Does Social Media Replace the Need to Think? Has it Caused Our Critical Thinking Skills to Shrink?

 As we all know, through social media, information disseminates with lightning speed.  Instantly, millions are up to date and provided conclusions to a variety of stories and issues. Users simply acquire, retain, and click (i.e., re-tweet, like or dislike), easy-peasy- free of thought.  Is this troubling?  Robert Frost once said “Thinking isn’t agreeing or disagreeing.  That’s voting.”

Accordingly, if a re-tweet is nothing more than a vote for the product of the analysis of others , and if clicking Facebook’s “like” button simply allows over 1 billion users to avoid intellectual expression all together, are we setting a trend abandoning 2500 years of trans-disciplinary critical thinking?  Is this dangerous to future generations?  Is this a good trend, beneficial perhaps?  Is it worrisome that social media allows so many to routinely supplant active argumentation? 

In 1987, the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking defined critical thinking as “the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.  In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.   Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior.”

Thinking is thus to be contrasted with:  the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated.  If this is true, it means that the net intellectual engagement in context- for millions of social media users- amounts to nothing more than a preferential re-tweet, and/or clicking “like”/“dislike,” with a smile. 

But with only so many users, social media remains a form of entertainment.  One may argue: Relax!  It’s fun.  There are plenty of people left who still read and think!  Okay, but what happens when 5 or 6 billion people become devoted users?  How much fun would that look like?  Perhaps it is just evolution?

  Could it be that “thinking” is simply a natural process that will adapt to social media and evolve accordingly, in a beneficial way?  Perhaps an active mode of thinking- where the thinker consciously separates facts from opinions and challenges assumptions- is becoming outdated? 

#Famous on C-Block?… or a Jailhouse-Crock?

In 2008, Jodi Ann Arias put together an elaborate plan to corner her victim Travis Alexander and brutally stab him to death.  After 29 consecutive stab wounds, a slit to his neck nearly decapitating him, and a gunshot wound to the head, she watched him suffer and take his last breath.  She left him in the shower to rot, until he was ultimately found five days later in his Mesa, Arizona home.   Due to the heinous nature of the crime, and the fact that she was an “attractive” female, the case garnered enormous media attention.  After a lengthy trial, she was found guilty of first degree murder.  Currently, Jodi awaits her fate in the penalty phase as the Prosecutor Juan Martinez seeks the death penalty.

 As a convicted murderer, Jodi Arias has developed a large body of loyal followers via her Twitter page, which is run by a “friend”/previous fellow inmate.  She currently sells artwork on her website by using Twitter to advertise.  She also uses Twitter as a platform to: promote sales of her wristbands, taunt the victim’s family, solicit donations, poke fun at Prosecutor Juan Martinez, belittle her own attorney Kirk Nurmi, and flaunt her media coverage.  Should any of this be allowed to happen? 

 The Son of Sam Law, applicable in Arizona, prevents criminals from profiting from their crimes.  Although her artwork is not directly related to her crime, her Twitter account brings her enough fame to enable a healthy volume and a continuous flow of business. Should her horrendous murder be an outlet for her fame?  Is fame a legitimate form of profit? Would any of us ever know Jodi Arias if not for the gruesome death of Travis Alexander?   Should Jodi Arias have a voice to the outside world, after she extinguished Travis’ so horribly forever? Her latest tweet says she’s going “Radio Silent.”  Considering that jury selection begins soon, her sudden choice to “sign off” seems obvious.  Should such use of Social Media by a convicted murderer ever be allowed?

Skip to toolbar