A Tweet too Far

A Cognitive Behaviourist Analysis of the Presidential Tweet

By Stephen Pain M.Phil UEA

Keywords Short communication, impulsive behaviour, operant conditioning, Pavlov, motor activity, stereotypies in animals.

In the twenty-first century we daily use electronic devices and go onto social media which requires us to make quick decisions. Previously in the day of letter writing we took our time to corral our ideas together. We reflected rather reacted. In this short paper I wish to review and analyze what goes on at various levels in the dynamic and structural cognitive systems. If we were to look at how invertebrates respond to stimuli we see that they in the main react instinctively, often within a set of key behaviours according to their stage of development and the ecological conditions. Touch an earthworm on either end and it will respond with a giant escape reflex. When pigeons are on the ground if you throw a black hat up in the air, they will react as if it were a raptor and fly away. Such reactions are necessary for survival. However, if you bombard an orgasm with aversive stimuli or put them into a situation where they cannot escape, they begin to behave abnormally. Both wild animals and domestic animals will behave abnormally and show signs of stress such has loss of fur, feathers falling out, and engage in behaviour that is repetitive and functionless. An overreaching term for the complex of these behaviours is “caged animal syndrome.” In many respects humans suffer from this modern office life, and indeed in their use of smart phones and computers. If we remove the content of the devices and solely look at the motor activity, we see humans repeating the same activity over and over again, as they did in the age of typewriters. Secretaries and writers suffered all sorts of injuries from typing. They had bad backs. Digestive problems. Problems with fingers, hands, elbows and leg cramp etc. Today however there is feedback. This increases the problems a thousandfold because it requires the user to respond to another person or sets of persons, even to a machine. We have no time to pull out the paper and read it carefully. Edit it. We have to react there and then. Previously one wrote to one person at a time. Now you have many people wanting a response. Given the need to respond straightaway the technology developed so that you could send short and effective messages (SMS) and now Tweets. If we might distinguish a letter from a tweet we might say that the former is reflective and one is not under so much pressure. You have time to edit. With regard to a tweet, it is reactive and involves simple communication. There is an array of emoticons and phrases that can be employed to convey the message. However the nuances and range of communication in a long text are gone. Also very importantly the communication is mostly “emotive”. The types of neurotransmitters, hormones and the like used in a long text differs from those used in short texts. The heart beat is faster. There is more production of adrenaline. Males are likely to exhibit more testosterone directed behaviours. Imagine now when the President of the United States uses Twitter. What is going on? Firstly there is less access to deeper and richer language areas of the brain, more use of the limbic system. As the finger/s tap furiously at the screen, one might equate it with a bull that has been wounded and primed to attack a red flag. The fingers pound the screen and there is a noticeable avoidance of the editing options, because the primary goal is to react and not reflect. The errors in syntax and spelling are suggestive of reaction rather than reflection. Quite often the tweeting spirals out of control as two males react instinctively. Imagine two stags butting their heads together irrespective of what is happening around them. Why do people react rather than reflect? It is because of two factors. Firstly the devices invite stereotypic behaviours. The small screens direct focus. The applications are set up to proliferate and profit from quick transactions. We find the same in the moshpits of online newspapers with comment spaces. Aggressive and agonistic behaviours are encouraged by key factors. If the site says it is unmoderated, they see the green light to attack. Much of the revenue of newspapers comes from clickbait articles. They invite reaction rather than reflection. The Fox News services and the Daily Mail earn millions from news that is provocative and opinionated. There is little room for analysis. The New York Times however does analyze. The Presidential tweet is a symptom of a form of media and IT operant conditioning that promotes quick, impulsive reactions predicated upon the lower limbic system rather than the higher cognitive processes. The President suffers from Twitter rage. You see it often in his exchanges. This rage affects his offline behaviours and can inform his mood swings. We see domestic animals who are stressed and forced to respond quickly developing aggressive tendencies, and this also impacts upon their cardiovascular system. If the President dines upon fastfood and drinks too much sugary products, this will surely as Ivan Pavlov and later Walter Cannon stated affect his behaviour detrimentally.