I believe the most insightful part of the article is when the author begins to analyze why people “do their own research” online. Intention is everything. The trouble I have with this entire issue...
I believe the most insightful part of the article is when the author begins to analyze why people “do their own research” online. Intention is everything.
There’s probably another factor at play, one not measured in the research: people who believe false claims often do so because those claims comport with their broader ideology or philosophy. Like a parent confronted with allegations of misbehavior by their child, those individuals would presumably be more likely to embrace dubious information supporting their belief than information that corroborates the allegations. The study presented participants with news stories to evaluate without a predisposition. In the real world, that usually doesn’t happen.
The trouble I have with this entire issue is that all of us actually should be doing our own research and independently verifying facts about the world around us. But this misinformation-spewing populist know-nothing version of self-driven research only allows people with lazy mindsets and preconceived conspiracies to defend their viewpoints as equal to everyone else’s.
So we get conclusions such as what the author implies, which is for us to trust proven sources instead. In this information-warfare landscape it does make sense but ultimately, appeals to authority will be just as destructive.
I believe the core of the matter is that doing one’s own research is really hard. As a writer and YouTube presenter of history I do quite a lot of research and I am constantly checking my assertions to make sure they achieve scholarly consensus or at least a defensible viewpoint. Perhaps the Internet needs a driver’s license-type certification that tests to make sure you can properly source material before you can say anything in a public forum.
Nice insight on the predisposition angle and how it's hard to simulate in a study. What if they were randomly assigned "Mongoose are superior to ferrets" and "ferrets are superior to Mongoose"...
Nice insight on the predisposition angle and how it's hard to simulate in a study. What if they were randomly assigned "Mongoose are superior to ferrets" and "ferrets are superior to Mongoose" stances, given team shirts, and then told to do their own research? Does an artificially, newly injected predisposition change the outcome of their susceptibility to misinformation?;
ultimately, appeals to authority will be just as destructive.
I don't know if I would rate it "just as" destructive though .... And maybe that's my predisposition of trusting in some authoritative sources. Authoritative sources can be propaganda, or they could be neutral, whereas non authoritative spins are paid for by something, either another authority trying to mess with a foreign population or target them to change purchase / browsing behavior, or influenced by prestige within a fringe group.
Thanks for the considered reply. I had a simple calculus for considering if universal appeals to authority would be as destructive as the do your own research movement is: that in this information...
Thanks for the considered reply. I had a simple calculus for considering if universal appeals to authority would be as destructive as the do your own research movement is: that in this information warfare landscape, a number of state and nonstate actors are deliberately distorting online narratives. They have done this most successfully by attacking and degrading one of our best democratic institutions—the media, making it partisan and distrusted. In that new space, misinformation easily proliferates.
Currently, to properly “do our own research” we have to trust our scientific and academic institutions to provide accurate data. But our enemies in the information space would only focus their attacks on that institution instead, which in some ways is less sensitive to corrective pressures.
Academia has enough trouble as it is, with plenty of attacks against it to destroy its credibility. Making it the final arbiter of such a powerful environment would get it overwhelmed with attack and then we’d truly be lost.
Hmmm I think I don't disagree with you but I'm unsure what that implies. What if .... What if our academia, and evidence based authorities such as health authorities, mayo clinic, CDC, state paid...
Hmmm I think I don't disagree with you but I'm unsure what that implies.
What if .... What if our academia, and evidence based authorities such as health authorities, mayo clinic, CDC, state paid media channels like PBS CBC BBC etc, what if they're well funded, and there were state level security teams to detect and prevent and publish attacks ?
Sorry, I guess I'm not sure if you're saying authority backed channels are inherently something that can't be done better than....than ...what are the alternatives?
I think what I'm trying to say is that well funded and well defended authoritative sources can work and that that would be far better than media free for all.
And you mentioned a license: It's not that crazy of an idea.
Once upon a time anybody can call themselves a doctor (....current naturalpath quacks notwithstanding) and anybody can call themselves a lawyer.
What if we regulate "KOL" as a profession with standards and requirements and checks, so that only those who are licensed can publish opinions online? Would a forum of qualified Internet users then not become some sort of (drumroll) authoritative source?
I am absolutely with you. And since we haven’t yet figured out effective counter-strategies for all this information warfare, it might end up being what we need. We have this obsessive aversion to...
I am absolutely with you. And since we haven’t yet figured out effective counter-strategies for all this information warfare, it might end up being what we need.
We have this obsessive aversion to authority in the modern western world. My dad retired as a bureaucrat here in California.CFO of our tax collecting agency. Exactly the type of figure who is routinely attacked in right wing media.
He is very decent and fair minded and has a thick skin. Perfect for his job. When he would receive public criticism about the inefficiencies and self-serving behaviors of bureaucrats he would just shrug and say all that meant was the department was being managed improperly.
Well run institutions, when there are 8 billion people on the planet, are most likely a life and death necessity.
I completely agree. The slow destruction of our media and reporters in North America is the main reason in my mind. We used to pay people who knew how to investigate and fact check for us. Now we...
I believe the core of the matter is that doing one’s own research is really hard.
I completely agree. The slow destruction of our media and reporters in North America is the main reason in my mind.
We used to pay people who knew how to investigate and fact check for us. Now we have to do it ourselves and confirmation bias is powerful and easy to fall into even when you think you're being open minded.
Gift article to bypass paywall: https://wapo.st/48BFKfi Here is the longer summary of the research referenced in the article. This research adds support to a trend I have certainly noticed in the...
This research adds support to a trend I have certainly noticed in the context of discussion of scientific theories. I have noticed large swaths of people online (for example, on Twitter back when I was active) who were very interested in and knowledgeable about what I would classify as non-standard scientific hypotheses, if not outright pseudoscience. I am speaking mainly in the context of my field of cosmology, but the discussions surrounding public health and vaccines in the last few years is another example of this phenomenon in a scientific context. If you polled the self-identified "science enthusiasts" about, say, dark matter or dark energy, I think a much higher fraction would believe in alternatives which have much less scientific support, like exotic models of modified gravity. This study provides a partial explanation for this, in that people exposed to those ideas seek out more information, and because they are less popular or supported, the information out there tends to be of lesser quality.
I believe the most insightful part of the article is when the author begins to analyze why people “do their own research” online. Intention is everything.
The trouble I have with this entire issue is that all of us actually should be doing our own research and independently verifying facts about the world around us. But this misinformation-spewing populist know-nothing version of self-driven research only allows people with lazy mindsets and preconceived conspiracies to defend their viewpoints as equal to everyone else’s.
So we get conclusions such as what the author implies, which is for us to trust proven sources instead. In this information-warfare landscape it does make sense but ultimately, appeals to authority will be just as destructive.
I believe the core of the matter is that doing one’s own research is really hard. As a writer and YouTube presenter of history I do quite a lot of research and I am constantly checking my assertions to make sure they achieve scholarly consensus or at least a defensible viewpoint. Perhaps the Internet needs a driver’s license-type certification that tests to make sure you can properly source material before you can say anything in a public forum.
Only barely kidding here…
Except they do all the time.
Nice insight on the predisposition angle and how it's hard to simulate in a study. What if they were randomly assigned "Mongoose are superior to ferrets" and "ferrets are superior to Mongoose" stances, given team shirts, and then told to do their own research? Does an artificially, newly injected predisposition change the outcome of their susceptibility to misinformation?;
I don't know if I would rate it "just as" destructive though .... And maybe that's my predisposition of trusting in some authoritative sources. Authoritative sources can be propaganda, or they could be neutral, whereas non authoritative spins are paid for by something, either another authority trying to mess with a foreign population or target them to change purchase / browsing behavior, or influenced by prestige within a fringe group.
What do you think?
Thanks for the considered reply. I had a simple calculus for considering if universal appeals to authority would be as destructive as the do your own research movement is: that in this information warfare landscape, a number of state and nonstate actors are deliberately distorting online narratives. They have done this most successfully by attacking and degrading one of our best democratic institutions—the media, making it partisan and distrusted. In that new space, misinformation easily proliferates.
Currently, to properly “do our own research” we have to trust our scientific and academic institutions to provide accurate data. But our enemies in the information space would only focus their attacks on that institution instead, which in some ways is less sensitive to corrective pressures.
Academia has enough trouble as it is, with plenty of attacks against it to destroy its credibility. Making it the final arbiter of such a powerful environment would get it overwhelmed with attack and then we’d truly be lost.
Hmmm I think I don't disagree with you but I'm unsure what that implies.
What if .... What if our academia, and evidence based authorities such as health authorities, mayo clinic, CDC, state paid media channels like PBS CBC BBC etc, what if they're well funded, and there were state level security teams to detect and prevent and publish attacks ?
Sorry, I guess I'm not sure if you're saying authority backed channels are inherently something that can't be done better than....than ...what are the alternatives?
I think what I'm trying to say is that well funded and well defended authoritative sources can work and that that would be far better than media free for all.
And you mentioned a license: It's not that crazy of an idea.
Once upon a time anybody can call themselves a doctor (....current naturalpath quacks notwithstanding) and anybody can call themselves a lawyer.
What if we regulate "KOL" as a profession with standards and requirements and checks, so that only those who are licensed can publish opinions online? Would a forum of qualified Internet users then not become some sort of (drumroll) authoritative source?
I am absolutely with you. And since we haven’t yet figured out effective counter-strategies for all this information warfare, it might end up being what we need.
We have this obsessive aversion to authority in the modern western world. My dad retired as a bureaucrat here in California.CFO of our tax collecting agency. Exactly the type of figure who is routinely attacked in right wing media.
He is very decent and fair minded and has a thick skin. Perfect for his job. When he would receive public criticism about the inefficiencies and self-serving behaviors of bureaucrats he would just shrug and say all that meant was the department was being managed improperly.
Well run institutions, when there are 8 billion people on the planet, are most likely a life and death necessity.
I completely agree. The slow destruction of our media and reporters in North America is the main reason in my mind.
We used to pay people who knew how to investigate and fact check for us. Now we have to do it ourselves and confirmation bias is powerful and easy to fall into even when you think you're being open minded.
Gift article to bypass paywall: https://wapo.st/48BFKfi
Here is the longer summary of the research referenced in the article.
This research adds support to a trend I have certainly noticed in the context of discussion of scientific theories. I have noticed large swaths of people online (for example, on Twitter back when I was active) who were very interested in and knowledgeable about what I would classify as non-standard scientific hypotheses, if not outright pseudoscience. I am speaking mainly in the context of my field of cosmology, but the discussions surrounding public health and vaccines in the last few years is another example of this phenomenon in a scientific context. If you polled the self-identified "science enthusiasts" about, say, dark matter or dark energy, I think a much higher fraction would believe in alternatives which have much less scientific support, like exotic models of modified gravity. This study provides a partial explanation for this, in that people exposed to those ideas seek out more information, and because they are less popular or supported, the information out there tends to be of lesser quality.