BEWARE OF THE RECTANGLES: The Mind You Save Might Just Be Your Own

John G. Cottone, Ph.D.
Mar 1, 2018
5 min read

Undoubtedly, the words you are reading are framed within a rectangle of one sort or another. I am also willing to bet that within just a few feet are several other rectangles with the potential to warp your perceptions of reality. The quadrilateral nearby may be the smart phone in your hand, a computer on your desk or the television on your wall. But rectangles need not be electronic to be powerful: the newspaper on the kitchen table, a book in your office or the magazine in your doctor’s waiting room also has the capacity to distort your perceptions.

What’s there to be afraid of? Only this:

Virtually all of the information we access through our rectangles has been curated - edited in ways that we never see - and our ability to validate the accuracy of this information or place it within its appropriate context is extremely limited. Furthermore, our rectangles keep us trapped in one-way relationships with the editors and content providers of our world, limiting our ability to ask clarifying questions about the information we receive to determine its legitimacy.

The editorial process is one in which subjective decisions are routinely made for us by others about what is important for our consumption, but we never know how much information each editor initially had at her disposal and what got left on the editing room floor. This is the case regardless of whether the medium is television, radio, a newspaper, website, book or film.

Editorial decisions are necessary but are subject to the biases of each editor. In more benign cases, editorial decisions are biased in the direction of that which is profitable: either in the form of direct sales of an item (e.g., a book or newspaper) or in the form of indirect revenue garnered from advertising, as with TV news programs and websites. When an editor’s bias relates to profitability, only the most sensational events get covered and usually in a way that exaggerates the most controversial aspects of a story at the expense of more nuanced contextual details. This is not only true of salacious cable news programs, but also of seemingly serious documentaries about science and history: the complexities of truth get sacrificed in favor of that which pulls viewers to the rectangle.

In journalism there are several aphorisms that reflect the culture of sensationalism within the industry. Among my favorites are: "if it bleeds it leads;" "a man bites dog story is more interesting than a dog bites man story;" and "you never read about a plane that did not crash." A bias towards sensationalism in all media outlets, which filters down to our rectangles, significantly distorts our perceptions in the direction of believing that low probability events are much more likely than they are.

Among the distortions perpetuated by media sensationalism there are two that most of us have fallen for. One is that plane crashes are common occurrences (when actually they are much less frequent than car crashes), which contributes to a fear and avoidance of flying among many. And the other is that warfare and murder are more widespread than ever, when actually the opposite appears to be true (as per Steven Pinker's meticulous research, presented in The Better Angels of Our Nature). Sensationalism biases have the capacity to exacerbate our anxiety, however, when combined with biases in perspective, the distortions presented on our rectangles are much more dangerous, as they reinforce noxious stereotypes about people in all walks of life that lead to ruptures in the social fabric of society.

Biases of perspective are not only common, they are unavoidable and they could reflect an editor's broad political biases or those specifically related to a particular topic. In this case, aspects of an event that conform to the editor’s political or idiosyncratic biases are presented in a positive light while all other aspects of the story are minimized, ignored or presented in a negative light. These biases are the most dangerous, especially when the editor is in denial of his own biases. Here, the attempt is to provide the impression of “objectivity” when in reality the information presented is insidiously framed by the editor’s subjective viewpoint. So powerful are the editor’s tools for persuading that even an educated consumer of information can be easily fooled into believing that the only rational perspective is the one being presented therein. It is for this reason that myriad conspiracy theories get passed along our rectangles (e.g., "Pizzagate") and are so difficult to discredit.

Do we have any hope against the rectangles? Can we escape the influence they have on our lives? Sadly, this is nearly impossible in today’s world. Since Gutenberg invented the printing press, kick-starting the mass distribution of information, each generation of our species has been increasingly beholden to a filtered account of events according to the biases of editors whose subjective whims we will never know.

However, we are not completely powerless. In our battle against the rectangles there are a few things we can do to limit their power.

Replace Rectangles With Circles.

Rectangles are not only unavoidable, they are necessary, as our lives and careers become increasingly dependent on the information we get from them. However, we can all make a concerted effort to limit our rectangle exposure to only that which is essential. That means watching or reading as little of the news as possible; slashing the time spent on social media; and finding non-rectangular outlets for your leisure time. It also means spending more of your leisure time with your circles of friends, in person (not mediated through a rectangle), where everyone benefits from contextual cues and body language to better communicate in a bi-directional, give-and-take manner.

Suspend Judgement!

Knowing that the information we receive on our rectangles has been edited with the goal of sensationalizing and stoking emotions (because that's what's profitable), we would all be wise to suspend judgment of that information until we see additional layers of confirmation in our direct, personal experience.

Ask Yourself What Got Cropped Out?

Remember that every image we see on our rectangles (especially the memes posted on Facebook by those Russian bots) has been cropped in such a way to skew our perception of that image in the direction intended by its editor. Therefore, always ask yourself what details got cropped out of the picture that might have given the image greater context.

The Buddha's Kalama Sutta, perhaps his most famous teaching, warns against abruptly drawing conclusions based on what is seen or heard; being fooled by outward appearances; holding tightly to any view just because you are comfortable with it; and accepting anything as fact just because it seems logical to you. Every moment of your life offers a decision to give the rectangles you encounter more or less power to shape your perceptions of the world: choose wisely.

John G. Cottone, PhD, is a licensed psychologist in private practice and the author of "Who Are You? Essential Questions for Hitchhikers on the Road of Truth."