The Pen is Mightier

A Social Experiment in Online Political Discourse.

It is election season, and in today's world of online discourse, social media has become a battleground where political ideologies clash, not just at the national level, but in local elections too. Recently, I conducted a brief social experiment, engaging in a series of conversations on a Facebook page dedicated to a local candidate. The candidate, along with a "slate" of others, had been pushing an agenda that I found problematic, including some debatably questionable outreach tactics. Compounding this were a tendency to reference sources with clear bias, echoing the kind of ideological reinforcement that social media is notorious for.

I typically avoid engaging in Facebook debates, especially political ones, but this situation piqued my interest. For two days, I posted comments, responded to replies, and interacted with people on the page who supported the candidate. My objective was to see how productive these interactions could be, whether they could foster understanding or simply entrench opposing viewpoints. As with any experiment, there were limitations. My involvement was not scientific—no hypotheses were formally tested, and my methodology, such as it was, relied heavily on my subjective judgment. And, though I do not see the outcomes as earth-shattering, the exercise was enlightening in its own way, offering a window into the challenges of political dialogue in the digital age.

1. Shared Goals, Different Paths

One of the most striking observations from this experiment was that, despite our ideological differences, nearly everyone involved had the same goal in mind: strong schools and better outcomes for students. This shared objective should, in theory, have served as common ground. However, the conversation quickly revealed that while we agreed on the "what," we were at odds on the "how."

The original post from the candidate centered around declining SAT scores in the district, lamenting the incumbents' lack of action. The candidate implied that the current office holders had made excuses for the drop, and even cited an article from a for-profit company selling SAT prep materials to bolster their argument​. The fact that this candidate is an incumbent themselves and theoretically could have affected the changes they are now seeking notwithstanding, my first post response simply pointed out the inherent bias in using such a source. But the replies I received largely deflected from the core issue, focusing instead on defending the candidate's position or discrediting me as a critic.

This highlights one of the key findings in the realm of political psychology: people tend to engage in motivated reasoning. When presented with evidence that challenges their beliefs, rather than objectively assessing the new information, they seek out arguments that support their existing views. In this case, rather than questioning the credibility of the source, supporters of the candidate were more concerned with reaffirming the stance they already held.

2. The Challenge of Tone and Interpretation Online

I’ll admit it: I tend to lean heavily on sarcasm. It’s my go-to when facing absurd arguments or overly self-righteous opponents. After all, there’s something satisfying about delivering a sharp, sarcastic retort that pokes holes in someone’s logic without resorting to outright insults. But sarcasm, it seems, is often lost in translation, especially in online text where tone and facial expressions are absent.

When I responded to one individual’s defense of the article that was essentially a glorified ad for SAT prep, I couched my criticism in sarcasm: "Inbound marketing at its finest." While some appreciated the wit, others interpreted it as a lack of seriousness or as a rookie mistake in "spin tactics." It reminded me of Oscar Wilde’s famous quip that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of intelligence."

One of the limitations of this experiment was the medium itself—Facebook, where text is stripped of tone and nuance. In several instances, I attempted to engage with others by challenging the candidate’s claims and the information they presented using humor, but the responses often missed the substance of my points entirely.

This is a common occurrence in online political discussions. Without the benefit of nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions or tone of voice, participants in a conversation can easily misinterpret each other’s intentions. This often leads to defensiveness or escalations that may not have occurred in a face-to-face setting. The result, more often than not, is that conversations devolve into talking past one another rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue.

3. Entrenched Beliefs and Cognitive Dissonance

The strongest takeaway from this experiment was the extent to which entrenched beliefs can prevent meaningful conversation. Many of the individuals I interacted with were not there to consider alternative viewpoints; they were there to defend their own. When I pointed out inconsistencies or questioned the logic behind certain positions or posts, the responses frequently shifted away from the topic at hand to personal attacks or generalizations. One commenter, for instance, dismissed my criticisms by accusing me of supporting "chaos and corruption" simply because I did not align with their views​.

This aligns with the concept of cognitive dissonance, where individuals experience discomfort when they encounter information that conflicts with their beliefs. Rather than adjusting their views to incorporate this new information, they often seek ways to discredit the source of the discomfort—in this case, me. This psychological defense mechanism helps explain why political discussions can become so heated so quickly, particularly when they take place in a public forum where people may feel pressured to defend their stance in front of an audience.

4. The Echo Chamber Effect

Another key observation from this experiment was the echo chamber effect. The Facebook page where these conversations took place was primarily filled with supporters of the candidate. Their conversations largely revolved around reinforcing each other’s viewpoints, often using the same language and arguments presented by the candidate themself. For instance, the candidate's use of the term "edubabble" to criticize their opponents was quickly picked up by their supporters, who parroted the term back without engaging with the substance of the arguments being made​.

Other commenters had crafted crude image and text mockups that seemed to showcase their opponents in compromising positions, with one person repeatedly posting a screenshot of their candidate being mooned at a past board meeting. While I agree, that sort of thing has no place, the reappearance of the image was perplexing. Of course, I tried to have some lighthearted banter around this mooning episode, which fell on deaf ears.

This phenomenon is not unique to my experience. Social media platforms are designed to create and maintain echo chambers, where users are exposed primarily to information that confirms their existing beliefs. This makes it increasingly difficult to introduce new ideas or foster constructive debate. In my case, when I presented information that challenged the prevailing narrative on the page, it was met with hostility or dismissal rather than consideration.

The echo chamber effect is dangerous because it reduces the likelihood of individuals encountering diverse perspectives. Instead of engaging in discussions that could broaden their understanding, people become more entrenched in their views, often reinforcing them with misinformation or biased sources.

5. The Limits of Online Political Discourse

Ultimately, this experiment underscored the limitations of engaging in political discourse on platforms like Facebook. While the goal was to foster conversation and perhaps prompt some critical thinking, the reality is that online platforms are not designed for productive debate. The nature of social media encourages short, reactive responses rather than thoughtful reflection. In many cases, the participants were more focused on "winning" the argument than engaging with the issues in good faith. And, when I attempted to buck the trend and pen a somewhat lengthy and thoughtful comment, my efforts were framed as merely "pedantic quips."

Moreover, the anonymity and distance provided by social media can lead to a lack of accountability. People feel more comfortable resorting to name-calling or dismissive language because they do not have to face the immediate social consequences that would occur in an in-person conversation. This lack of accountability further undermines the potential for meaningful dialogue.

The Experiment’s Takeaways

While this was not a rigorous scientific experiment, it offered valuable insights into the challenges of online political discourse. First, people often approach these conversations with entrenched beliefs, making it difficult to foster genuine dialogue. Second, the lack of tone and nonverbal cues in online conversations can lead to misunderstandings and defensiveness. Finally, the echo chamber effect ensures that many people are insulated from perspectives that challenge their views, reinforcing ideological divides.

Despite these challenges, I found the experiment useful, and quite frankly, mildly amusing. It also demonstrated the need for better mechanisms to encourage thoughtful, respectful political discourse—whether online or in person. While we may not be able to change minds in a single Facebook thread, engaging in these conversations can still be a way to introduce new ideas, challenge misinformation, and push for more transparent, honest discussions. Even a momentary glance in the mirror reveals that these conclusions are not unique to one political affiliation or ideology...this impacts us all.

In the end, the pen (or the keyboard) is mightier, but its power is limited in the chaotic environment of social media. Meaningful political discourse requires more than just facts and well-reasoned arguments; it requires an environment where people are willing to listen, reflect, and engage with perspectives other than their own.

Not a big reader? Listen to a podcast-style "deep dive" into this blog post and related topics through the somewhat frightening magic of generative AI via Google's NotebookLM.

Listen Here

Terry Collia of Raido Consultancy at his hotel workspace in Colorado in 2023.