What I have stated thus far speaks to how I see the social media and the level at which I decide to engage with what I see. So if anyone feels how PhD holders sound in the social media falls short of their expectations, I have one question: To what extent is the person justified in feeling that way regarding a social media that boasts of all categories of people, both the highly educated and the not highly educated? I mean a social media that has few persons who genuinely want to learn from the intellectualism of others, millions of others who have scant regard for such but have made up their minds over every issue and only want to read sentiments that validate their position even if such is predicated on ignorance.
Previously, I had raised three other questions: What did the person who expressed his disappointment with how PhD holders sound in the social media expect of people with the qualification or anyone with high educational qualifications? Is there any specific way that it is compulsory highly educated persons should come across in the social media? Do PhD holders think that what the person who raises the issue expects is what they should compulsorily offer? I’ve partly made my view known regarding the first and the last questions. I proceed to offer my view with regard to the second.
Every interaction should be beneficial to those involved. I suppose this is a requirement if there must be intelligible conversation. Now, I concede that what is beneficial is subjective. I’ve seen some tweets – the “likes” and the “retweets” as well as the number of views – that make me ask: what does anyone like about this? If it’s not downright vulgar, it adds no value to anyone. But, like lyrics in some contemporary music that sometimes don’t make sense, it soon dawns on me that this is a category of people and they understand their own discussion best. That’s the level at which they wish to interact. Sometimes, when people comment on a tweet, one can read dozens of responses and there’s nothing in them but insults. They say nothing that adds value, contributes to knowledge, or opens minds to new perspectives.
Sometimes, also, when people respond one wonders if they read and digested exactly what the person that tweets says. I’ve had occasions to state that people need to read to understand rather than read to react. Also, people shouldn’t read what they have in mind but what the person who tweets is actually saying. There was an occasion I had to frontally address a professor on Twitter and on this page over this kind of issue. For it was one thing I stated in the social media, it was entirely another thing he understood and responded to. He did it so vociferously like he got it right, which he didn’t. It was a huge disappointment; there was nothing intellectually engaging in his approach either in tone or logic. Many responses are like his, a phenomenon that sometimes makes me want to give up trying to raise any mentally-tasking topics in social media. At the risk of sounding immodest, I’ve concluded that any comment tougher than simply insulting ‘governments’ is best made away from social media.
Also, many tweets or responses to them indicate their makers have already made up their minds on issues. No fresh perspectives, no new insights are permitted. A different view is met with insults. That way many make a mess of topics that should have attracted intellectually stimulating conversations. Sometimes someone may logically and factually present a matter, maybe as it happened historically. Responses show that many don’t want to hear about the fact of history. They respond in ways that indicate they’ve made up their minds, facts or no facts. The deluge of responses so often missed the point at issue that there were occasions someone would try to call attention back to what the discussion was about by stating, “Don’t take attention away from the issue.” This is the kind of scenario one mostly finds in the social media. And it’s in this crowd someone expects PhD holders and others with high learning to put their intellectual acumen on display. Display high learning in the marketplace?
Who speaks big grammar seasoned with logic and sounding like a lecturer in a market place, in a pepper soup joint? Who speaks English with all the ‘zms-zms’ in a village square and wouldn’t be rudely told to come down to the level of villagers? I’ve heard intellectual-sounding persons being told to “take it easy.” I’ve heard the comment, “Let him come down to our level.” It’s been said, “He should come down from his high horse.” Even recently, a former presidential aide is saying in the social media that anyone who wants to address Nigerians should stop speaking imported English and address Nigerians in the local English they understand. It goes on and on. So with the foregoing, I repeat the question: Is there any specific way that it is compulsory PhD holders should sound, particularly in social media? I don’t think so.
What one observes of the space in which one finds himself should determine what one offers. I did set out in social media to engage with those who wanted to engage at some intellectual level. I’m not sure I got them; what with the university lecturer I mentioned getting my point upside down? I equally set out targeting the audience that is regularly misinformed, something that the traditional media is concerned about too. My intention is to bring the other perspective, to show the other narrative. My narrative is meant to show, for instance, that any effort to blame one group for all of Nigeria’s problems cannot be right. No single group or issue creates all the problems. I use illustrations, what Nigerians told me, and what I’ve experienced myself in my discussions. But many in social media have made up their minds; they aren’t interested in new or a different perspective and the view they hold is what they hold. Only one view is pleasing to their ears. These are the people someone expects PhD holders to intellectually engage.
For me, what PhD holders offer in the social media should be determined largely by two issues; what a PhD holder has the capacity and the ability to offer, and what those in social media have the capacity to understand and maybe accept. In social media, there’s little patience for any intellectual debate. Topics are polluted with tribal and religious sentiments. Reasonable arguments are soon overtaken by insults. There’s as well the curious phenomenon of young ones insulting people older than themselves only to pronounce blessings on others and talk religion in subsequent posts. Such confusion. As a result, and as any observer would have noticed, many in social media who don’t want to be insulted consciously watch what they post. Such posts tend to be what won’t meet with disagreements.
Many well-meaning people really want to intellectually engage in social media. But they’ve had to curtail the kind of topics they comment on as well as the level to which they engage. They self-censor. Religious people limit their comments to quoting passages from the holy books without getting involved in trending debates. Others pray and leave it at that. Reason? They don’t want some children to insult them. So they speak only to the crowd that understands the religious language they speak. It’s not as if they don’t have a view on secular matters, but they stay within the confines of what won’t make them engage in quarrels and exchange insults.
I notice, also, respected university professors in this category. These are highly educated people who can engage at the level for which they certainly have cerebral capacity; instead they’re compelled to comment at the level of the people they see in social media. And there are people who totally avoid the social media, believing that people there aren’t the kind they want to get entangled with. That’s the social media where someone expects PhD holders to unsheathe their intellectual swords; of course they’ll only end up speaking above people’s heads.
Concluded
