The Missing Jury

I disabled my Facebook account yesterday. Don’t worry, this isn’t quitlit: I’m sure I will return to Facebook sometime in the future, and I’m not going to go off on some long self-righteous rant that I will have to walk back in a month.

But the reason I disabled Facebook, roughly, was because in this Democratic primary season it was:

  1. Making me dumber, and
  2. Making my friends dumber

It sucks to become dumber, but it’s also relatively painless, as the condition is in fact its own analgesic. It’s more painful to watch people you respect acting like idiots.

(And no, I’m not referring to the commentators on my “free college” Facebook post, since some of them read me here and may be wondering – you were all great. I’m talking about the never-ending streams of others).

Ultimately Facebook began to remind me of that moment where a Thanksgiving dinner starts to go wrong and if you’re smart you just disengage before you do any permanent damage.

There’s plenty of people in the Democratic Party who have good reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton as the nominee. I’d say, broadly, that people who support Clinton have a “coalition” view of politics, and believe that (for the moment) our best chance at doing good will come from incremental actions from a broad body of people with differing opinions and aims.

On the Sanders side, the theory of change is best described as “populist”. Here the idea is that there already exists a silent majority that has been ill-served by the current regime, and that — if properly educated — would all desire and fight for the same set of solutions. You don’t need a coalition in this model, you just need to break through the media bubble and have everyone see that our different problems and concerns stem from a few fundamental factors, normally imposed by an elite.

The populist/coalition dichotomy is a fascinating one with a rich history, and we could all learn a lot by talking to one another about it. We could become better people, more effective-problem solvers,  with increased self-awareness about our own motivations and beliefs.

But of course that is not what happens on Facebook. On that platform it is currently just an endless parade of outrage — people sharing articles that prove the point that their opponents are the most-awfulest-people-in-the-world, did you see this new outrage or article that proves we’re the victims, you’re the oppressors, and we’re actually even 10% more right than we *initially* thought (for a grand total of 163% right!).

To what extent do the current tools we use promote this sort of thing? It’s a thorny question. If you’re familiar with the research, you know we suck at this stuff even without these tools. We crave certainty to a fault. Confirmation bias is the rule, not the exception. Once we’ve made a decision and acted on it, explaining it to others makes us more cognitively rigid, not less. In fact, a major cognitive theory of the moment proposes that most of what we call reasoning was not developed for problem solving at all, but for persuasion.

Honestly, I could fill this page up with links on this. It’s depressing. My daughter even recently told me about a paper she read where birds (birds!) outperformed humans on a pattern-recognition task that involved confirmation bias.  Ultimately your brain is designed to convince people to get a seed for you, and so is configured to present certainty to the outside world. The bird’s brain just wants to figure out the best method to get the damn seed.

At the same time I keep coming back to the social media we have and thinking there is something very unique here. On Facebook people are taking positions on events that happened minutes ago multiple times a day. Most information that comes in (outside of the kitten-stuck-in-boxes videos) is immediately routed through the personal spin machine, pumped out and committed to. Reactions by others sink their own stakes in the ground. The entire day is spent boundary-making.

In an ideal world, maybe this produces a good result — a prosecutor puts forward the best possible case for their side, the defender for theirs, the jury contemplates and decides, benefiting from the work of both. But just as the traditional reader has disappeared in the new media ecosystem (replaced by a reader/writer), so has the jury. There is no jury anymore — we’re all committed, doubled-down on whatever we wrote five minutes after we read something.

When I look at the structure of social media now, this is the big thing I see — it’s a future where every story and incoming piece of information is immediately tagged according to its usefulness to our ongoing argument and narrative and is then pumped out to a jury of our peers as evidence of our correctness. But the jury box is empty; the jurors all became lawyers long ago. They are off arguing their own cases, to other people on their legal team, a never-ending stream of self-righteousness streaming out to empty courtrooms for eternity.

Things will hopefully get better as the primary resolves — we’ll still be hopelessly fractured between right and left, but at least there might be some productive discussion on the left. Maybe. I’ll check back into Facebook in a month or two to find out. As I said, this is not quitlit, but it maybe is an argument for a pause.


You might be interested in some related thoughts from Jon Udell back in January on David Gray’s Liminal Thinking work.




The Opioid Epidemic

I write a lot of things in wiki nowadays, and it’s good. I think better in there, and get away from the web’s echo chamber of endless reactions to reactions.

But occasionally wiki is a bit too under the radar. About a year ago I started following a thread of stories on opioid addiction in America. As one thing led to another, one statistic to an even more shocking one, and it seemed amazing it was not being covered more broadly.

I think it’s now out in the open, now a bigger story, but for various reasons, I want to link to some of that work here today, the place where people actually read.

The story, in short, is this. Pharmaceutical companies (in particular a company named Purdue Pharma) began to market new classes of opioid based painkillers to people in the mid-1990s. Despite the fact these were known to be highly addictive and prone to tampering they continued to market them. Purdue Pharma spent a massive effort pushing these drugs, and suddenly “pain management” was all the rage — you couldn’t go into the doctor’s office for a booster shot without being asked to rate your pain on a scale of red sad face to yellow happy face, and drugs were the follow-up should you answer wrong.

See Opioid Increase 1997-2002

Weird things happened in small and medium-sized towns all over the U.S. Suddenly there was a heroin epidemic everywhere at once, particularly in the Northeast, but other places as well. The assumption was that it was like previous epidemics, a cyclical wave of addiction, that occasionally pops up when younger folks are far enough away from previous waves to have forgotten what a heroin addict looks like when they hit bottom.

Except it wasn’t like previous waves. It was bigger, and weirdly ubiquitous. There seemed, apart from whiteness, to be very few predictors to who was becoming addicted. What was happening behind the scenes? People were becoming addicted through an entirely new route: their doctors. For the first time in history, the vast majority of heroin addicts were becoming addicted initially through pills prescribed to them by a doctor. When the prescriptions got cut off, they went to heroin, the cheaper alternative.

“There aren’t a lot of people saying, ‘Hm, heroin sounds like a fun drug to try!’ The people who are using heroin are people who have opioid addiction,” said Kolodny, who is also a senior scientist at Brandeis University’s Heller School for Social Policy & Management. “Some develop [a painkiller addiction] for taking drugs exactly as they were prescribed.” See Route to Heroin Abuse and 80% of Heroin Users Started with Painkillers

Even when addicts stayed with painkillers, they put themselves at huge risks, with opioid pills surpassing all other drugs in terms of death count. While this toll was increasing, Purdue Pharma was using big data to find and target doctors writing the majority of prescriptions — not to turn them in, but to market to them more heavily.


See Big Data and Oxycontin

And overdoses were not the only impact. In fact, far more people may be dying from the associated forms of liver disease and depression caused by addiction. The combined effects are so large that it has played a large part in reversing decreases in all-cause mortality in a number of demographics, a trend not seen in modern times. Though just one of the causes of increases in white mortality, the combined effect (along with alcohol and suicide) is so large that researchers say the closest thing they can compare it to is the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s. Drug overdoses are now surpassing traffic accidents as a cause of death in the U.S. See Opioids, Alcohol, Suicide

In short, it’s the biggest health crisis in the U.S., created not by a bunch of curious kids, but by the pharmaceutical industry. It is touching all ages, all incomes. And yet I still find people that do not know this crisis exists, people who think they are alone in their struggle, people who blame themselves or others for an crisis that is as corporate-created as Deep Horizon. And as our friends in the activist community said in the 1980s so succinctly, Silence = Death.

So this is me trying not to be silent, and letting people know that if you or someone you know is struggling with this, you’re not alone. This is part of a bigger story, bigger than any one person and bigger than any series of individual choices. And to get out of this we need more than individual action and willpower — we need group awareness and collective action, we need to talk about this a lot, and we need to call out the series of actions that got us here. We need to recognize this as an epidemic, and remove the shame and the silence and the personal guilt and get things done.

At some later point I’ll try to pull some of the older pieces I wrote on this subject off of federated wiki and on to Wikity, and maybe even put them into a centralized stand alone resource. Until then this will have to do.