A few days ago, a senior economist surnamed Yao made a shocking remark at a forum, saying that people should "work until death" until their health collapses. This *** point of view that deviates from common sense immediately caused an uproar on the Internet, and there was a voice of "condemnation".
In fact, in recent years, it is not uncommon for similar "poisonous tongue" experts to appear, and their words and deeds are often criticized by the publicSo, what are the problems behind such incidents?How can we resolve this contradiction?
First of all, it needs to be clear that the "label" on experts and scholars is very different from the public's perception. The public sees them as more or less authority, endowed with higher moral standards, and wants to gain guidance. This role-playing presupposition reinforces the social responsibility of experts to speak publicly.
However, some experts ignore this and blindly pursue personal fame or issue influence, selectively making the mistake of "aphasia". When the preconceived role-play is disrupted, public resentment erupts.
Secondly, in the current environment, negative news spreads rapidly, which is easy to produce dislocation amplification. oneThe remarks of an expert are taken out of context and then disseminated on the Internet, which is likely to provoke the public's emotional judgment and further brew a confrontational situation.
However, we must also admit that there are a large number of vulnerable groups living in this era, and there is still a gap in the protection of their rights and interests. Therefore, the public's extreme sensitivity to certain remarks is also due to a helpless psychological state.
So, how can this gap and misunderstanding between experts and the public be bridged?We believe that the most important thing is to build a warm and inclusive public ecology. This needs to be made up of the following aspects:
First, experts and scholars should effectively strengthen their awareness of social responsibility and always keep in mind the guiding role of their speechesAvoid selectively highlighting certain points for the sake of attention.
The second is the public side, on the basis of rational flow, pay attention to and promote positive energy. Avoid the spread of dislocation due to momentary emotional judgment.
The third is to build channels and mechanisms for benign interaction from the environmental level. Resolve negative illusions in a timely manner, and let rational tolerance dominate.
People say a lot of things, and it is inevitable that they will be biased. But as long as there is room for rational thinking, as long as there is still a warm and tolerant heart, any misunderstanding will usher in an opportunity to be resolved. Let us fundamentally govern the public ecology of this era, so that it can be implanted with more factors of inclusiveness, understanding, mutual assistance and fraternity. This is a social responsibility that every citizen should fulfill.
This "work to death" controversy is only a microcosm of the "poisonous tongue experts" who have frequently appeared recently. It reveals several questions worthy of our deep reflection in the development of the times
First, there is the difference in perception of social roles between experts and the public. The public more or less regards experts as authorities or guides, and therefore has higher expectations for the content of their speeches and social responsibilities. However, some experts choose to turn a blind eye to the negative impact of their words and actions for different motives, which undermines the public's perception of the role.
Second, in an era where negative news is more likely to be misplaced and amplified, some emotional judgments have also exacerbated the gap between experts and the public. Among them, there is also an anxiety about the rights and interests of the public as a vulnerable group. Therefore, this is not only a simple contradiction at the individual level, but also reflects the deeper needs of social governance.
Third, in such a context, to rebuild trust between experts and the public and bridge the gap between the two, it is necessary to build a new ecosystem of positive interaction at a more fundamental level. This requires experts to strengthen social responsibility, the public to play a rational role, and the environment to provide channels and mechanisms for effective resolution.
Only when each subject earnestly assumes its due diligence can we promote a warm and inclusive public space. So in short, the revelations of this incident are multiple. It not only reflects a change in group attitudes, but also a deep appeal for social governance. It is also warning us of the importance and urgency of attaching importance to public ecological construction.
Let us draw wisdom from many "cruxes" and empathize with all kinds of "misunderstandings". Only when every member of society can take the initiative to bridge differences and convey warmth, will the public field be full of vitality and truly benign interaction.