Trapping Minds on Social Media

Trapping Minds on Social Media

Start a discussion on leadership, or strategic planning and you shall experience so many definitions, repetition of ideas, influence of certain authors and ideas that end up with more confusion than they started with.

Recently, I had an extended private exchanges of ideas with Harvey Lloyd, which invoked many important thoughts and issues and I felt their sharing with the readers is worthy. It is with the approval of Harvey that I am sharing our thoughts publicly. They are of general concern and sharing them is worthy.

In an early message Harvey wrote โ€œI believe I struggle with the same concept. Millions of ideas that go nowhere. But represent only one ideal complementing the next into a chaotic circle. But nothing ever comes out of the machine from which it was spawned. When you attempt to get the machine to produce, folks get scared and mock, blindly follow or dismiss your thinking. Cause and effect seem to be in a causal loop that goes nowhereโ€.

Having expressed some concern on the benefit at all scales resulting from publishing on social media platforms Harvey responded elegantly. I leave out any personal compliments. Harvey wrote โ€œBeing of the 5% we often find ourselves out on the edge of order, exploring new concepts. Many within order though see the thoughts as disruptive. Some have the courage to interact with the thoughts, very few. Most though read them, and it plants a seed. It changes them, but they canโ€™t act as they lack the courage to think openly. This is due to the push back they would receive based on their โ€œbrandโ€. Obviously, Harvey is referring here to personal branding and again this is a debatable issue that led to heated discussions on several social platforms.

Harvey offers a plausible explanation that despite all the shortcomings of social platforms an author should keep on contributing. Harveyโ€™s reasoning, with slight editing so it doesnโ€™t relate to one author specifically, is as follows. โ€œA gentleman told we once that if you get a response from one count it as ten. There is only 1 out of ten who have the courage to speak, but the 9 felt the same way. You have helped the 9, even though they didnโ€™t say soโ€.

My response was that we may need a calming period sometimes to stay away from social media for various reasons. โ€œI agree fully with you my friend. We shouldn't lose hope and what we see on the surface hides the turmoil beneath the waters. That is why I said I didn't leave (referring here to a certain social platform to which I contributed extensively) but watching from distance for a while. We are not battling, and we are learning. That is why a calm period shall be of great helpโ€.

For a private reason Harvey then shared a video with me. It is a fascinating five-minutes video and is worthy of the readersโ€™ viewing times. Harvey had a reason to share this video with me. He wrote โ€œI thought the Lego block analogy was very much like your using nature to build an emergent concept of human existence, paralleled nicelyโ€.

The video evoked the following response from me. I wrote to Harvey โ€œYes, and the topic of emergence occupies my mind. If I were sitting next to you I would show you to what extent this phenomenon occupies my mindโ€. I then shared a video that explains emergence beautifully.

The idea here is like the previous video. Instead of drivers we replace in this video the dots with human individuals, human ideas, or whatever our imagination carries us. One advantage of the chaos of ideas on social media is the open thinking, if allowed, to produce emerging ideas that nobody imagined or could think of till the ideas emerge.

Harvey reacted to this video by stating โ€œYes, this is a great topic.ย  Emergence states a single fact.ย  Fundamentals are discovered by reducing emerging phenomena.ย  This why your posts were greatly appreciated by me.ย  You were looking at emergence and bringing it back to its Lego singularity.ย  This to see if it could stand its own groundโ€.

These discussions prompted me to elaborate more on the video suggested by Harvey above. โ€œIf you look at the video and the car example it shall be impossible to predict the pattern of driving. In complicated systemsย such as the car itself we know the role of each single part of the car and we can find the problem related to a part. However; with the introduction of the human elementย (complex and not complicated) we now have drivers who make it impossible to predict their collective pattern of driving. Knowing the movements of one driver doesn't help us to predict the emerging behavior. This is the difference between complicated and complex. Emergence relates to the interactions of many same species (humans, birds, fish) and their collective behavior has nothing to do with the movement of one individual. Hence the emerging propertyโ€.

My response invoked the following response from Harvey. โ€œI was really framing the question from the perspective of the individual human.ย  We are emergent from our narrative.ย  But can we dig back through the narrative and determine the individual blocks.ย  Behavior is emergent.ย  Add to this a group and we have the car scenario as in the video.ย  The question is can we emerge separately from the group and still be a part of the group?ย  Would the group be accepting, and/or do we have that level of controlโ€?

Harvey continued โ€œYour posts on beBee were emergent from the human narrative.ย  You were attempting to get folks to look at the basic block.ย  The group is emergent from group think and the individuals consider their own emergence as group dependent.ย  A thought to ponderโ€. The blocks in the video that Harvey referred to are equivalent to following simple rules that lead to emerging complexity. This observation prompted me to respond to Harvey in the following way. โ€œThat is a great question. For meaningful emergent properties we must follow very limited number of rules. When birds fly and a V- flying pattern emerges it is because all birds follow same basic rulesโ€.

I then explained further:

โ€œSame with ants. I strongly advise you to watch this video (about four minutes). See how ants make a raft to float on sea water and so not sink. Should an ant not follow the rules it shall die. So, emergent behavior requires abiding by normally three simple rulesโ€

Harvey responded โ€œYes, this is true.ย  I enjoyed the video thanks.ย  But can we get back from the complexity of the narrative to these rules?ย  Would we find within certain parts of the complexity that we harbor incongruent rules when spread across multiple settings?ย  I believe in your posts you were seeing that most folks are working from the complex back towards the individual block.ย  Along the way that started to feel cognitive dissonance.ย  Typically, when we feel this, a rule is in place, but we see we don't follow it across all domains.ย  This may be some of the silent or most vocal feedback we getโ€.

I responded โ€œThe only way available to understand complex systems is to work backwards and try to mine out the simple rules. Yes, it is by working backwards that we can unlock the rules.

We say that culture is an emerging property. It emerges from the way people interact. Now recognizing the emergent culture, we try to work backwards to decipher the rules. I hope this is consistent with your thinkingโ€.

The brainstorming continued with Harvey. He then added โ€œYou are on point. I guess what i am seeing here in crazyvile, as you look backwards towards the singularity, folks get angry because how they treat friends is different than treating other identity groups. So, this sets up the double standard of rules. One set for who I like and yet another for those I donโ€™t. Smart people who were emerging from group think. When we questioned fundamentals they backed off, because their dual standard would emerge. Culture does emerge from groups. The question is, what happens when individuals energetic from groups? It should always be that we are individual first group second. But many groups are now spawning individuals. This is seen a lot in our younger generations. No original thought, but rather banner carriers for the groups they identify throughโ€.

โ€œFor me the question is how we dialogue with these folks. I am a Martian when I speak fundamentalsโ€.

The challenge intellectual challenge built up and I responded โ€œThese are great questions and your observations are spot on. Yes, it all starts from the individuals and how they behave. Double standard behavior means following two sets of rules. You know Harvey I haven't read one reference to your PoV. You got me thinking- do we have two cultures one for group because of following basic rules and another culture for following the majority (group). Dies this dual behavior lead to two different cultures?

ยท Honestly, if this what you meant then you raise a topic that is worthy of pursuing for nobody has mentioned it to my best knowledge.

ยท What happens when the rules of the group supersede those for individual interactions?

ยท Lot to think about this evening

Harveyโ€™s mind generated challenging observations and questions โ€œI donโ€™t think I have read anything in this context. Dual personalities have been widely discussed. But yes, you are hammering at my point. We have one set of rules within risk, work, commerce or social vs friendship, personal politics and close social groups. These two used to share a fundamental rules system. Here in crazyville the person you meet in risk is different than the person you meet at the barbecue. This duality is confusing in observation but is easy in presentation. In observing we see a whole person and measure the totality. In our presentation we see circumstances as implied risk or not. No risk i use the rules, where i see risk I use a different set. IF i have a fundamental rule to actively listen. Does this apply to my wife and my business partner? Or is the rule applied differently with each?โ€

The discussion continued and is far from ending. The post is too long to continue for now, but the challenge continues. You readers may add to the challenge and I invite you to do so.

This was was originally posted on LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trapping-minds-social-media-ali-anani-phd/


thumb_up Relevant message Comment
Comments
Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#36
Thank you dear Jennifer Leach-Trask and I am glad you enjoyed the buzz. It took efforts to write. So, your feedback is assuring. Yes, short periods help us clean our mind cache.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

Yes, because people are driven more by certainty than the wonderment and surprises of emergence. Most people carry more for results than discovery and troubling their minds solving the puzzles of emergence.

CityVP Manjit

CityVP Manjit

2 years ago #30

It is much like reflection, so few people travel in this territory called emergence that they have no way of knowing that it exists. We see it but most people want a map, and it is so far out from their mind view that it makes zero connection, even though the explanations here are fundamentally sound to those who see it.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#32
That is one challenge I am addressing in the next post.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

2 years ago #28

#31
In the context of social media i would state that linear is what we get. But if the writer was attempting to form tetrahedral bonds then it might prove challenging. Especially when the platform(s) tends to be one dimensional. How we see the matrix sometimes defines our engagement.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#30
No, you can understand Harvey Lloyd. Here we have hydrogen in both molecules,. The only difference is replacing oxygen (O2) with flour (F2). The idea here is why one makes chains of tetrahedral, but the other only makes linear bond? What if water was linear then what would happen?

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

2 years ago #26

#29
You are now beyond my chemical capabilities of understanding. My chemical understanding ends after the answer to, do you like that beer:)

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#28
"Secondarily, when you attempt to make these bonds in one dimensional space, social media, it grows even more complex". Water (H2O) makes tetrahedral bonds whereas hydrogen fluoride (HF2) makes linear bonds. Why? This is one of the ideas I am discussing in my next post.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

2 years ago #24

#26
Yes this is the conversation you should have while contemplating one hand clapping:) But you raise the complexity as you step away from "me". Me + 1=manageable as we explore the chemical bonds. Once you add me+2 or more then the complexity of bonds raises. Secondarily, when you attempt to make these bonds in one dimensional space, social media, it grows even more complex. We have been discussing the, maybe, social media needs to grow up. The users need to understand the one dimensional space and be able to build the other dimensions through dialogue. Typically readers and writers draw from their multi-dimensional space and apply it to the single dimension. I speak to this like having ten pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. From these ten i add my dimensions, 990 pieces, and write or read from a puzzle i don't even have the box top yet. Our brain is wired to fill in gaps. I am always ashamed when i exercise this part of the limbic system. We are suppose to be smart. But it took a thousand or so years to develop language and now we are back to emoticons:) Join me for a beer in the cave. I got crayons.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#26
I was just exchanging messages with Harvey Lloyd. I shall be honest with you as this post received almost the least attention of all my 250+ posts. But your comment ways heavily and I am proceeding with writing the post next week/ As I told Harvey, I am mesmerized by your comments because you cover points that I intend to cover in the buzz. This comment adds to my determination. Thank you Bill and Harvey for making the journey worthy.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#24
I shall refer to your comments both dears Harvey Lloyd in my next buzz. Thank you both for the engaging discussions you present here.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

2 years ago #21

#14
I really enjoyed the thoughts you present. The real thought is that the reader and the writer each are looking for the "bonds" within your analogy. Of course not only for different reasons but as Jerry Fletcher and i discuss the points of observation of this phenomena and the behaviors that emanate from the interactions. The amazing aspects of this is the singularity we sometimes come from in reading or writing. When we communicate from humility we see the bonds you refer too, once we judge (from our own perspective) then we are unable to see the bonding sites where flow might be created within the group.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee
stephan metral ๐Ÿ Innovative Brand Ambassador
Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

Dee Poku Spalding- I believe this is the first comment by you on any of my buzzes. I appreciate your comment and I am glad you find the post interesting.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

Jerry Fletcher- sometimes I feel like shouting that reality and illusion are two sides of the coin like light and darkness are. Heisenberg 's uncertainty principle is in action. Like two paired electrons we can't know all the details of each. Likewise; the paired of reality and illusion. May be I am in state of illusion. Yes, the dots video is super and explains emergence very well.

Jerry Fletcher

Jerry Fletcher

2 years ago #16

Dr. Ali and Harvey, "Tis a marvelous web you weave. My small mind would require days to comprehend your radiance. The dots moving in straight lines that are perceived as a dots on a circle rolling around on the inside of another circle intrigue my visually oriented mind. When I step back and look at it, the perception is just as valid as the demonstration. Part of what is going on here is the difficulty in determining reality when all we have to view is a perception. And so it goes.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#14
Your comment brings many ideas to my mind dear Bill King. It takes far more than the one-minute reading time. In social networks where there are many cross links we have rigid structures and if the degree of cross-linking is low then the system is elastic like rubber is. Your question is deep and I shall respond again when I have studied it carefully. Human bonds have shown volatility characters where the heat of a conflict or misunderstanding caused the relationship to evaporate. I shall be back with a more disciplined answer.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#13
You don't close doors as you know well how to keep cracks in the door open dear Harvey Lloyd

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#12
Yes, you are spot on dear Clau Valerio. Your comprehension is great. You amaze me with your brain power.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

2 years ago #12

#11
In my travels, specifically in sales, i had to develop the mantra to install doors customers could and want to walk through. If it didn't work i would attempt a window that they could look through for next time. The alternative was to build walls. Securing the fact we could never get on the same page. At a minimum we would first have to traverse the walls before we could get to a window. I believe you have experienced installing a door where someone walked through.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#10
I wish you would read the comment posted by Bert R. on LI on this post and you shall be relieved Harvey Lloyd You remind me of illusion and that we see real what isn't. May be our persona too has an eye that sees thing real that are unreal.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

2 years ago #10

#9
I would also state that even our eyes can be fooled by the capabilities of technology. Fallacy can be presented as truth with technology, references and other tools that establish 99% truth. The main aspect is we lack the real time reflection of comments and words to guide us down each leg of the conversation. We have all experienced when writers present and the reader has to insert their own persona into to complete the blank spaces they see, from their perspective. We all do this. Maybe by using a construct of understanding the shadow, ego, persona we can better understand the limits of social media communications. This construct is presented in more detail through the myers-briggs personality types. Yes it is superficial compared to the theories of Carl Jung but offers lay folks like myself a starting point of understanding others, in communications.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#8
Harvey Lloyd- still fresh in my memory our exchanges of messages that are so rich to include all of them in this buzz. One idea that is relevant to your comment here is that we primarily use the seeing sense, while other senses aren't engaged on social media. What we make sense of the world is using all our senses and therefore I am in comfortable agreement with your comment. This results in what you concluded your comment with "Certainly one area that we could look at to better enhance our online skills, concepts and writing". I have just received your image in which the writer exposes his/her shadow in what he/she publishes. In contrast, the reader reads the post mostly with his/her persona and what he/she tries to show/appear to the world. This intensifies the need to observe carefully your conclusion.

Harvey Lloyd

Harvey Lloyd

2 years ago #8

This line of discussion is always fascinating for me. How humans behave in various settings seem to be so rich in our journey through relationships. I really appreciate the fact that Ali \ud83d\udc1d Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee and i can have these discussions. When we speak we bring to life ideas and shed light upon concepts that may live or die. Ideas are always held accountable within the extrinsic world. Social media seems to be a place where ideas are opened, discussed and live on or possible hit file 13. The discussions we have been having is the precepts that we enter into this medium and how they may affect our understanding of feedback. Specifically as it applies to Jungian thoughts. I am not a Carl Jung disciple nore am i well read in his thoughts. But what little i have gathered does seem to point towards changes in precepts that are needed. Social media presents us with less than our full sensory arsenal to write or provide feedback. So misinterpretation is very easy. One way to combat this is to become self aware of our precepts as we enter the medium. Certainly one area that we could look at to better enhance our online skills, concepts and writing.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#6
I agree, but O am always skeptical about my knowledge of the brain. More, we know very little about the brain. It has a huge number of chemicals, but we know only about three hundred of them. But there is a greater issue Zacharias \ud83d\udc1d Voulgaris- it is the issue of three layers and how they interact. There are many systems that have three layers and studying them collectively might lead to new insights. I am considering studying this topic in a greater detail. Thank you

Zacharias ๐Ÿ Voulgaris

#4
The trinary structure of the skin is a good example, much like many other three-fold structures found all over nature. My personal favorite is the three brains, an intriguing insights from Neuroscience, which can offer us a great understanding of ourselves. The three brains also has direct connections to the various aspects of the self, through a more consciousness-based paradigm would be more insightful than the Jungian psychology schema you mentioned.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#3
Thank you dear Debasish Majumder and myself this buzz would have never been published.

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

#2
Thank you Zacharias \ud83d\udc1d Voulgaris we discussed the self- the persona/ego/shadow effects and I hope to write about this soon. I am thinking of a metaphor to explain these items. So far, I find the skin analogy quite relevant. The skin has three layers (same as persona/ego/shadow). The skin and how it looks is akin to the self- how we emerge from the interactions of the three layers of self. So, as rightly you point out, the three simple rules are everywhere. Now, I say not only three simple rules, but also three layers interacting and producing complexity. I shall share my thoughts as soon as I have firmed them up.

Debasish Majumder

Debasish Majumder

2 years ago #3

this is absolutely a stunning post with great insight sir Ali \ud83d\udc1d Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee! enjoyed read and shared. thank you for such insightful buzz sir.

Zacharias ๐Ÿ Voulgaris

You raise a very interesting issue here Ali. This is akin to the topics we discussed in the past through other posts. The one about Randomness and Chaotic Systems comes to mind. After all, isn't randomness in this context the same as the amount of unpredictability stemming from the complications emerging from these systems? The latter may be based on very simple rules, much like the megastructure of Mathematics is based on some key logical operators and some axioms, so few that a grade school student can memorize and hopefully learn eventually. Anyway, I don't want to make this comment too long so I'll stop here. I look forward to reading some additional insights from you on this matter. Cheers!

Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

Harvey Lloyd- you are an integral part of this buzz

More articles from Ali ๐Ÿ Anani, Brand Ambassador @beBee

View blog