They said social media is bad for society. I asked why they scrolled anyway.
Last week I asked 50 Americans whether they were wearing shoes, and whether they were at home or at work.
I was looking for people without shoes at work. I wanted to ask them: why?
Most were at home. The ones at work were all wearing shoes.
Dead end.
I wasn't researching work-shoe policy. I was hunting for a confession — a moment where two things don't quite fit and a respondent has to explain themselves. That’s where insight lives.
Most surveys never get there. They’re typically built for volume — forty questions, a dozen crosstabs, the appearance of rigor. The trick isn't more questions. It’s two or three, arranged correctly, that earn you the right to ask: why?
I tried again.
This time, I asked 250 respondents whether they thought social media was "mostly good" or "mostly bad" for society. Then I asked whether they'd used social media at any point that day.
The largest group — 52% — said social media is mostly bad for society, then admitted they'd used it that same day.
That was the confession I was looking for.
I asked them: “You said social media is mostly bad for society. Why'd you use it today?”
Many people justified their use in practical terms — the news, sports, keeping up with friends and family. Some were more blunt: "Because I like it."
The largest theme, appearing in about 30% of responses, was habit and addiction. "Bad habit." "Addicted." "Hard to stop." Nobody said “It's bad for everyone else but fine for me.” They said “It's bad, and I'm caught in it too.”
on social media today
on social media today
mostly bad
mostly good
Social media is not addictive like drugs, and it's certainly not an ideology.
It’s closer to junk mail — cheap, easy to scan, widely mocked, and just useful enough to open.
Except instead of coupons and catalogs, the envelopes contain photos of friends, industry gossip, inside jokes, news, and outrage. It’s a potent mix tuned to our social instincts. You can opt out at any time. Many chose not to.
I asked the "mostly good" group the same question:
"You said social media is mostly good for society. Why'd you use it today?"
Psychologically, it's a different task. The "mostly bad" group had to reconcile something. The "mostly good" group just had to share their afternoon, which is why their responses (connection, news, etc.) were completely forgettable.
I don’t know where I come down on the social media question.
I started this looking for someone without shoes at work. I didn't find them. But I did find 52% of Americans willing to tell me that something is bad for the world and then explain, in their own words, why they did it anyway
It only took three questions. Out of that: a contradiction, a language analysis, and a profile of how people hold two opposing beliefs.
A forty-question survey would have buried all of that.
I've been inside enough agencies to see that happen. You spend hours in crosstabs hunting for something that sounds insightful. What usually comes out is more construction than discovery, a tidy headline built after the fact.
What I'm after is different. A few questions. Some tension. You can find it in any topic – shoes or social media – but you have to look for a confession.
It’s something I keep my eye on in my Survey Roasts: questions that put your respondent in a position they have to account for.
If nothing in your survey makes respondents say “wait, I guess I need to explain that,” send it my way. I'll find where the friction should be.
$145. 15-minute Loom. Copy-and-paste edits.
Cheers,
Sam