Cyberpolarization and the dangers of getting what you want

For some time now, I have been troubled by a trend toward rudeness, rash and immediate judgement, and general closed-mindedness that I frequently encounter online. Thanks to the an article in the New Yorker, I am able to put a name to one of these trends: cyberpolarization.

The article itself focuses on the "birther consipracy" (which suggests, against the weight of evidence, that President Obama was born outside the US and is therefore ineligible for his office) and a book by Cass R. Sunstein called "On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done."

It speaks to something I found disquieting in class. Over and over, I hear people talking about how they don't visit standard news outlets anymore. They have "customized" their news to show them only what they want to hear. Their RSS feeds are from the sources that resonate best with them, on twitter they follow those people with their interests and views, etc.

As the article / Sunstein point out, "The most striking power provided by emerging technologies... is the growing power of consumers to 'filter' what they see." In the context of technology in education, this is perhaps not too sinister. The "personal learning networks" that are established are healthy, focused and professional. (Or are they completely off the hook here? I have no idea how many people in class actively seek out opposing or contrasting views on the role of technology in education.)

But the people I interact with in CoETaIL are educated and intellectual. Their 'filters' are (one hopes) to make sure that news and advancements in their niche do not go unnoticed. But what about the average person or the teenager? What happens when they can avoid the news even more easily than they can access it? Or access slanted, even deliberately untrue, news items with a particular ideological or political bent? The answer seems clear: an increasing entrenchment of views, a closed-mindedness and narrowness of vision, and a tendency to dismiss not only arguments from the other side, but entire person behind the argument. Many people love commentary and are more likely to click through to stories with a personal or emotional resonance. But, as the article points out, who is going to take the time to investigate and counter every slur against Sarah Palin or Nancy Pelosi, when one or the other is considered "the enemy". The continual reinforcement of one's own views leads to intolerance - in direct contrast to the tolerance and appreciation we would hope to see born of this global online community.

I don't have answers for this dilemma. I am still early in the process of thinking it all out. But it seems clear that the answer cannot be to try to force people into exposing themselves to a range of viewpoints. They have the ability to do what they want, and that will not change. As educators then, and more vitally important than ever, we must educate our students in compassion, empathy, and the value of respectful disagreement, civilized debate, and free (but fair) speech.