I've thought long and hard about what I wanted to blog about next, or whether I wanted to blog at all. Since Punkin was born, I've still been reading a lot, but not the kind of reading I used to do. And because I always had a goal of making my blog about books, or at least about reading, I think I've hit on something.
Hi, I'm (my name), and I am addicted to social media. Well, not really, but I've become a junkie. I read a lot of books about parenting, about education, about pop psychology ... but most of what I read is Facebook posts and links to things my "friends" are reading. Some of it is social commentary, a lot of it is mommy blogs or Huffpo parenting.
Here is what I have learned.
One, I should probably stop spending so much time doing this. I think in most ways it's not really good for me. It takes a lot of time away from more important things, it shortens my attention span, it focuses that shortened attention span on a lot of things that are either depressing or contentious, it exposes me to a lot of useless ignorance, and it is apt to reflect the feelings and opinions of people at their worst.
But two, it can be a good thing. I have a lot of friends on Facebook I have not seen for a very long time. So long that if we were to meet up in person, we probably wouldn't have anything to say to each other. I used to wonder why I still stayed "friends" with them, even. Because at this point, even if I "like" or comment on any of their social media activity, it would be awkward, considering all the filtering ability to only see feeds of people who are important to you—and even though we are "friends" it might seem odd that I am "following" their online activity. Is that stalkerish? I don't think so, but it borders on unhealthy and invasive curiosity ... regardless of how appropriate or inappropriate it is for them to share so much online. It's like a lot of that stuff is just expected to be ignored by anyone who isn't directly involved in the person's life anymore. That's just the impression I get.
Another reason I wonder why I stay "friends" with so many is because they express opinions on politics, religion, parenting, social behavior, and even cooking (hehe) that I outright disagree with and believe to be unhealthy and sometimes vindictive.
However, I finally decided the other day that it's probably a good thing. Haven't there been studies done about people and their idealogical tendencies being skewed by association? Most people associate with people who agree with them, they read things they agree with, and they put more emphasis on research that is going to validate their current beliefs rather than challenge them.
This is why I stay "friends" with these people. Husband says that intellectually honest people are not upset when they are wrong, they are glad to find out—and by maintaining constant contact with people who challenge your assumptions, you can continue to analyze why you have those assumptions, and you can slowly or quickly change your mind when you realize that your viewpoint has been limited.
There is certainly something to be said about repeated exposure to filth, that it has a desensitizing effect, but I mean more along the lines of personal stories from people whose experiences are radically outside of anything I have seen or done or thought of doing. People move outside my normal life of an educated office professional who works from 8 to 5 and chats around the coffee (or hot cocoa, in my case) machine with coworkers about weather, gym memberships, and the challenges of being a working parent.
I have gained a lot from reading the posts of people I disagree with—sometimes coming to the conclusion that I don't even disagree with them anymore—and while I probably will try to spend less time reading Facebook (and don't plan on getting a Twitter or Snapchat or any of those other online things), I don't think it's all been a waste.
