Disconnect and Make Better Decisions
I recently realized how easy it is to be manipulated. What all of the advertising, marketing, and celebrity sponsorships is all about. Because for the first time in my life, I was the unknowing victim.
I love the UFC. I think it’s the greatest American sport. I also love Dana White. He is a sports marketing genius. There is no one, in my opinion, better than him at promotion. He’s no bullshit, and I enjoy the brand of entertainment he’s created.
I don’t love Donald Trump. I don’t hate him like most people, half the country, do. But then again, it takes a lot to make me hate you. It takes an equal amount to make me like you. But I’d say I’m at best neutral on him, in that I don’t think he’s any better or any worse than any of the other options. I didn’t want him to be president the first time he won, or the second time. But I also didn’t want Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden to be president. Maybe I’m just tough to please.
But the first time I saw Donald Trump sitting ringside at the UFC chatting it up with Dana White I immediately thought, “Maybe he’s not so bad. Maybe I got it all wrong.” I quickly became aware of what was happening and snapped myself out of it. But, it happened. For a moment, I was convinced he was an ok guy, and not a word had been spoken.
But that hasn’t happened with Mark Zuckerberg, who has become as frequent a sight at UFC events. The more I see him sitting ringside, the less and less I like him. But I digress.
But it’s an amazing thing really, to be influenced just by association with something or someone you like. And it’s scary because that’s happening to us all day.
It’s part of what Chase Hughes spoke about on the Joe Rogan Experience. The openness and suggestibility of certain people, and how easy it is to manipulate them as a result. It’s what he’s built his whole career on. It’s part of what I’m reading about in The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell.
In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell points to a study that showed how Peter Jennings’ facial expressions alone when discussing Ronald Reagan were enough to sway his viewers to vote for Reagan in far greater numbers than viewers of CBS or NBC. Despite all three stations producing programming that was unfavorable to Reagan. According to the study, Peter Jennings’ face lit up when talking about Ronald Regan versus Walter Mondale.
When participants were asked to score his facial expressions on a scale of 0 - 21, with the lowest being “extremely negative” and the highest being “extremely positive,” he scored 13.38 for Mondale, and 17.44 for Reagan. The other anchors, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, scored fairly evenly for both candidates (~11.00).
The result? On average viewers of Peter Jennings voted for Ronald Reagan 70 - 75 percent of the time, compared to 50 - 60 percent of the time for viewers of CBS or NBC. We are way more susceptible to manipulation than we think.
If facial expressions are enough to unknowingly tilt someone’s decision, then what would we estimate the impact of social media, the 24 hour news cycle, and reporting that focuses on biases and curated narratives instead of facts? How much could that be influencing our choices and opinions? All day screens are hurling suggestions at us, trying to convince us to take a certain side, and meanwhile we think that we’re voting for Reagan because he’s the better candidate.
I see it as an advantage that I don’t have social media and I don’t watch the news. Everything that’s important in the world still makes it in front of me anyway, but only 1 percent of what isn’t important does. I see the elimination of social media and news as being as advantageous as eliminating processed foods, drugs, alcohol, toxic relationships, or an unfulfilling job. As advantageous as sleeping 8 hours per night.
If you’re looking for a path out of the rabbit hole, disconnect from the noise, and pay attention to see if you start making different, better, decisions. Decisions that benefit you, not someone else.
I can guarantee you will.