Pros and Cons of Social Media

Social media is no doubt our biggest evolution. The future generations will be born into an era where social media is heavily present, whereas past generations can remember a time social media didn’t exist. Social media is a way for people all around the world to connect with one another, share common beliefs/ideas, and just stay abrupt to what is going on in the world.


In the article “Pros and Cons of social media”, the nurturing and expansion of relationships social media brings is considered a pro. I agree, given all of the different types of platforms I can stay connected with people from all over. It can help me strengthen existing relationships, and create new ones.


It can also be used as a learning platform, since so much information is put out there.



Even though social media can be used for positive things, it is also a platform where negativity can take place: people are rude, bullies are created, and information can be skewed.



In one of the articles, one of the biggest cons of social media is how anonymity allows for cyber bullying. Since social media allows you to express yourself behind a screen, people tend to get more bold with the things that they say. “The same way social media can bring people together for constructive reasons, social media can connect disgruntled people together”, resulting in the advocacy of negative attitudes or beliefs.

The crowd: youre not you when in a crowd

To understand crowd behavior, you have to understand the crowd. A crowd is a group of people united by a common belief or idea. The characteristics of a crowd are much more different than the characteristics of an individual. LeBon believes when a person is part of a crowd, the person becomes less civilized.

For my observation of crowd behavior, I decided to look back on the riots that occurred in the 90s after the Rodney King trial. If you don’t know who Rodney King is, he was essentially the first black male to get brutally beaten in the 90’s by cops caught on camera in LA. This became a national issue people were interested in. His trial against the cops that beat him, resulted in all of them getting off with no consequences. The community was outraged, and thousands of people reacted by rioting. Groups of people were setting buildings on fire, protesting, getting in large fights, fighting the cops etc. The black community was more than tired of being treated unfairly by the law, being harassed just for being black, and the injustice that occurs in the system. So, these people got together and started tearing the city down.

People behave like this in a crowd, but why not like this on their own? Simply the fear of being arrested and facing the consequences alone.


LeBon argues that when in a crowd, the anonymity that the crowd provides to the individual due to the large amount of people, means that their fear of consequences gets lost. When you have anonymity, individuals lose their moral responsibilities, their ability to restrain certain instincts, and gain a temporary feeling of invincibility. This behavior was clearly displayed in the occurrences that happened after the Rodney King trial.

According to Aristotle, a "man" was a political animal because it is in his nature to have the power of speech and moral reasoning. Anyone who was an outcast was considered a bird who flies alone. Not sure if I agree or disagree to his statement, but he might have been on to something...

Aristotle blog:


https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/164

Looking Back, Looking Forward

Hello All,

After having a discussion in class and being able to re-read Looking Back, Looking Forward: ISPP at 40 and Future Directions for Political Psychology , I have a different understanding prior to the one I had before.

We covered a few topics in the article, but mainly the section going over "The erosion of scientific Rationalism." The article presents results of a study that examines the extent to which Democrats, Republicans, and independents were likely to defer to scientific expertise in matters of policy.

The average score all across was a 6.4.

Now, the article claims that these results suggest voters generally want policymakers to refer to scientific evidence, meaning scientific rationalism is not on the decline. But, after hearing Professor Andrews comment on how those results really aren’t that high, I now lean towards the idea that scientific rationalism is on a decline. She brought up an interesting point that a result such as a 7.3 or higher would suggest Scientific rationalism isn’t on the decline. Scores like 6.4 and 5.5 really demonstrate how split down the middle we are as a society when it comes to what we base our beliefs on.No matter if you are a liberal or conservative, it is highly likely that scientific evidence will be challenged if it does not align with an individual's beliefs.

The article also touches base on measurement and prediction and humans as “political animals”.

Social media is now a great tool to advance voter behavior, voter attitudes and measuring public opinion.“Political animals” are simply individuals engaged in politics and the group that aligns with their beliefs. Personally, I believe we need more political animals in this society, myself included, because it doesn’t take long to notice politics is how our entire society operates. If one decides not to be involved or have an opinion on what is going on in society, then that will leave them no room to be upset with how things are going and what type of political leaders are being chosen. Trump's presidency is a great example of needing more people being politically engaged in what is going on. Many people were upset by Trump’s winning, but a lot of those individuals didn’t even vote.
As humans, it is a part of our nature to naturally gravitate towards a group, so it is important that we find others with similar beliefs so that we can get representatives in office that align with our beliefs.