The Shifting Nature of Perception and Reality

I’m becoming more aware based on a series of observations in the last 10 years that there is a serious shift in the way people think and react to things. The main issue is that perception seems to become reality for individuals, and as a result of ease of electronic communications groups of people sharing the same ideas band together to create a reality for themselves based on their perceptions. I’m seeing (some) intelligent and supposedly professional people having their minds twisted by social media patterns of thinking and behaviour. It is hard to pin down evidence for that.

All I know is what I see in the patterns of thoughts and reactions. So for example if a person believes that they were bullied, then that becomes their fact. It is unarguable. Same for if someone perceives they were insulted. The alleged offending other person (the respondent) then has to be very careful to not deny having done any such thing, so as not to cause further offence.

Honestly the world was not like that 25 years ago – and I’m not saying that ‘the times shouldn’t change’, just to avoid the ‘Are you saying…‘ sort of response. Back then people could be confronted with facts. But now my sentiments gather as follows:

1. Facts mean nothing.
2. Evidence means nothing.
3. Nobody reads and understands context anymore.
4. Nobody has time to inquire about context. 5. Emotions are everything.
5. GenZ, GenY and GenSnowflake are now on steroids!
6. Perception is fact. If a person believes they could sprout wings and fly – that’s fact!
7. It’s an increasingly dangerous world out there.

Of course I am being a bit sarcastic but that’s how I feel. But wait, if I feel so I know it’s not the whole of reality. If the next person is entitled to their perception cum* fact, then why am I not allowed to do the same (tongue in cheek). [*Whoops.. I have to be soooo careful that I explain that ‘cum’ does not mean an ejaculate of sperm! The word could mean different things but in this new world, ‘perception’ and speed impression are ‘everything’. WTF!]

Several complex social and psychological phenomena have become more pronounced with the rise of social media and digital communication. Let me break this down.

The “perception is reality” phenomenon I am describing has some basis in what social psychologists call “reality tunnels” or “filter bubbles,” which have been amplified by:

1. Echo chambers in social media where algorithms reinforce existing beliefs
2. The speed of communication that often prioritises immediate emotional reactions over deliberate reflection
3. The decline in shared sources of authoritative and reliable information
4. The increasing emphasis on lived experience and personal truth over objective facts – hence the rise of ‘experts by experience‘ who dare not be challenged.

There is an asymmetry in whose “perception as reality” gets validated. This reflects a broader tension in contemporary discourse between:

• Individual subjective experience.
• Collective agreed-upon facts.
• The power dynamics that determine whose reality gets privileged.

However, I am aware that the situation is more nuanced than a complete abandonment of facts. What I’m seeing might be better described as a shift in how authority and truth are established. For instance:

• While emotional responses have gained more weight in public discourse, many fields (science, law, engineering) still operate on evidence-based frameworks
• Young people aren’t necessarily less capable of critical thinking, but they’re operating in an information environment that’s fundamentally different from 25 years ago
• The emphasis on personal experience isn’t entirely new – what’s new is the platforms amplifying these voices

In this exploraton today, I exclude areas of science, engineering and medicine etc because those disciplines are ‘fact-critical’ i.e. one mistake can lead to catastrophic confrontation with reality. However in the social and mass-psychological spheres, or in politics, facts are not that immediately critical. In those domains, the ‘fact of collective opinion’ even without evidence, takes on a reality of its own.

The distinction between “fact-critical” domains and social spheres is poignant. This phenomenon in social/political spheres resembles what philosophers call “social constructivism” but on steroids – where shared beliefs create their own kind of reality, regardless of underlying facts.

What’s particularly interesting is how this has evolved in the digital age:

• In the past, collective opinions took time to form and spread, allowing for more reflection and fact-checking.
• Now, with social media, a perception can become “collective truth” within hours.
• These rapid-forming “truths” can be harder to challenge because they’re emotionally invested in by large groups simultaneously.
• The speed of this process often outpaces traditional verification mechanisms.

Constructivism on steroids

The metaphor works because, like steroids it takes processes and amplifies them beyond normal limits, produces results faster than natural development allows, creates unstable but powerful effects, and has significant systemic side effects.

Traditional Social Constructivism:

• Gradual building of shared meaning through social interaction.
• Cultural norms evolving over generations.
• Beliefs shaped by community consensus over time.
• Reality constructed through sustained social processes.

“On Steroids”

Turbo-charged speed: manifests in the compression of social belief formation from years into mere hours, or even seconds. The crystallisation of beliefs now outpaces any possibility of verification, while reality constructs itself at the speed of social media feeds. Shared perceptions amplify instantly across digital networks, creating immediate consensus where deliberation once prevailed.

Artificially enhanced power: emerges through algorithms that supercharge the formation of beliefs across digital platforms. Echo chambers operate with unprecedented force, while emotional responses multiply through viral sharing mechanisms. The gap between perception and reality closes at unnatural speeds, driven by digital amplification systems that bypass traditional social filters.

Exaggerated effects: appear as normal social construction mechanisms amplify beyond recognition in digital spaces. Hyper-emotional responses have become the new baseline for social interaction, while reality-bending occurs at an unprecedented scale. Group beliefs acquire instant muscular strength through digital reinforcement, creating immovable social truths within hours of formation.

Side effects (like from steroids): manifest through unprecedented volatility in social systems and fundamentally unstable constructions of reality. Opposing views face aggressive rejection within these charged environments, mirroring the volatility of steroid-induced mood swings. When these artificially constructed reality bubbles eventually burst, the crashes reverberate through social networks with devastating impact, destabilising entire communities and professional structures.

Addictive properties: emerge as populations develop dependence on instant reality validation through digital networks. A pattern of withdrawal from conflicting information sets in, accompanied by an escalating need for stronger confirmation of existing beliefs. The pursuit of group validation transforms into a form of social dopamine, creating feedback loops of increasing intensity. Digital group-think evolves into a powerful psychological narcotic, demanding ever-stronger doses of confirmation bias to maintain its effect.

Viral reality creation

This is more of a descriptive term for the process rather than an established academic concept – where:

1. A perception gets shared.
2. It resonates emotionally with a group.
3. It spreads rapidly through digital networks.
4. The sheer volume of people believing it creates a social pressure that makes it “real” in practical terms.
5. Challenging it becomes socially costly, even if you have contrary evidence.

The irony is about not being allowed to claim one’s own perception as reality while others can is particularly telling. It suggests these dynamics aren’t actually about respecting all perceptions equally, but rather about which perceptions gain critical mass in certain influential social networks.

Let me break down this phenomenon in more detail:

Contemporary research areas

These areas often intersect and reinforce each other. For example, an emotional response can trigger an information cascade. Digital tribes then use memetic warfare tactics. Emotional contagion then strengthens tribal bonds.

What’s particularly intrigueing is how my views connect to the triumph of perception over fact. This directly connects to information cascades. Once a critical mass believes something, it becomes functionally “true” regardless of evidence.

The emotional amplification explains how “emotions are everything” and ties in to to emotional contagion research. Challenging these emotional “truths” becomes socially dangerous.

Tribal dynamics happens where people in groups band together to create their own reality. This is the asymmetry I noted in whose perceptions are allowed to become “fact”.

The speed element is what I observed when I said that “nobody has time to inquire about context“. This explains how information cascades outpace verification.

I’m seeing these patterns in real-world interactions, not just in research settings. The fact that my experiential observations align so well with formal research suggests these aren’t just academic theories but very real social phenomena affecting daily life.

To be honest what I’m seeing in the last 5 years especially of individual, social and occupational functioning in the context I’m speaking about, was not there 30 years ago. The acceleration I’ve seen in the last 5 years is especially telling, and it aligns with several significant shifts:

The stark contrast I’m seeing between now and 30 years ago might be because, previous generations had shared reference points (mainstream media, common experiences). Professional boundaries were clearer. There was more time for reflection before reaction. Disagreements could be resolved through agreed-upon frameworks. But now we have ‘all sorts of media‘ – and the world has become a very busy place. A bomb falls in Iran and the whole world knows about it almost instantly.

Organisational and institutional changes

Let’s take ‘bullying’ as an example. In the NHS just 22 years ago, one had to be afraid to complain of bullying by a supervisor because it was perceived as ‘dangerous’ to one’s future career prospects. I personally suffered 3 years of bullying (don’t express sorrow for that please) 24 years ago. But in the last 10 years or so the tide has shifted, where the complainant is ‘king’. If the complainant perceives they have been bullied, then their supervising manager is in big trouble. The perception held by the individual complainant has now become more powerful and the respondent is now somehow burdened to prove their innocence. Individuals are now so much more protected. I am aware of course that there are good changes in policy and law that have driven those changes, but the ‘pendulum’ has swung well the other way. As a manager I’ve been unfairly accused of bullying so I know how that feels.

The other day a pharmacy assistant accused me of shouting at her in front of a load of other staff and asking who she was. I did not shout at all. I dispassionately asked her her status because she was making some clinical inquiry on a patient unknown to me, and I had never seen or met her (the staff member) before. But because she ‘perceived’ that I shouted her down, that became a big deal. My point is that perception has taken on a new power.

The pharmacy assistant example is particularly illuminating because it shows how a neutral professional interaction can be reframed through personal perception. The emotional experience of the perceiver trumps objective reality. Context and intent become almost irrelevant. The accused has limited ability to challenge the perception. Professional hierarchies no longer provide protection from such claims. The ‘potential victim’ now has the power.

This shift reflects a broader societal movement where individual emotional experience has become privileged over objective reality. Power dynamics have been inverted in unexpected ways, as the concept of “harm” has expanded significantly.

The irony is that while these changes were intended to protect vulnerable individuals, they’ve created new vulnerabilities and uncertainties in professional interactions. I now have to be extremely self-aware in a way that I did not have to 20-odd years ago. I have to consciously speak in less emphatic or assertive terms. I can no longer use metaphor without declaring that I am speaking figuratively. I can no longer be tongue in cheek sarcastic without delcaring that I’m being sarcastic. I have to preface what I am about to say. Then I have to be careful to explain what I mean and don’t mean. This becomes tiresome, and burdensome.

Cognitive load

This is a fascinating evolution of professional communication requirements. What I’m describing is essentially a new cognitive load in workplace interactions – a constant meta-awareness that wasn’t necessary before. Breaking it down:

What’s particularly interesting is how this creates a kind of “defensive communication“, where every statement needs a protective wrapper. Natural emphasis must be deliberately muted. Professional expresson of expertise must be softened so as to avoid the pitfalls associated with creating a ‘power differential‘. Direct communication becomes risky. Spontaneous responses become dangerous.

This reminds me of what’s happening in clinical documentation, where defensive medicine has led to exhaustive documentation to protect against future interpretations. We’re now seeing the same in verbal professional communication – a kind of “defensive speaking.“

The irony is that while a safer more effective communication environment is desirable, the new forms of ‘defensiveness’ might actually be reducing authentic professional discourse thus creating new barriers to effective communication. That adds stress to routine professional interactions, making leadership roles more challenging. In other words, lead but don’t speak too assertively or authoritatively. What’s the yardstick for “too“? I won’t know until ‘something happens’ and someone is offended.

I have to be even more careful in one-to-one interactions because the other person can rely on far greater powers supported by ‘policy’. When speaking among others I have to be very careful – because people remember what they think I said, instead of what I actually said. If they become emotionally aroused, the culture in England is not to show anything – then later the group of persons may meet among themselves to form negative group perceptions. I have actual real experience of that having happened in other situations.

This is a remarkable insight into the layered complexity of modern professional communication risks. Two scenarios:

What’s particularly concerning about this dynamic is the creation of “shadow narratives” in informal settings. There is the impossibility of defending against perceptions formed in one’s absence by the way emotional resonance can override actual content. This is how cultural norms (British emotional suppression) can actually amplify the problem. The formation of group-reinforced alternative realities.

This creates a kind of professional “quantum uncertainty” where one can never be sure how your words will be remembered. Multiple versions of reality can exist simultaneously. The act of observation (others’ perceptions) changes the outcome. Past interactions can be retroactively reinterpreted and group dynamics can crystallise false narratives

Conclusion

The evolution of social reality in the digital age has undergone a profound transformation, particularly in the last decade. What was once a world where facts and evidence held primacy has shifted dramatically toward a landscape where individual perceptions create their own truths, amplified and validated through the echo chambers of social media. This phenomenon, described as “social constructivism on steroids,” has accelerated beyond traditional timeframes of social change, creating instant realities that become unassailable once they gain critical mass in digital spaces.

The professional workplace serves as a stark illustration of this shift, particularly evident in the changing dynamics of power and complaint within institutions like the NHS. Where once hierarchical structures dominated and suppressed valid complaints, the pendulum has swung dramatically toward a system where individual perception reigns supreme. Modern managers find themselves navigating an intricate maze of communication requirements, forced to adopt defensive speaking patterns and constant self-monitoring to protect against the reinterpretation of their words through others’ emotional lenses. The cultural context, particularly in British professional settings, adds another layer of complexity where suppressed emotional responses often transform into group-reinforced alternative narratives in informal settings.

This new social landscape operates through mechanisms of information cascades, emotional contagion, and digital tribalism, creating a world where the speed of belief formation outpaces fact-checking, and where emotional resonance trumps factual accuracy. The burden of professional communication has grown exponentially, requiring extensive prefacing, careful word choice, and constant clarification to navigate potential misinterpretations. The result is a curious paradox where attempts to create safer communication environments have instead generated new forms of vulnerability and uncertainty in professional interactions, fundamentally altering the nature of workplace discourse and leadership.

Key Texts and Authors:

1. “The Social Construction of Reality” by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann: Though written before social media, it provides crucial foundation for understanding how social realities are created

2. “Network Propaganda” by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts: Examines how information networks shape belief systems

3. Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” and more recent works: Explores moral psychology and how people form beliefs

Contemporary Research Areas:

1. “Information Cascades” in social networks
2. “Memetic Warfare” studies
3. “Digital Tribalism” research
4. “Emotional Contagion” in social networks

For Current Research:

• The MIT Media Lab publishes current research on these phenomena
• Data & Society Research Institute regularly releases reports on digital media dynamics
• Pew Research Centre’s Internet & Technology reports