In the Fall of 2022, I started a social experiment:

I was going to cultivate a gathering of people from unique backgrounds, of differing ages and economic status, who met monthly to discuss topics ranging from single motherhood to climate change; to the clear-cutting of trees to the behaviour of sociopaths. Over steaming mugs of hot coffee, a container of home-baked cookies passed from hand-to-hand, we would approach the topics that don’t usually punctuate our family dinner table, our pub nights, or elsewhere in our social networks. And we were going to get along.

To be clear, this was a book club. An in-person gathering inspired by peer-selected non-fiction titles that span from memoir to philosophy, was my answer to questions I had been asking of myself and my social circle over the years:

What opportunities do we have socially to discuss polarizing or sensitive subjects with each other in person? How can we promote social satisfaction and safety equally when skipping the “small talk” and getting to the deep things? Where can we gather to talk about real-life issues and stories, with extensions of understanding and respect?

In meeting with a diverse group of people every month for just close to a year, the insights extracted from our in-person discussions have become illuminating.

This month, we’re all reading “Atlas of the Heart”, a book by author and researcher Brene Brown. The book’s research can be distilled down to a few key points:

1) “Knowing the language of our emotions is crucial.”
2) “If we are not aware of ourselves, we cannot truly connect with others.”
3) “Thinking and feeling as a group is easier than processing [stuff] individually.”

It’s not a hard stretch to realize that these key points might best be achieved by in-person discussion. When followed, they aim to promote understanding and respect. In short: eye contact is needed.

Recently, I’ve noted how online conversations in our communities can quickly degrade into circumstances of irreversible miscommunication and misunderstanding. As someone with a background in Communications, I’ve been wondering lately: is everyone doing alright?

In a 2022 article from the Washington Post on online arguments, writer Shira Feder quotes psychologist Doreen Dogen-Magee:

“People engaging in excessive online arguments are often emotionally dysregulated. That means they are having strong emotional responses to people or events that fall outside the bounds of what others would consider acceptable.”

Coupling emotional dysregulation with an app that is algorithmically designed to skew the text, ads and information we see; it’s only a communication disaster waiting to happen.

“Outrage algorithm” is a coined term that grew out of Facebook’s algorithm change in 2018. This algorithm change, discovered via leaked internal documents, was investigated by a series of reports from The Wall Street Journal. We saw outrage algorithms play out on our glowing screens in real time during major political events. During Trump’s campaign, election and presidency, Time Magazine reported on how Facebook’s online ads manipulated the public. When we look closely, we can also identify wide-scale outrage algorithms filtering down to online conversation on local levels. Municipal elections, Freedom Convoys, LGBTQIA+ rights.

Divisive content has been promoted by social media apps since its inception, but outrage algorithms have increased dramatically on Facebook in the last few years. Salacious, emotionally-charged posts made by content creators increase views and engagement, leading to money in pockets thanks to ad earnings.

At large scale, the long-term effects of evolving outrage algorithms will be impossible to predict. It is already difficult to accept how divisive our global society is, and some of us hope that this will change.

But what happens when our own online behaviour begins to mirror that of large content creators? More and more, we can find our friends and neighbours compelled to create online content inside of groups and forums that is intended to provoke others, skew judgment or incite arguments. Content that is exceptionally divisive is, most times, misinformed. Unsurprisingly.

Living inside of the black-and-white echo chambers of social media discussions, active listening or acknowledgement of nuance is not often welcome or appreciated.

When we allow our emotions to speak, and when we respond with emotion alone, we fall prey to instances of “confirmation bias” – a term that delineates “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values.” (Wikipedia).

When we fall victim to confirmation bias online, we don’t seek out alternative information sources, and we don’t question what we read if it goes against our individual stance on a subject. Our responses become emotionally charged, and our opportunity for comprehending a topic – let alone, one another – reduces drastically.

We should not be dismissive to the positives of online discussion. Facebook groups, online forums and comment sections can be a place for all members of society to have access to opportunities for social connection and sharing of information. Regardless of our location or abilities, social media can create bridges to friendship, partnership, community collaboration and more.

Lately, I’ve been exercising discernment over the types of online groups I want to participate in, along with the discussions I want to contribute to.

The questions I ask myself are: Who stands to gain from this post or discussion? What can I contribute that is kind or true? Is this a conversation that will promote curiosity, understanding and kinship, or does it feel as though it is already rooted in negativity and/or gossip? Will this post hurt someone needlessly? Will it cause harm?

Back at my book club meetings, the depth of our conversations are great, yet so is our mutual understanding of one another’s values and thoughts. I want to say it’s the warm home-baked cookies that help, but perhaps, the eye contact really does have something to do with it. No matter what is expressed, when the blue-lit screens and clicking keyboards aren’t present, we all seem to acknowledge that no matter what, we are neighbours. We can disagree with each other, but we still have to pass one another in the grocery store.

- Britt Gillman www.brittgillman.com