Saturday version - AI-generated content
For kicks, I prompted Google's Gemini AI robot to rewrite yesterday's blog piece "in the style of a professor or university lecturer". This is wot it rote me:
A fundamental challenge in contemporary society is the phenomenon of outrage, wherein groups of individuals exhibit disproportionate emotional responses to perceived threats or injustices. This often manifests in the form of echo chambers on social media, where like-minded individuals amplify and reinforce each other's concerns. Such amplification can rapidly escalate emotions to unreasonable levels, hindering rational discourse and critical thinking.
Consider, for example, the contentious issue of 5G cell tower placement near schools. Outraged individuals may perceive this as a grave threat to public health, accusing authorities, scientists, and industry leaders of callousness and disregard for their concerns. The perceived risk is often amplified through groupthink, leading to a sense of collective outrage. Within these outraged communities, charismatic leaders may emerge, stoking fears through prejudice, misrepresentation, and fear-mongering.
Once ignited, outrage can spread rapidly and persist for extended periods. Both sides become entrenched in their positions, convinced of their own righteousness and the other's folly. This can lead to the formation of "lynch mobs," determined to take action against perceived wrongdoers.
Addressing outrage is a complex task. Even moderate members of outraged groups may find it difficult to resist the emotional contagion. Rational, evidence-based arguments are often dismissed in favor of emotional appeals and logical fallacies. Irrelevant or misleading information may be introduced to support the outrage, further fueling the emotional fire.
Several strategies can be considered in response to outrage. One approach is to wait patiently for emotions to subside. While this may seem passive-aggressive, it can allow for a more calm and considered response at a later time. Another strategy is to present facts calmly and consistently, avoiding emotional rhetoric. However, this approach may be perceived as dismissive of the emotional concerns of the outraged.
A third option is to address specific claims raised by the outraged, providing counterarguments and evidence. This can be a challenging task, as it requires a deep understanding of the outrage and a willingness to engage in rational debate. A fourth strategy is to respond emotionally to the outrage, using similar tactics to counter the emotional appeals of the outraged. However, this approach may further escalate tensions.
Finally, one could consider social media campaigns to engage with the outraged and mobilize support. This could involve countering misinformation, building alliances, and leveraging the power of social media to amplify one's message.
It is important to note that these are just a few potential strategies, and the most effective approach may vary depending on the specific context of the outrage. By understanding the dynamics of outrage and developing effective response strategies, it may be possible to mitigate the negative consequences of this phenomenon and promote more constructive dialogue and problem-solving.
Hmmm, not bad Google. It skipped some of my approaches, for reasons of brevity perhaps? Whatever. As an article for my blog, that would probably be acceptable as-is, although I'd feel anxious about passing it on without - at least - carefully reviewing it for accuracy and adjusting the language to reflect my personal style - such as it is.
So, it seems my style is not a million miles from the robot's interpretation of "a professor or university lecturer", which is understandable given my academic background.
Do come back tomorrow for 'something a bit different' ...