"The world is what we make of it." We've heard some iteration of this so many times that it's a cliche. It implies that we have complete control over what happens in life which we know simply isn't true. Or is it?
The past two years, at the very least, have certainly shown how little control we have over external happenings, but we do have control over how we interpret our experience here. That probably seems pretty glib but think about this example: when I wake up and I don't want to go to the gym, my mind immediately comes up with all of the reasons I probably shouldn't go - I don't have enough time for a full work out, I don't have any clean gym clothes, etc. And before it's even decision time, I've come up with all of the reasons to support what I wanted anyway. In other words, when our minds are solving for X, we'll find plenty of evidence to support X.
The interesting thing is that technology extends out these belief systems. I've often wondered how people can get so worked up about what seem like insignificant things and here we can choose any number of outrages that have swept social media the last few years. Since I pretty much stick to dogs, museums, fashion, and humor on social media, that's what makes up my feed - and that's exactly why I tend not to be affected by insignificant things. Social media algorithms are not supplying more fodder for me. If, on the other hand, my social media usage included a lot of biased political clicks, my experience there would be much different.
If you're curious to test this out, swap accounts with someone who you know has very different interests than you - for an hour, a day, a week, whatever. It's fascinating. The social media experience is completely different. For me, instead of dogs and fashion, the feed could be filled with anything from 2nd Amendment Rights to 5G worries. Our clicks inform what is marketed to us, which means that technology is further solving for X for us.
An easy was to clarify is to think about the last round of presidential debates. Supporters of each candidate watched and believed their choice was stronger. Chances are, their social media streams were filled with anecdotes, decontextualized data, and memes to support their opinion. They believed X, so they got ample evidence to support it.
So, to pull the lens back out a bit, think about our own experiences in the world. What do we want X to be? If we say we want more peace, for example, what support are we surrounding ourselves with that will make that the norm? And, when we apply it to ourselves, what do we our truths to be?
Comentários