William James' Principles of Psychology and Reframing the Information Diet

 Focal Point from Jamesean Psychology

    The philosopher William James made the case in his "Principles of Psychology" text that one's psychology should not be understood outside of the context of their consciousness and physiology, as well as the influence of reactionary states to one's environment. Although I would personally agree with James here to the point of free will existing only as an illusion, I understand that is where we diverge. Nonetheless, I think that this approach to comprehending the psychology of ourselves and others is the only contemporary way to do so accurately. Through that method and its relation to modern day political and idealogical divides, I think there is much room for empathy towards those who carry opinions and beliefs that seem only possible to grasp if one's intellect where to parallel that of a sharp baboon. 

 What is an "Information Diet"?

    Stemming from the phrase "you are what you eat", I believe that there is an incredible amount of influence derived from what we see, hear, and read each day. Perhaps this seems obvious, but one aspect of this view that is commonly neglected is the fact that, similar to meal intake, one's information diet begins the moment they are suitable to digest it. In fact, while one can seemingly change their mind at any point in life, neuroplasticity is nearly eliminated beyond the age of 25-26. Sure, it is certainly still possible in later adult life, but when considering why your grandfather still calls them "colored people", try to perceive the odd slur from a holistic standpoint, with the knowledge that many ideologies we hold in adult life were acquired on the foundations set forth in our youth. 

Social Media and Informational Calories

   While it almost seems to be a cliche at this point to discuss social media and its relation to news/ideological information, the popularity of the main platforms deems it hard to negate. In relation to caloric intake, I see information to parallel food here again in the concept of the dangers of overconsumption. If it is indeed that the information you regularly intake is what shapes your worldview, and influences your view of yourself and others close to you, then not only the content is critical to consider but also the capacity. One could argue, and I believe I do, that the more often you are shown/reminded of an idea or bit of information, the more likely you are to believe it is true. If this is an accurate representation of those who frequent social media, although this could also be applied to any form of regular media consumption, then this strikes me as a potentially dangerous mechanism. 

    The dangers of this are two fold: first, this would incentivize content creators (news organization, blogs, influencers, etc.) to push for consistency, not only in frequency of release, but also in consistency in the information presented, and whatever opinions are typically attached. This could be argued, but I don't believe that *most* people primarily seek out information that is counter to their codes. The second danger is that, algorithms which are designed to keep users engaged by any means necessary, are now designed to stamp each user's individual viewpoints by spamming their feeds with a reminder that all that they believe is the only true belief. 

    One of the reasons these two products of the "consistency" mechanism are both so equally as damaging as they are effective is that overconsumption of media can warp one's view of how populations are represented. For example, roughly 80% of the content on twitter is generated by about 10% of the users. Let that sink in...

    If one is to assume that what they're getting is an accurate view of any given population, and the reality equates to only a fraction, then this stands as a threat to nearly all group populations. 

The Time for Empathy is Now

    If we can understand that there are malicious operations fueling the fire for "bad" ideas, and it is those exact ideas in combination with the underpinnings of one's upbringing (both genetic and environmental) that sculpt the crux of their psychology, then we must also understand that we all got to where we are today more or less in the same way. While the practicality of remaining pragmatic will still entail standing behind what we believe in, and those beliefs will often be accompanied by a population standing in opposition, neglecting the parallels in our psychological origin stories is a quick way to dehumanize one another, a feature that has thus far caused nothing besides undue hate and suffering. It is now more than ever that we must be honest with ourselves and how we view the people around us in understanding that we might be far more alike that we seem.