|
 |
Like you, I get a lot of requests to post about other people’s causes. Promote my nonprofit to save the wildebeests! Share my legal defense fund! Broadcast our bike race to find a cure for baldness! Post my GoFundMe so I can find a cure for chronic monetary deprivation!
Everyone has their own circle of concern. We all have to make tough choices about where to allocate our finite time and energy. In fact, psychologists find that after having kids, people tend to become less empathetic toward strangers. Although that sounds like a moral failure, it seems to be adaptive. If your ancestors didn’t devote their finite energy to caring for their children, their children probably wouldn’t have survived… and you probably wouldn’t exist.
For hundreds of thousands of years, most humans didn’t interact often with strangers. They were only aware of the suffering in their own communities—of people they knew personally and could possibly help. Now social media has made us aware of the suffering of countless strangers oceans apart. The upside is that people whose pain would’ve gone unnoticed can get support. The downside is that many people are drowning in pressure to get involved in every problem plaguing humanity. There’s extensive evidence that feeling unable to help is a major risk factor for burnout and learned helplessness.
When well-intentioned people see others failing to act, they sometimes go on the attack. Silence is violence! You’re complicit!
I guess this means that if you haven’t posted about the sexual violence in Haiti, the disease outbreaks in DRC, the displacement crisis in Sudan, or the starvation in Yemen, you’re complicit in each of those atrocities.
I’m not saying social media never makes a difference. Posts can obviously raise money and mobilize action. They can also help people feel seen and change perceptions of social norms by making it clear that others care. But sometimes the costs of engaging outweigh the benefits. Social media can lead to slacktivism—once people feel they’ve checked the box online, they feel less responsible for doing anything offline. Think of all the people who posted black squares after the murder of George Floyd. One person’s internet activism is another’s virtue signaling.
Some people choose to take quiet action. Even if you prefer a megaphone, we all need to pick our battles. So it’s time to stop judging others for how they do or don’t use their platforms. Vilifying people for their communication choices is a form of moral grandstanding. Research suggests that the individuals who grandstand the most tend to be narcissists, who feel entitled to impose their ideologies on others. They may be telling themselves that the ends justify the means, but that’s a lie.
If you bully people to back your cause, you’re still a bully. It might not be immoral, but it’s uncivil.
Bullying is also counterproductive. We know from decades of research that blaming and shaming only leads people to get defensive, dig in their heels, or tune you out altogether. Stereotyping has the same effect. Spoken like a typical privileged straight white man is a surefire way to alienate potential allies who want to help.
The best way to reach people is to listen to them and start a respectful dialogue with them. People shut down when they feel dismissed; they open up when they feel seen and heard. Instead of You’re a bad person for being silent about Gaza, how about I’m really concerned about the suffering in Gaza, and if this is a cause you’re willing and able to address, I’d love to talk with you about ways to support it.
I Didn’t Post About Your Cause
Yesterday I wrote a tongue-in-cheek poem about the burden people often feel to post about every cause. From what I can tell, over 25k people understood the intended message and appreciated the humor. Meanwhile, a few thousand rushed to judgment and responded with outrage to things I didn’t say or mean. What a coward! He’s showing his true colors. I’m disappointed in who he’s become. I’m throwing away his books. Unfollow.
I found this ironic since I happen to share the principles many of these people were preaching. These are my core values:
Generosity: Be a giver, not a taker. Help others without expecting anything in return, treat people better than they expect, and be especially kind to those who aren’t in a position to reciprocate.
Learning: Argue like you’re right and listen like you’re wrong. Have the humility to know what you don’t know and the curiosity to pursue knowledge and wisdom. Prize critical thinking over comfort.
Freedom: Defend the right to autonomy in thinking and decision-making. Build a world in which people respect one another’s liberties and boundaries.
Integrity: Strive for excellence in putting these principles into daily practice. Have the courage to share important ideas and rigorous evidence even when people find them upsetting, and do the right thing especially when no one is watching.
You probably hold some of the same broad principles, but we may not be in lockstep on how to apply them. That’s to be expected. Most of our divides aren’t due to opposing values. They’re due to different views on how to live similar values.
In 13 years as a public intellectual, I’ve done my best to abide by my code. It explains why I’ve stuck my neck out to advocate for women, people of color, individuals with disabilities, underprivileged students, and people dealing with abusive bosses and toxic workplaces. It also sheds light on why I’ve been critical of the Myers-Briggs, astrology, and unfounded claims about emotional intelligence.
My post yesterday was an expression of these same principles. It’s consistent with the work I’ve done my whole career. I want people to be generous in caring about others, but I support their freedom to decide who to prioritize and how to express it.
When I said your cause is not my cause, I was thinking of the science deniers who have urged me to challenge the medical establishment to think again on the efficacy of vaccines, for example. And the people who have asked me to support research on telepathy.* You won’t see me posting about their cause, but you won’t see me shaming them either. The world needs fewer keyboard warriors and more curious conversationalists. Tell me more. How did you form that view? And what evidence would change your mind?
As a matter of integrity, I’ll continue sharing what I’m learning about psychology and human behavior regardless of whether it might be popular. I don’t expect you to agree with everything I think—I don’t even agree with everything I think! (Frankly, I don’t think you shouldn’t agree with anyone 100% of the time. If you do, you may not be thinking for yourself.) If you think I suck at poetry, by all means tell me. I know it’s true.
There will always be grifters trying to boost themselves by taking others down. You don’t have to be one of them. When you think someone has a bad take, rather than slamming them, try sharing your view and asking them to clarify theirs.
If you disagree with me or anyone commenting here, please focus on the content of the ideas, not the identity of the person conveying them. Character attacks are not welcome on this platform. Neither are expressions of stereotypes or prejudice—judging individuals based on their gender, racial, ethnic, age, sexual orientation, or other group memberships.
If you can’t adhere to these principles, kindly unfollow me.
*No, there isn’t credible evidence for the existence of telepathy. I say this with confidence as both a social scientist and a former magician. Start here, and for more, read this and this and that.