be more credible. From a societal perspective, the issue of a source’s credibility is increasingly contributing to ruptures within the public sphere and appears to be breaking off into fragments of information bubbles, diminishing the capacity for civic discourse by reducing the areas of overlap that serve as a necessary foundation for starting a discourse from agreed upon premises. Lastly, while the outcome of the current geopolitical tensions between the East and West are still to be determined, it appears that despite what does or does not occur there is significant fracturing within the landscape of the United States.

Squid Game: A Psychological Analysis

Squid Game has swept across the internet and quickly infiltrated our collective and individual consciousnesses. As the various means for social connection and interconnectivity increase in speed, I have noticed this repeated trend to jump over the initial premise, or the basic and banal elements that comprise the foundation for whatever is the cognitive infrastructure for what’s being discussed and leap toward some broader idea.

Likewise, As the show’s popularity has swelled, I have observed the increased production of articles analyzing the reasons for its popularity, exploring the societal and economic implications.

In the specific case of Squid Game, it has manifested as articles, videos, comments, and so forth about what this series showed about this or that economic system. My point here isn’t about the merit of these various connections between Squid Game and economic structures; rather, it is, firstly, to highlight a gap within the current analysis of the show, and, secondly, I hope to offer an exposition that, at the very least, takes aim at this area that has been overlooked. However, I remain stuck on a more elementary aspect of this cultural phenomenon: money—specifically, how do we relate to money? What is our relationship to money? And, crucially, why is money so important to us?

Yes, these are basic questions, almost clichés, but their connection is directly apparent as a core premise to Squid Game. One doesn’t need to research economic systems, such as, meritocracy or brush up their defenses of capitalism to address these fundamental questions;

Instead, the price is far steeper: time, attention, contemplation, and self-reflection. All aspects of our consciousness requiring more start-up energy than becoming emotionally charged with some sort of righteous indigitation for economic systems. Strangely, it’s almost as if we’d prefer to engage in these more ostensibly complex discussions rather than address these other questions—though they underlie our interest in this series. It is likely that shifting to this broader focus functions to distance ourselves emotionally through rational abstraction.

Nevertheless, I could not escape these core questions as I watched the Squid Game. Particularly, my interest in understanding the underlying psychology intensified with scenes depicting the direct connection between one player’s demise and the almost instantaneous transformation of their worth into monetary value, which the players gazed upon with lustful eyes and single-focused minds. These were the scenes that stuck for me, and I haven’t been able to square away their meaning sufficiently to dare and generalize to the societal level of either endorsements or critiques at the level of economic systems.

How could the players be so easily distracted from the death of a person by the allure of money? If you strip away the value of money to analyze these scenes objectively, then you’re left with those alive, those who are dead, and clusters of paper amassing with each additional player’s demise. Put in this crude way, it would seem that the question then becomes why is paper so important to us?

Of course, money isn’t about the actual paper—as fiat currencies have taught us. The form money takes, whether that be paper, metal, digital, and so on (NFTs?), is not what matters. This is both true in reality and for the players in the game.

Changing the form of currency wouldn’t have reduced the players’ indiference toward the death of one of their competitors, so long as a simple condition of monetary value is met: Can that something be exchanged with others for that which perceived of value?

In my opinion, these specific scenes require deeper analysis on the individual level and are fundamentally transformed when generalized to the level of society, shifting from the drives, wants, and desires of the player’s to the policy and politics of a society. By making this transformation to the collective level, an abundance of new variables emerges that aren’t necessarily present in the analysis of the individual. For example, if the form of currency doesn’t matter, then what makes it so captivating? It must be what it represents.

In psychological terms, money is a secondary reinforcer. Contrary to primary reinforcers, like food, drugs, sex, etc., a secondary reinforcer doesn’t have inherent pleasure embedded within it. This isn’t to say that watching your cryptocurrency stocks surge in value doesn’t spike your levels of pleasureful chemicals—it likely does by significant margins, especially when present in a competitive gamified context. However, the reward produced in this example requires some general agreement from others about the specific token’s shared value. Conversely, when you indulge in your favorite dessert, or something of this kind, your physiological reward isn’t contingent upon other’s valuation of this dessert; rather, there is an intrinsic reward value to this latter experience.

Returning to Squid Game scenes, where players stare in awe of the growing amount of prize money at the expense of other players’ lives, it must be presumed their responses are not about the actual, material prize.

As the series progresses, the audience gains further insight into the characters’ backstories. This additional context illustrates how the players’ desire toward the prize money is connected to something intangible, imaginative, and futuristic. The amassing of material paper doesn’t transfix the players; their imaginations’ are activated by the expanding possibilities that of what the prize increase represents to them, personally. The players even discuss what their plans are if they were to win the prize money. In most cases, the player’s future aspirations could be accomplished with substantially less than the total prize amount, yet they all know the game is an all-or-nothing one.

This brings me to my main point: At what cost are we willing to reduce and/or resign from our humanity? The show presents the audience with a context that allows us to witness the most brutal of choicest that a human being can be faced with. Our collective interest in the series is an effect of our identification with the characters, We utilize our imagination’s to perspective take into the fantastical, but disturbing close to being real, situations and, secretly, wonder what we would do for money—what would be our limits? We console ourselves with the fact that, especially in the case of Squid Game, it is doubtful that we will ever find ourselves in such circumstances. Nevertheless, we cannot help but entertain the possibilities dormant within our capacity for self-preservation. It is dangerous to become transfixed upon this; it is worse to be willfully ignorant of fact that this possibility exists. this capacity’s existence.

Unified Rationality

In today’s socio-political climate, our attitude toward each other is often characterized as polarized, hostile, intolerant, divided, and so forth. The current situation’s emotional charge intensifies as the confluence of significant factors (e.g., pandemic, natural disasters, scarcity of resources including economically) both increase in magnitude and expand in scope. Consequently, the continuation of these tests continues to test the integrity of the system, as a society and as individuals.

As those experiencing these events transpire in the present, at the most technologically advanced point in history, there is a natural human tendency to amplify the significance of what is happening in the present and characterize these events as unprecedented. While these events may be unprecedented in many ways, particularly in their magnitude and scope, the psychological forces at play are anything but unprecedented. In fact, it is only due to our assumption of superiority over all previous stages of civilization that allow us to maintain a position of confidence when discussing these psychological matters, citing the advances in neuroscience among other disciplines of the mind to console ourselves that the deepest and most terrifying stages of psychic development are behind us, as a collective.

To expand on this point, I will return to Carl Jung’s 1957 book The Undiscovered Self for a humbling and frightful quote: “Consciousness is a very recent acquisition and as such is still an ‘experimental state’ ––frail, menaced by specific dangers, and easily injured” (p. 74). By returning to the level of consciousness, we shift to a universal plane of thought that is shared by all and even extends historically, stretching back to the origins of consciousness itself. Even through doing this as a cognitive exercise, there already is a greater degree of separation from the present day. Moreover, Jung reminds us that despite our technological advancements, that our consciousness is not to be taken for granted, explaining, “The development of consciousness is a slow and laborious process that took untold ages to reach the civilized state. . .Although the development since that date seems to be considerable, it is still far from complete” (p. 73).

If these quotes about consciousness seem too abstract and unrelated to the initial points of the first paragraph, then it might be useful to pivot toward addressing why this disconnect directly: Why does thinking of the term consciousness provoke a sense of resistance? Maybe it’s that discussion or thought of the matter seems arbitrary and futile, or possibly it is easier and simpler to dismiss the topic altogether, selecting from the various connotations linked to consciousness as a way of sidestepping further investigation into the matter.

There is another reason for the resistance or uneasiness to the idea of consciousness that also accounts for why mental health and psychology have lagged behind that of the physical sciences, as Jung puts it, “When it comes to psychology, one of the youngest of the sciences, you can see misoneism at work” (p.72). Misoneism is defined as “the hatred or dislike of what is new or represents change.” As Jung identifies its role in psychology, I am extending it to our general uneasiness toward the topic of consciousness and our specific aversion toward the talk of unconsciousness.

While our society may be characterized by stark divisions and widening schisms of perceived and real differences, we share many similarities with how we respond to the notion and the reality of the unconscious. While the mere mention of the unconscious may provoke an urge to double down on the supremacy of rationality, declaring “our present knowledge of nature to be the summit of all possible knowledge,” we, nevertheless, can be “possessed and altered by our moods, we can suddenly be unreasonable, or important facts unaccountably vanish from our memory” (p. 74). Furthermore, this “basic resistance of the conscious mind to anything unconscious and unknown” serves to further our state of division from one another and dissociation from ourselves (p. 72).   

Resistance toward change is at the core of both of these rifts, within and without. They fuel one another as we seek to compensate for our feelings of inferiority evoked by the mere acknowledgment of unconsciousness. Through rational compensation and continued one-sided emphasis of consciousness, we, at the forefront of humanity, revert back to primal methods of denial and suppression, just as our ancestors did when faced with unprecedented events. The primary difference between our moment in time and that of our ancestors is the artificial integration that the internet and, specifically, social media platforms have provided us with that allow us to pull at the seams of not only our individual psyche (the container of consciousness and unconsciousness) but also that of the collective psyche. Our fears are absolved as we allow ourselves to be dissolved into a group that grants us an escape; this temporary refuge can blur over time and transform into a constant on which we depend and from where we operate, creating such a degree of normalcy and familiarity that we invert even the most basic principles to the point that “the right hand does not know what the left is doing, and in a state of violent affect one frequently forgets who one is” (p. 74).

While people are finding ways to accept the severe divisions among political parties, ideologies, and directions for the future of these United States, it is of the utmost importance for humanity that we do not forget that “Even in our days the unity of consciousness is a doubtful affair, since only a little affect is needed to disrupt its continuity” (p. 75).  

References:

Jung, C. G., Hull, R. F. C., & Shamdasani, S. (2010). The Undiscovered Self: With Symbols and the Interpretation of Dreams (Bollingen) (Revised ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1957)

The Fundamental Divide

Many living in this modern age will agree with the statement that “we have never been more divided.” If not to this extreme, then at least to the degree of acknowledgment of the strong division among the citizens of society.

While I am specifically referring to the discord within the United States, the principles and mechanisms of actions underlying this division are far more universal than any single country or period within human history.

Often when thinking about divisions within society or among peoples, there is a basic mistake made in the first movement of thought; that is, the natural tendency appears to look outward and continue the investigation from this starting point. However, while this can yield useful and insightful discoveries, it also serves to overlook another source of division because of this initial outward movement: We neglect to inquire into internal divisions.

The consequences of this inward inquiry are different from that of the outward one; however, there are many similarities between the internal and the external. Both are necessary for deepening understanding of each other.

Throughout the work of Carl Jung, there is an emphasis on the inner and outer, moreover, the interplay between these two. There is a tremendous amount to expand on from this point, so instead, I would like to redirect to the initial divide that he so often wrote about: the division of the physical and the mental (i.e., psychic).

While Jung is by no means the originator of this idea, his psychological approach to this mind-body division was novel for the time since this question had previously been delegated to the realm of philosophers. Moreover, Jung was one of the forerunners for the relatively young field of psychology, beginning as a discipline around the late 1900s. Still, more than a century after Jung’s first publication in 1912, it is only in recent years (especially the last two decades) that the field of psychology, mental health, and the psychic side of life are beginning to gain traction. At least, relative to being treated on equal terms with the physical side of life.

As a society, there is a growing movement to remedy injustices and advocate for equality. Yet, even with the increased acknowledgment and receptivity to the reality of mental illnesses and the necessity for psychiatric and other related interventions, the inner world or the psychic side of existence still must overcome a more considerable burden of proof than the physical side.

Jung emphasizes this disparity in our treatment of the physical and the psychic in his 1957 book The Undiscovered Self, writing, “One can regard one’s stomach or heart as unimportant and worthy of contempt, but that does not prevent overeating or overexertion from having consequences that affect the whole man. Yet we think that psychic mistakes and their consequences can be got rid of with mere words, for ‘psychic’ means less than air to most people” (p.47).

Even today, the term “psychic” is likely to be less well-received than “mental” or “psychological.” However, the correspondence between the terms physical and psychic is the most logical pairing and usage for the natures being described. This may seem like an arbitrary point, but I believe that solidifying psychological terminology is essential to increase understanding and awareness of the nature, components, and disorders that occupy this psychic landscape.

Moreover, Jung’s quote can be applied to the original point of societal divisions, for he is indeed addressing a very similar topic. This is evident in his subsequent writing, “when everyone admits that the weal or woe of the future will be decided neither by threat of wild animals, nor by natural catastrophes, nor by the danger of world-wide epidemics, but simply and solely by the psychic changes in man. It needs only an almost imperceptible disturbance of equilibrium in a few of our rulers’ heads to plunge the world into blood, fire, and radioactivity” (p.47).

While on the surface, these outer divisions appear distinctly separate from that of those inner divides, Jung’s work highlights how our inner and outer worlds are deeply interconnected. Furthermore, he emphasizes how the outer worldly situations are collective externalizations of suppressed content from our inner worlds. For example, the increasing focus on materialism and objectification has parallels to how the physical side of life, and, particularly the rational and scientific side more recently, represent a one-sidedness that obscures and diminishes the significance of the inner, psychic side of life; both on the individual and collective levels.  

As psychology and the mental world gain more acknowledgment and receptivity than in previous points in time, and there is increasing focus on the outer world, Jung’s work invites us to explore the inner world as a method for understanding and addressing the variety of manifestations that arise within the outer.

Reference:

Jung, C. G., Hull, R. F. C., & Shamdasani, S. (2010;1957). The Undiscovered Self: With Symbols and the Interpretation of Dreams (Bollingen) (Revised ed.). Princeton University Press.

An Analysis: The Logic of Social Media

In today’s essay, I will analyze the logic of our modern-day discourse, particularly through the virtual public square that has become such an influential part in both our individual and collective lives.

If you are interested in what position I hold regarding specific current debates, then I am afraid you will be disappointed. After years of studying language, logic, and psychology in mostly academic realms, I have sought to someday utilize these tools in such a way that would help unify people.

However, in recent years, I have become increasingly aware of the futility of this endeavor. The reasons behind this change in heart is not due to adopting a pessimistic outlook of life or vilifying those who harbor different views than mine; rather, it has been through the realization that the deck is stacked against anyone trying to unify people—to be clear, I am not implying there is a secret cabal exerting control, at least for the purpose of what I am saying in this context because I equally can never rule out that there isn’t some secret cabal that I am unaware of (i.e., it’s not falsifiable).

Rather, I focus on what I can observe, analyze, and hypothesize about, which inevitability leads me back to examining language and how we use language, both with its content but also with its rules.

When you think of the rules of language, you likely think of grammar, since that is nearly the exact definition; however, that is not what I am focused on when contemplating the dynamics of the intensifying social media debates. If you spend time reading the comments on social media postings, such as Instagram pictures, Facebook news articles, Tweets, etc., you do not usually see people arguing about the appropriate application of grammar within these contexts.

This is the first way the deck is stacked: Social media discourse is governed by linguistic and social rules that are, novel, rapidly evolving, and vary depending on platforms. While there are still features of language that remain, these aspects are not determining features when people are arguing on these platforms.

Instead, the uniting feature of these social media interactions is the users appeal to logic. Although these interactions usually devolve due to the abundance of logical fallacies, the interesting part is that both parties want to use logic, albeit in a biased self-serving manner, but this is nevertheless a point of common ground. We must cling to whatever vestiges of common linguistic territory that we Americans still have left, before completely severing ties among ourselves due to our private beliefs.

I say private beliefs because whether beliefs are amplified to the scale of the collective or remain at the order of the individual makes no difference to where the beliefs reside, at least from the individual’s point of view. The main, and central, difference that does arise from scaling up to the collective level is the individual’s private beliefs now provide them with a sense of belonging, satisfying a core human need; moreover, the collection of individuals now can access and enter into groupthink (which has bad connotations but has its places in life).

However, with the public square transcending to the realm of the virtual where social media are [is] now the platforms to engage in various forms of social interactions, beliefs that were once held privately, even secretly to oneself, can now be voiced to a host of other “nodes” within this social system.

Not only is this option now available and easily accessible to the individual, but the nature of the internet being transcendental, as in not grounded in the physical (at least in a way understandable to the average person). This transcendental property of the internet and the platforms it hosts provides implicit validation of beliefs sharing transcendental elements given that the medium of the internet inherently extends beyond the physical; moreover, the acceptance of these types of beliefs by other entities (bots and people) further reinforce these same beliefs through explicit social validation.

While the details mentioned above can be further explored, the important takeaway is the notion that transcendental beliefs (those extending beyond the physical) have increased in their general acceptance among users on these platforms, even through the mere exposure effect of having been made aware of beliefs of this kind with their different varieties. Furthermore, within the groups whose social cohesion is clustered around beliefs that are transcendental produce a secondary effect in how members within these groups use logic.

In my previous process writing essay, I termed Tripartite Flow to describe a sequence of events flowing in a logical progression. The full description of the term is not necessary for what I wish to illustrate in this essay. However, I will continue by using the analogy of a neuron’s action potential (also, outlined in more detail in my last essay).

When I first learned about action potentials, it seemed straightforward: (a) strong stimulus -> (b) triggers action potential -> (c) transmission of information. Stripping away the neuroscience jargon, this is a simple chain of causality flowing from some initial thing (a) to some effect from (a) producing (b) leading to end effect (c).

There are countless examples to illustrate this point; moreover, this is one of many examples of how we operate within the framework of logic personally, relationally, even transcendentally, whether we are aware of this framework or not.

Enter my frustration: putting aside the content and emotional charge to all the matters we find ourselves arguing about, what remains is crudely formed attempts to wield logic on platforms that are not conducive to even handling such an interaction.

Nevertheless, we enter the virtual arena once more believing we might be able to help someone see the “truth” behind a given issue. Still, the medium through which we are engaging others is already biased toward short exchanges rather than lengthy, well-crafted arguments, in addition, we are bound by the inherent limitations of using the tool of written language.

One of the effects of operating on a virtual function that transcends the physical reality, especially when validated by in-group members’ support, is that we believe ourselves experts in a variety of fields and a multitude of topics. Having access to an abundance of information, we can easily succumb to an illusion of intellectual grandiosity that functions to help us feel more in control of life than we actually are.

However, when interlocked with another user on some social media platform arguing positions of some given issue, we often end up violating laws of logic due to either an indifference toward them or an ignorance of them.

The most common forms of logical fallacies I have observed through studying sparing matches in the virtual arena are false dilemmas (false dichotomies) and fallacies of causation. False dilemmas essentially restrict the range of potential options to a choice between only two options; for example, you either like ice cream or cookies (first example that came to mind)—if the other person responds to the question framed this way, then it is already setup on an illogical foundation and will continue to produce subsequent arguments because there could exist a third option or the initial choice is not a true dilemma. In the dessert example, engaging with this question overlooks the possibility of liking both ice cream and cookies since they can coexist without violating the law of contradiction.

Regarding fallacies of causation or causal fallacies, this is a category of logical fallacies that has numerous types of how it manifests, but the common feature of all these fallacies is misunderstandings of what causes or reasons are producing what effects or conclusions. Determining causality is an essential part of human reasoning and has serious effects on our lives; however, it can be quite difficult, and I believe it is important to have enough intellectual humility to acknowledge our blind spots or mistakes when utilizing human reasoning. One common example of a fallacy of causation is known as the Post hoc fallacy. It is useful to translate the Latin of Post hoc to understand the meaning of this fallacy; in Latin, this means to the effect of “after this, therefore because of that.” It is the idea that because an event happens after another event, there must be a causal connection between the two events. This is not always true because, again, discerning causation is an incredibly difficult endeavor, which is the task of many academics and researchers.

However, the internet and social media have produced something of a levelling effect where any user believes their posts and views are as credible as those who hold credentials on the matter. In part, it might be because everyone looks the same on these profiles, despite the blue check next to one’s name or the academic/professional credentials, people can discount these aspects; moreover, it seems that people tend to give more credence to user’s opinions who have many followers, though this too is a string of digits representing some abstraction that is often entirely arbitrary to the content of the discussion.

Nevertheless, social media is having an increasingly significant effect on people’s choices, and the stakes are incredibly high. However, I have learned that social media allows for members to find a sense of belonging, but it is that sense of belonging that fortifies the individual’s beliefs. Consequently, my goal of possibly changing other’s minds has shifted, and I hope to move forward with subsequent posts about reasoning and helping to increase understanding of logic and the serious consequences of operating from faulty reasoning.