Pub. 13 2016 Issue 1

O V E R A C E N T U R Y : B U I L D I N G B E T T E R B A N K S - H E L P I N G N E W M E X I C O R E A L I Z E D R E A M S Spring • 2016 13 amount of information at our fingertips in today’s age, the belief is that we’re having less substantive conversations about important issues than ever. Social media has polarized users to an unprecedented ex- tent. Users on both ends of the political spectrum, conser- vative and liberal, tend to interact online only with people who are simpatico with their own opinions. More impor- tantly, according to the Pew study, the interactions that occur on social media have made users less likely to share their opinions face to face. Part of this is attributable to the notion that many social media users react in more extreme, aggressive ways under the cloak of anonymity that the inter- net provides. While disagreement face to face may evolve into a civil, substantive conversation, the anonymity of the internet often causes disagreements to devolve into insults and logical fallacies. Thus, users of social media platforms continually see this in their online interactions, and become wary of engaging in discussion face to face, where more ra- tional conversations tend to occur. As the Pew study indicates, much of social media interac- tion is centered upon reading articles that align with your own viewpoint and interacting with people who are going to re-enforce your beliefs. This often leads users to be less tol- erant of differing viewpoints. The entire premise of intel- lectualism, which has been a core tenet of American society, is considering differing viewpoints in a rational way, using these differing viewpoints to engage in discourse and criti- cal thought. Because the internet and social media have had the unintended effect of polarizing people more than ever, it has become anti-intellectual. There are very few places on the internet where liberals and conservatives interact in a measured, rational way nor is there much of an attempt to gain any understanding of the views of the other side. There is an incredible amount of information available to internet users and we have unprecedented access to quality resources. This applies to every facet of society, whether it’s politics, economics, history, career choices, or market- ing. But we seem to be using these vast resources to engage in less meaningful discourse, instead using them to shout down those who disagree with us. Face to face conversa- tions tend to give the participants more empathy with op- posing viewpoints because people often have more regard for someone directly in front of them. An interaction online can feel like arguing with a screen instead of a sentient hu- man. Ultimately, online interaction, particularly on social media, is a personal choice. This applies particularly to younger people, who are living in a world where online in- teraction has come to dominate. Many social media critics advise that it is important to use social media as a tool, but not allow it to dominate your social interaction. They sug- gest to not become emotionally invested in your social me- dia use or the discussions that occur on there. Consciously try to use the internet and social media in a constructive way, to become more informed. Read opposing viewpoints instead of only seeking out information that aligns with your own. And, most importantly, try to have more sub- stantive conversations face to face. These are discussions that parents are likely beginning to have and should have with their children. Social media has become a big enough part of society that there is now a need to discuss it both critically and thoughtfully.  Social media has polarized users to an unprecedented extent. Users on both ends of the political spectrum, conservative and liberal, tend to interact online only with people who are simpatico with their own opinions.