The Problem With Online Reviews

The Problem With Online Reviews:

There are moments when we should realise that leaving a review to is not what everyone should be able to do. Why? Because we are irrational and emotional animals.

Why do we still use reviews then?

If so many things are wrong with current review systems, why do we still use them? It’s a form of communication, and we need it as social proof when buying, reading or consuming something. But unfortunately, it is an undeveloped form of communication which contains some human flaws.

Does being bored make us more creative?

Fermat’s Library:

Contrary to popular wisdom, boredom is not the result of having nothing to do. It is very hard to co me up with a situation where a person’s options are so limited that he or she literally can do nothing. Rather, boredom stems from a situation where none of the possible things that a person can realistically do appeal to the person in question. This renders the person inactive, and generally unhappy. Thus, boredom is the result of having nothing to do that one likes, rather than nothing to do per se.

Tambahan video menarik dari Veritasium:

Bullshit asymmetry principle

Bullshit asymmetry principle atau yang juga dikenal dengan Brandolini’s law adalah sebuah prinsip yang menyatakan bahwa:

Jumlah energi yang dibutuhkan untuk membantah atau menyanggah omong kosong jauh lebih besar daripada energi untuk membuat omong kosong itu sendiri.

Salah satu alasan kenapa banyak orang yang malas atau menghindari berdebat dengan orang-orang yang percaya atau menyebar omong kosong atau hoax adalah karena alasan ini. Lebih gampang bikin hoax-nya dibanding membantahnya. Hanya butuh beberapa detik saja untuk membuat sebuah pernyataan sederhana yang terdengar agak masuk akal tetapi fake atau tidak akurat, namun butuh waktu yang lebih lama untuk menjelaskannya alasan kenapa hal tersebut keliru/menyesatkan.

Mengapa (otak) kita lebih tertarik dengan berita buruk

Mikkel Reincke Kristensen via Medium:

when you go to a news site at any given time, chances are that you will see a scary headline, some problems around the world, gossip and then the occasional good news. And the problem does not lie with the news site. It lies with us, or more specifically, our brain.

It turns out that our brains crave sensational news, and bad news hit just the right spot. News media just want clicks, and if it turns out that bad news gives those clicks, they are naturally going to report those, primarily.

In our brain we have 2 almond-shaped groups called the amygdala in each temporal lobe. Back in the old days, where humans lived in the wild and had to focus on survival, this part of our brain served as observing and sensing danger to us. If a stick cracked in the forest while you were gathering berries, this part of our brain would make us consider the fact that it could be a deadly predator. Even though it might just be a hedgehog or the wind, the amygdala made sure that we were alert.

Today, day to day survival is hardly a problem anymore, and the amygdala serves a different purpose. It instead warns us about probabilistic danger. If Ebola has killed 200 people on the other side of the world, well should it come to you it would be problematic. As a result of the amygdalas influence, we notice and focus on the bad news to a much higher degree that the good news.

Intinya adalah, kalau dulunya bagian otak yang merespon situasi berbahaya sangat berguna dalam bertahan hidup, sekarang bagian otak tersebut berfungsi menjadi pemberi peringatan. Sehingga, ketika ada berita buruk maka otak kita akan lebih terfokus ke masalah tersebut dibanding kepada berita lain yang jauh lebih baik/positif.

People like you more than you know

Scientific American:

“We don’t know what other people are thinking, and so we substitute our own thoughts about ourselves for what other people think,” Cooney explains. “We’re basically projecting what we think of our own performance, and assume that’s what other people think of us.”

People tend to be harder on themselves than they are on new acquaintances. After a conversation, you can look back on everything you said wrong and mentally correct it, or remember instances when you were funnier, kinder or more eloquent. You don’t have the same mental catalog for someone you’ve just met, so you may “take them more at face value and be much more charitable,” Cooney says.

That’s a potential problem, since underselling yourself socially may promote sadness and anxiety, or cause you to miss out on valuable personal interactions, Cooney says.

YouTubers are not your friends

The Verge punya artikel menarik yang membahas soal hubungan/interaksi parasosial antara penonton dan YouTuber.

Sociologists Richard Wohl and Donald Horton originally coined the concept of parasocial interactions and relationships in 1956 to explain how audiences developed attachments to media figures. It boils down to one-sided affection: a person invests emotional energy and attachment in a media figure, and they develop a sense of kinship and intimacy that makes them feel as though they know the celebrity — even though the celebrity has no idea they even exist.

Continue reading “YouTubers are not your friends”