Somewhere between 1980 and today, we decided that thinking was old hat and getting triggered and shouting is the way forward. The likes of Trump and Farage do not write long, well researched arguments for worthy magazines like Scientific American or New Scientist. When most people research a subject, they go to Youtube and watch videos that are invariably made to shock and are always short on facts and data.
When I was at school, I was a thicko. I couldn't read effectively until I was eleven. I didn't read any books until I was twelve. I would deliberately get thrown out of lessons at St Vincents so I could sit outside in the Sun and imagine I was somewhere else. I'd even bring in pieces of bread to feed the sparrows whilst I was standing outside the classroom. I hated learning and being educated. It was only when I got into Punk Rock that I realised that you had to educate yourself. When I was about fourteen, I re-engaged with education. What I soon realised though, was that our schools do not want you to think for yourself. I was constantly getting into trouble for arguing with teachers and telling them they were wrong. This was what got me slung out of FCHS. In hindsight, I was a pain in the arse, but the fact that some of the teachers refused to discuss the points I raised made me deeply sceptical of the way we educate children. I didn't understand that the teachers were teaching a formal curriculum so we could simply answer bog standard questions and pass exams. If we started to think we'd not learn to parrot the information and we'd fail all of the tests. I was never particularly interested in passing tests. I am endebted to John Shuttler at FCHS who explained to me that if I wanted to learn about physics, I'd have to play the game, pass the exams and then if you are clever enough, you actually get to learn to think about the subject at University. That was when I realised that school isn't designed to make you think. When I was aty FCHS, 4% of the population went to University. They went on to become the elite that ruled the country and had all the best jobs. In a world where learning was something driven by books and classrooms and we had a huge manufacturing base as a nation, keeping us all dumb worked well. Now, we are battered with information. We are not taught to think, so we cannot properly process the information. We just get triggered and react stupidly. It is all rather stupid. Let me give you an example.
Yesterday, I was triggered. I was at work and listening to Mr Eddie Nestor on BBC Radio London on the mid morning show. He made a statement that "White, Middle Class men don't clean the toilets at the BBC". This infuriated me. I am a white, middle class male, I run my own business and when the toilets get blocked, I put the rubber gloves on. I took Eddies comment as a blanket statement that white, middle class men were privileged, lazy and unprepared to get their hands dirty. I found that quite insulting and I sent an angry email, which he read out. His riposte was that I'd completely misinterpreted and misrepresented what he had said. His point was that it is those at the bottom of the pile, recent immigrants usually, who do dirty, low paid jobs. They do this to pay the bills and build a better life for their families. Having slept on the matter, I have reached two conclusions. The first is that his general point is correct. The second is that his use of language was awful. As he actually conceded, award winning presenters of colour, such as himself, don't clean the loos either. It is not something the middle classes do in professional jobs (as opposed to small business owhers). Bringing colour into it was unhelpful and completely undermind what was a good point.
What is my takeaway from this silly exchange? I broke one of my own rules. I try not to get triggered. As a general rule, before I respond to anything I try and consider three things. 1. What has been said. 2. What did they mean. 3. Why did they say it. I simply reacted angrily to the first part of this. If I'd thought about it properly, I'd have considered points two and three and sent a very different email, if I'd actually bothered at all. What Eddie meant and why he said it were sentiments I agree with. If I'd sent any email, I'd probably have said something along the lines "Eddie, you made a good point, why did you need to take a swipe at white, middle class males, when none of the executives, presenters, prdoucers or researchers of any colour or creed clean the bogs at the BBC. It devalued the point about recent immigrants having to take horrible jobs to build a future".
I am actually disappointed by my response to Eddie. Why? Because I have spent thirty years learning not to get triggered and react. The one thing I've learned is that when you get angry, your brain functions in a sub optimal manner if you are trying to win arguments. When I was 33 years old, I undertook anger management counselling. As my wife was pregnant with my daughter, I felt I needed to address my issues with anger and flying off the handle, when people said the wrong thing to me. This was one of the best things I have done. That was where I learned the principles of analysing What has been said, What did they mean, Why did they say it. In hindight, what shocks me most is that it took me until I was 33 before anyone told me that you have to consider the things that annoy you properly before you react.
In a world where we are battered with all manner of social media provocations, learning to think is the key to mental stability. We can't keep our young people away from social media and being triggered. What we can do, is teach them to look beyond the "what did they say". When we get to the why are they saying it and what do they really mean, we may find that they react in a completely different way. When we see provocative videos from the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (who likes to call himself Tommy Robinson to sound less posh), rather than react to the inflammatory statements, when we ask "why is he saying this" generally it is to get a reaction and trigger people into reacting, which amplifies the post and also generates cash for him. When we get to the "what did he really mean", it gets more complicated. Often, when I analyse the most inflammatory statements, I actually conclude that they mean nothing at all. The posters haven't actually bothered to think through what they are saying.
Lets take the news that yesterday, we saw more small boats cross the channel than any day this year has triggered a storm of angry tweets. Lets think about it. The sun is shining, the winds are low, the weather is warmer. Of course there will be more boats than if there are storms and gale force winds. The boat crossings have been going on for years. Every year, the gangs get better at it, because there is a huge profit to be made. Of course the government should do more. But getting cross because the sun is shining, Is that really logical.?
And consider how Twitter now works. If you pay for a blue tick, Elon Musk pays you for engagements with your followers. It can be quite lucrative, but to get good engagement, you need to be provocative. The more outrageous and triggering you are, the more dosh you make. Add to that an education system, where we are not taught to think, and it is easy to see why we have the idocracy that we have found ourselves lumbered with. If the UK really wants a population fit for the information age, we need to educate young people to cope with it and process information rationally, rather than just getting triggered. But then, if we all started to think about our situation, we might actually see some sort of change. Back in 1976, Richard Hell wrote a song called "Liars Beware". The opening lyrics were "Look out liars and you highlife scum, Who gotta keep your victims poor and dumb"
Not much has changed, has it?
No comments:
Post a Comment