Social Media and Public Opinion

I have heard people say that social media - like Twitter and  Facebook - actually has the power to shape public opinion. I think of these apps as toys -- a mere distraction for people with a smartphone and too much time on their hands.   

I believe there is a huge difference between being entertained and being informed.  Social media is primarily designed to be entertaining.  I fully acknowledge that there are many posters on Facebook who think they are advancing an agenda by "sharing" information that they feel is vital.  But these folks are largely deluding themselves into believing that others are in fact  buying their point of view.

In Facebook and Twitter you really never know who is reading your stuff.  I am convinced that I am not the only one who quietly "hides" the posts of people who habitually abuse their "friends" by bombarding them with repetitious affirmations of zeal - whether it is constant blathering about Climate change, Biblical quotations, or political rants, they are all mere expressions of faith being preached to an agreeable choir of fellow believers.  

I am not decrying FB posts because they are empty, entertaining or ephemeral.  My charge is that they do not shape public opinion. When was the last time you learned something on Facebook that changed your beliefs ? 

Social media is a ME medium.  Because everyone needs to know what you are doing and thinking every minute.  Me. Me. Me. 

Where else can a person of average writing skills communicate such vital thoughts, as : 
"Boy, it is cold out there today." or  
"Took Dad to dinner yesterday.  He ordered meatloaf.  It was a hoot."
 "Hey everybody, just got back from vacation! Here are 120 great photos of our trip to Dayton, Ohio."

Rather than impacting public opinion, these applications enable people to feel that they are connected to others.  By boasting oops I mean posting my vacation pics, it says look at me --I'm somebody.  I have "friends." I go places.  I'm cool.  

Facebook is a perfect medium for this type of inane chatter.  Your family is potentially interested in every meal and bathroom break, but the rest of us might discreetly "hide" your posts  

Twitter is just another way for people to self-promote.  If you follow any sort of organization you will be bombarded with multiple posts daily which are no more than commercials for that organization.  News editors are the worst abusers of Twitter.  It is not uncommon to see dozens of posts by some local editor each with a link to a story in today's edition.  The police department posts inane announcements "On route to investigate report of barking dog on Elm St."   Twitter is just one big Tease, because you can never get any useful information in 150 characters.

How About Blogs?

Blogs can be a different animal.  Indeed, there are some pretty good writers who set out to inform you, nay to persuade you that you should believe what they believe.  The unlimited format of text and image allows for an in-depth treatment of topic, and hyperlinks to reference sources can serve as powerful supporting material. 
I acknowledge that some of these folks are capable of writing in such a way as to actually change the way others think.

But, most writers of blogs are like me -- frustrated, self-absorbed wannabee writers who can't help themselves from opining on a disappointing and imperfect world.  Writing is a recognized form of therapy.  But most of us would admit that it is mostly for our own entertainment.  Unlike the Political and Religious bloggers we do not expect to shape your thoughts or beliefs.   

Like other free social media, blogs tend to be followed and read by the same agreeable choir for that particular denomination: pro-Obama, anti-big government, dog lovers, foodies, and such.  Folks publish their list of "favorite links" which invariably consist of like-minded bloggers.  So in the end, 90% of blogs are indistinguishable from the Twitter or Facebook except they are longer.  In the end, nobody ever almost nobody ever changes their beliefs.

The Reality of Perception

Some of you Skeptics may have a hard time with certain claims made by true believers about the efficacy of pseudo scientific systems of belief , such as Feng Shui and Astrology
The term pseudoscience refers to any body of belief that cannot be subjected to the rigorous test of science.

Most believers in pseudoscience also believe in scientific facts, but they feel that traditional science does not answer enough questions satisfactorily.

My wife tells me that according to Feng Shui the flood was good for us, because it makes room for new things. Yeah, we had to take a lot of wet stuff to the dump and there is room for new things like sump pumps, dehumidifiers, water monitors, back-up generators. And our lives are so much richer with heightened awareness of the power of water to change everything, the increased fear of rain and nightmares of mold growing in dark corners....

Drip Drip Drip = bad, Flood = good, she tells me. And she believes it.
She seems to have a mystical belief in cosmic harmony. If you arrange physical things according to a prescribed thousands-year-old tradition, you create avenues for good energy (Chi) to flow. This is supposed to bring good luck.

I think that the Chi is disturbed by the glut of wireless signals, (especially tweets) because the Universe thinks most electronic gadgets are a huge waste of time. I don't see how ancient systems of belief can be applicable in a quantum physics era. Unless the Chi is traveling through some kind of worm-hole.

A few weeks ago, I was debating a friend about the efficacy of psuedo-scientific medical "cures." He cited anecdotal claims of certain patients who seemed to have benefited from "alternative" (usually a synonym for "psuedo-scientific")approaches to medicine. I argued that there have always been claims of faith healers and charlatans which have been bolstered by the testimony of true believers. Much of the cure was in the mind.
He argued that my position is - in essence - that if the cure was in the mind of the believer, then it follows that the disease is also created by the mind.
I was reluctant to jump on the "it's all in your head" bandwagon because I realize disease is much too complicated to have such a convenient explanation. Clearly, physical injuries are externally caused, and clogged arteries are not a figment of imagination. But studies in recent years show a strong correlation to certain emotional states and diseases. Anger and Heart attacks, neuroses and bowel issues, etc.
A recent article in the Boston Globe Ideas section summarize recent research into the Placebo effect. This is the name scientists give to the phenomenon that occurs where people who think they are getting medicine experience Cures even when the "medicine" is fake.

One of the findings is that the efficacy of placebo is much stronger in diseases that are actually a collection of symptoms that do not appear to have a physical cause, such as irritable bowel and chronic headaches. It seems there is an increasing body of evidence that the real power of the universe is somewhere up there - among the little gray cells. I notice that none of the faith healers on TV are able to grow a new leg for an amputee. Now that REALLY would be a miracle! Paraphrasing George Carlin, "God is all powerful. He has infinite power to cure you, but He draws the line at replacing missing parts!"

One of my old managers would settle disputes with the dictum "Perception is Reality." At the time, I thought it a feckless phrase, typical of the pronouncements of Ivy league B-school graduates. Now, I see the quantum truth of it.