Information Overload, Brain Washing or IDGAF?
The other day, this friend of mine and I were asked a question on why we were 'feminists'. More specifically how we became feminists. What followed was the both of us bombarding the person who asked us the question with our opinions and ideals. There were disagreements about the role of women and women's relationship with society and vice versa, which was met with equal amounts of examples and donation of our experiences and beliefs.
As engaging and important as this discussion felt at the time, upon further reflection, I felt that somewhere we did not achieve the purpose of our lecture-like sharing. It didn't matter whether the person agreed to our ideas and beliefs, as long as we could bring in them a curiosity of why it was important to us and why it affected them much more than they admitted. However, what I felt we achieved was the opposite, we perhaps reduced the possibility of the curiosity by somehow taking the unspoken 'high-ground'.
Our oversharing with an edge of condescension perhaps worked at making a person indifferent and uninterested, rather than involved.
This is something similar to what I observe these days on social media and in academics. Constant feeding of information (to a point of aggression) is very likely to make a person uninterested in what anyone else has to say - specifically media outlets and brands.
This piece is a classic example of how excessive information (or even information off late) reduces interest in the reader or the customer. Information kills curiosity and social media and the internet has aided in that killing of curiosity.
Personally, I have reduced (nearly stopped) my use and access of social media, because I feel attacked by the amount of information and unashamed 'call-to-actions' of advertisements and this bizarre data-centric world that we have evolved into.
My problem is that essences are being lost in this maze of information. I genuinely do believe that more people should discover what feminism is to each of them, I also think that there is a subtlety that makes a reader and a customer more curious rather than being lost in a feed.
Oh and because I have to appear to care, do share your thoughts in the comments below:
As engaging and important as this discussion felt at the time, upon further reflection, I felt that somewhere we did not achieve the purpose of our lecture-like sharing. It didn't matter whether the person agreed to our ideas and beliefs, as long as we could bring in them a curiosity of why it was important to us and why it affected them much more than they admitted. However, what I felt we achieved was the opposite, we perhaps reduced the possibility of the curiosity by somehow taking the unspoken 'high-ground'.
Our oversharing with an edge of condescension perhaps worked at making a person indifferent and uninterested, rather than involved.
This is something similar to what I observe these days on social media and in academics. Constant feeding of information (to a point of aggression) is very likely to make a person uninterested in what anyone else has to say - specifically media outlets and brands.
This piece is a classic example of how excessive information (or even information off late) reduces interest in the reader or the customer. Information kills curiosity and social media and the internet has aided in that killing of curiosity.
Personally, I have reduced (nearly stopped) my use and access of social media, because I feel attacked by the amount of information and unashamed 'call-to-actions' of advertisements and this bizarre data-centric world that we have evolved into.
My problem is that essences are being lost in this maze of information. I genuinely do believe that more people should discover what feminism is to each of them, I also think that there is a subtlety that makes a reader and a customer more curious rather than being lost in a feed.
Oh and because I have to appear to care, do share your thoughts in the comments below:
Comments
Post a Comment