... is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
A few years back I wrote how disturbing it was
that everybody nowadays, even just doing ordinary things in ordinary
places would unthinkingly, dramatically perk up upon having a camera
thrust in their faces. You see it everywhere, people moseying along,
bored expression on their faces, and then suddenly somebody takes a
camera and people just switch on and start posing and projecting like
mad.
Everybody now is a celebrity in their minds. People that
normally would have (and should have) no claim to fame (or even
notoriety) would find their faces and their most mundane activities on
the Internet. Being ill informed, unread, or without any semblance of
writing skills doesn’t stop them from airing their views extensively on
Facebook.
Some people believe this is a good thing. I don’t. While indeed the
democratization of information, the full utilization of the wisdom of
crowds, and the greater participation of the public in the marketplace
of ideas is ostensibly beneficial, not so if it leads people to
sloppiness in thought.
Writer and Cambridge lecturer (never mind Oxford) Edward de Bono certainly thinks so. In an interview with news.com.au,
he said: “There is danger on the internet and social media... that you
do not have to think to be very dangerous. Social media causes laziness,
that we feel will get more information and do not need to have his own
ideas. We got the idea from someone else, we do not need to look at the
data, we only see what others have to say.”
Reality TV is perhaps even worse. The behavior exhibited by the
so-called “stars” often verge on the bizarre: every little thing results
in violent arguments, no opportunity (even the lack thereof) for public
sexual antics is wasted, and every mundane (actually stupid) opinion is
aired out at the highest possible volume. While, of course, the
rationale for such over-the-top behavior is understandable from the
ratings perspective, it may (alas oftentimes does) sadly encourage
(consciously or not) similar conduct from its fans.
Which makes me think: what effect does this instant celebrity (or
whatever it is) have on the population? Without the need to acquire the
skills, humility, and patience garnered from the constant supervision by
one’s superior, the burden of redoing repeatedly a piece of work until
it’s properly done, without the need of honing craftsmanship,
researching and verifying the credibility of sources, the constant
nagging and disciplining by an elder whether a work has logic and
methodical train of thought, how does that affect the development of
their character? When all they have to do, by way of example, is copy
and paste obscure articles on the internet, Google and Wiki their way
through research, then publish their works to the admiration of their
peers who wouldn’t know any better? What’s the point of hard work and a
demanding experienced mentor if one can be an instant star on the
internet or reality TV anyway?
Ironically, having a “me,” self-centered, “if it feels good then do it”
mindset (along with the capacity for instant gratification) has not made
people any happier. In a 2009 study (reported in the Telegraph)
involving Britain, for example, it was found that while its
individualistic mindset made “for a dynamic and innovative population,
it also appears to make it more anxious and unhappy, claim
psychologists. The study by Northwestern University in Chicago compared
levels of depression and anxiety in individualist societies like Western
Europe and America with collectivist societies like China and Taiwan.
They were surprised to find that there was a direct correlation between
the two. The more individualistic the country, the higher the levels of
depression.”
This reminded me of what Helen Alvaré, associate professor at George
Mason University Law School, pointed out: the US sexual revolution had
“four to five decades to prove itself.” And yet, “were increases in
sexual liberty for women a key determinant of happiness (sufficiently
key to raise birth control above even life-saving medicines for federal
favor), a simple time-series graph correlating the percentage of women
using contraception in the United States with the percentage of women
reporting themselves as ‘happy’ would show a direct relationship.
Instead, we have more women accessing birth control but less female
happiness as described above.”
So much for the insane assertion that “satisfying sex” is a human right.
It would be great — to borrow from Paul Kengor — to have a leader who
tells us that while “liberty is enshrined in our laws, but liberty
should not be license for opportunities for the flesh. Our liberties,
protected and permitted as they are, should not be exploited to do
anything and everything we want, including things harmful to oneself, to
one’s family, to one’s neighbors, to one’s culture, to one’s country.”
But, really, we can’t really blame people for indulging in madness if
even our presidents, senators and congressmen, or even tourist guides,
act like lunatics themselves.
