Above the Noise

Speaking Across the Deafening Chasm of Social Media

Last November, a friend and I attended a community presentation called Above the Noise. It was before the election and in my opinion, timely. The evening was designed to introduce opportunities for having better conversations among those with differences of opinion with the belief that if we listen, and remove bias, stereotypes, and labels, we can build bridges and collaborate on the things we do appreciate in each other.

We started the evening watching the movie, Undivided Us, a documentary following two trained facilitators creating a process for dialogue with groups of six individuals, of varying backgrounds, to open the eyes of individuals with different viewpoints. For me, the project's highlight was the type of questioning that not only limited defensive posturing, but also opened our eyes to how much we have bias, stereotypes, and internal storytelling about those with opposite views. It was quite enlightening how much we might assume in our criticism of others.

The film was followed by table conversations carefully crafted with written ground rules and formatted questions. To ensure we sat with strangers, we were instructed to change tables if we knew anyone at the current table. Thus, six strangers sat with a table advisor or facilitator, and we would have an opportunity to meet a local person with perhaps differing views, and have a chance to think, “I didn’t know that” or just a simple, “I have not thought of it in that way.”

My friend and I sat together during the movie. We then tripped out of our comfort zone, followed the instructions, and split up. We thought it would give us some nice fodder for a future walk or coffee. It did. Interestingly, we had very different experiences.

My friend had a trained facilitator who managed the group and the conversation. They followed the recommended questions which surfaced some very interesting commentary. My experience was a little less positive as our facilitator acted more as a timekeeper and not as a facilitator. As a facilitator myself, this is an important difference.

Our table followed the first few “icebreaker” questions. Yet, interestingly, the minute one person in our group used a four-letter word in their introduction, three others decided it was OK. Our “facilitator” did not call out the foul language, thus, the one word of “bullsh*t” quickly changed the dynamics of the table.

We’ve all experienced it. Group dynamics that shift at a moment’s notice. For me, it was hard not to get the words out of my head, the internal criticism that someone knowingly violated the ground rules, nor the fact that immediately it became acceptable to use foul language. My inner critic was hard at work.

The disturbance took another turn and deviance ensued. Another group member suddenly stated she didn't like any of the questions and offered her personal question that focused on gender bias polarization. It was weird. I tried to get us back on the topic but I think once "bull s$#t" literally appeared on our table, it was hard to remove the poo.

One might ask why, as a trained facilitator, I did not do more to intervene. Honestly, I was observing group dynamics in action and confirming how they can shift if the disruption is not managed. One might ask why no one else at the table called a member out for not following the ground rules. In brief, we were six strangers with about an hour to build trust and share things about ourselves and our beliefs and backgrounds that related to the questions. That sums up my action or no action, and why trained facilitators are necessary when building cooperation and coalitions.

Agreements and ground rules are necessary, especially written ones. I find it deeply concerning that in this day and age, adults have to be told, "Don't use foul language." Civil language was hidden in the ground rules of this event, but not explicit in writing. I, too, think adults should be above requiring written instructions for civility, but in this age of foul language and name-calling being the norm, it appears we need to start from scratch.

The film brought many things to light that we are already aware of. The public suffers from information disorder. There is data exaggeration. We have 20% of the population who cannot have conversations about differences and we live in a complex system of labels and dehumanization. With social media threads, (I won’t call them conversations), such as on Facebook, Twitter, and NextDoor, we don’t have to look someone in the eye as we speak to them.

Ever so often, someone on a community platform decries those who rant, share unhelpful feedback, troll, and diminish someone else’s point of view. I empathize and wish the trolls and naughties would find a new home. For me, it is sometimes difficult to yawn and scroll through rather than argue with a stranger. I find it easier just to block or mute the folks whose cup seems to be half-empty all the time.

It’s so easy to get pulled into a “conversation” with some unknown entity in the community – but do you know that person? Is he/she/they even real? Do they have no other purpose in life than to post, follow, and share information that creates discord and then fly out the conversation? Is there story real? What is real?

Are these conversations? We tend to think they are but in my opinion they are not. I think the research and film were successful as the participants had some kumbaya moments mostly because the facilitators were role-modeling behavior and guiding the conversation to avoid the pitfalls of criticism and name-calling. Thus, it seems that some of the population who are not trained in conversing or have stopped practicing civil discourse may need tools to guide discussions, understand how to participate, leave personal feelings at the door, and be open to what others have to share. Civility is a lost art.

Finally, the most important part of the evening, was Section 3 - "What will you do with this information?" My interpretation was, "We in this room represent .001% of our metro area. How can we take this information and create “spread?” How many people can each of us at least share the information that the media and whoever else is targeting the 20% so when the 80% hear it, we think it is real, and us? How can we share the reality?" Unfortunately, our table did not reach Section 3 and my “spread” theory didn’t get a chance to dialogue. We timed out. But, fortunately, there are movements in motion to bring conversations back to the local community, including my own Colorado community.

In 2025:

What will you do to have real conversations with your community?

What are your plans for role-modeling civility in your community?

What efforts are in your community to build conversations in person to look into the soul of another person before speaking?