Years ago, I was teaching a introduction to art class to 150 college freshmen. The college required anonymous surveys to be collected from the class. I was given the results and remarks from the survey. Of the 150 responses, 147 were positive. Three were negative. It’s been 15 years since I taught the class, but I STILL remember exactly what the negative responses said.

Recently I listened to an interview of someone who has a private online community of over 10,000 people. They said that they found that when they had a few “bad apples”—people that were continually over the top negative and complaining, the entire tone of the group would change. It seems some of those negative Nelly's are not just casually negative, they were continually negative, abundantly negative, aggressively negative, and their persistence, though being a small minority, made everything feel argumentative and tense.

Social Media Comments: 98% Positive, 2% Jerks

And a third story: I get hundreds of comments across social media every day. 98% are thoughtful, smart, kind, and yes, occasionally critical. Sometimes people say something like “Your art isn’t to my personal taste but I appreciate the work you do.” I don’t mind that kind of comment. If someone is making a logical point without devolving into a personal insult, I’m not made out of glass. I can handle it.

In fact, one of my key values is that I actually appreciate dissent. However, respectful debate, dissent and disagreement is very different from contempt, profane negativity and personal insults.

Two percent of my commenters fit into that last category. They are jerks. Yet, sometimes, perversely, I find myself speed reading my comments because I know I will eventually find one of the jerks. It’s like slowing way down for a road accident because you want to see the smashed car and the blown airbag.

My whole point is that though negative people are usually a small percentage of the inputs, their opinions can take up an unreasonable amount of brain space.

The Psychology of Outrage Addiction

I think there are two reasons for this.

One reason is "outrage addiction". Our lizard brains are designed to constantly survey the world for threats. Since we rarely face lions, we will find threats other places, from a rude cashier to the side eye from our boss. And so help us we want to FIGHT

There's a growing body of research that shows there is evidence for "outrage addiction". Self-righteous anger gives us a quick dopamine hit, because it feels like we are standing on the moral high ground. It positions us as the hero of the story, fighting on behalf of what’s good and true. That surge of energy can feel powerful, even noble, and it taps into our deep desire to protect what we love. But the same mechanism that fuels courage can also turn into a compulsive loop, where we keep looking for the next offense just so we can feel that rush of righteous purpose again.

Identity Wounds and the Fear of Criticism

Another reason many of us are constantly scanning for criticism--and obsessing over it-- are deep identity wounds. 98% of people can tell me my art is good, but what if they're wrong? What if it's those 2% that tell me it's bad that are actually correct??? These doubts hook into old insecurities—maybe from school, family, or the long history of rejection that every creative person eventually faces. The brain seizes on the critical comment because it echoes an inner voice that already suspects we aren’t good enough. That’s why it sticks so hard: it feels like confirmation of our worst fears rather than just one person’s opinion.

The Bell Curve of Opinions

Imagine a bell curve. Using art as an example, most people are generally positive towards art, but probably don’t know all that much about it. One side a small percentage of people are virulently negative about art, and want everyone to know. On another side of the bell curve, a small percentage of people that are more knowledgeable about art and are very positive about it.

Loud Negativity vs Silent Majority

What’s my point here? Anyone can be loud and nasty on the internet. Including, alarming, bots and bad actors that are deliberately trying to skew a narrative. And those nasty voices have an outsized impact on our thinking, but they don’t deserve it.

This applies to my small domain of art and art history. But it’s of course much, much bigger than just my area.

In a world that appears more and more polarized every day, I propose taking a radical stand in believing that the polarizing forces are a small minority of very, very loud voices.

Here's a crazy idea: most people want to succeed in life, to be safe and to be loved. AND, they want their neighbor to succeed too. It’s crazy to me that saying that seems kind of controversial, because the internet seems to tell a different story. But when I think about the actual real life people I know or encounter in every day life, the fact is that most of them are pretty great, even if we're wildly different. Even if they practice a different religion or different politics. Even if they don't like my style of art.

Choosing the Positive End of the Bell Curve

If there is a bell curve with nasty negativity on one side, that means there is an equal and opposite force on the other side.

The other side of the bell curve can be filled with positive forces. I want to inhabit the radical tip of that social media bell curve both by the positive and affirming content I publish as a creator, and my comments and attention capital as a user.

The other side of the bell curve can be filled with authenticity, kindness, wisdom, insight, generosity, and gentleness. The other side of the bell curve can be inhabited by ME, and you, and Mr. Rogers and Bob Ross.

Populating the positive end of the bell curve is worth fighting for.

Are You an Outrage Addict?