With the rapid development of social media, news, information, and opinions flood in from all directions, often conflicting with one's own views. Some blame the "explosive communication" landscape, a blame that yields little benefit, while others position themselves as "defenders" against what they do not agree with, or excessively elevate the views they align with. This is a laborious and potentially harmful endeavor.
The issue has two facets: the first is that people have varying levels of understanding, shaped by numerous factors influencing their self-awareness and the environments in which they live and work. These factors include education, the level of knowledge they have been exposed to, friendships, social or cultural biases, ethnic backgrounds, situations of frustration, and most notably, political biases. Thus, individuals interpret the phenomena they encounter in daily life differently, just as they read texts differently, leading to variances among people.
In crises, especially political or religious ones, what arises is not merely a disagreement but a complete schism that escalates tensions among social components to the point of animosity. This is evident in the current situation regarding the interpretation of events in Gaza. Therefore, we must accept that there are divergent viewpoints; differences may be sharp and absolute. For example, some may claim that "resistance has triumphed over Israel," while others assert that "Israel has definitively defeated the resistance." Such extremism in interpreting events stems from personal biases and is subject to various influencing factors leading to these opinions, upsetting individuals on both sides of the divide, with each believing themselves to be in the right and the other to be biased or even "unpatriotic." This leads some to employ harsh language in discussions, just as the other side uses countering terms.
Moreover, the cognitive gap may deepen in the coming years, as scientists warn that the results of "artificial intelligence" will be astonishing, potentially reaching the point of "programming human thought" and controlling behavior.
The second aspect of this equation is that our situation regarding influence and being influenced is inescapable. We should not blame each other or social media. If there is blame to be assigned, it should be directed toward the "deficiency of cognitive immunity" within our institutions. Many of our educational, familial, and social structures condition the youth to think within "narrow and limited circles."
Despite the significant technological and intellectual advancements surrounding us that should transport humanity to unprecedented horizons, our educational and training systems, as well as our media, remain largely unchanged from decades past. In fact, some have regressed into outdated notions, with much of it bordering on superstition (which, interestingly, uses modern technology to increase misinformation), resulting in a superficial awareness that accepts all incoming information without scrutinizing or subjecting it to critical thought.
On the other hand, most of our media lean toward reinforcing old and somewhat worn-out methods in analyzing the phenomena surrounding us, thereby exacerbating ignorance and intolerance. This may hint at the problem of producing minds unwilling to look beyond their confines, whether it be those with higher educational degrees (often lacking critical training) or ordinary individuals. Some institutions contribute to maintaining the status quo through strict censorship of creativity and innovative thinking, whether due to societal pressures or fear of certain values they deem "sacred." Consequently, society produces a readily manipulated audience that propagates extremism, particularly among youth, whose minds are dominated by one-dimensional thinking.
In Arab culture, those who dare to step outside the closed, one-dimensional circle often encounter subjective criticism and attempts to "kill" their character morally.
