What's fact got to do with it?
Go ahead, read up.
Okay, if you decided not to read then I'll give you the bullet points (in a bulleted list of course):
- In the age of information, one could reasonably believe that information and fact should undo erroneous beliefs
- However, new studies show that instead of undoing such beliefs, it actually strengthens them
- Furthermore, scientific studies show that fear and the perception of threat also prevents people from accepting fact as, well, fact
- C&L's solution then is to bring the hammer down on news corporations, since the bias that fuels this phenomenon is built into our psychology
- Another solution they present is to tap into findings showing that those with higher self-esteem are more comfortable changing their minds
My problem, though, is with their proposed solutions. There really is no public accountability for news organizations, since any attempt to regulate them finds one lambasted in "1st amendment" arguments, there really is no natural, commercial way to regulate them, since the sensationalist, fear based reporting is what brings in the big bucks, and there is no natural psychological way to moderate them since, as C&L mentioned, the bias is built into us.
So I'm asking you guys, what can we do? As intelligent individuals, its not as difficult for us to question and re-shape our beliefs when presented with legitimate facts contrary to our already-held beliefs. But what about those mired a little deeper in the information quagmire with less tools to escape? Frankly, I think that improving self-esteem has already failed miserably, since it has created the most narcissistic generation of all time (extreme narcissists are even less likely to accept facts that contradict their subjective reality).
For my money, I think a cultural shift is required. The "information age" was supposed to bring about this utopia of enlightened minds but it has instead brought people's attention spans to their knees. According to recent studies (mentioned here for example) our attention span has actually regressed to the point that it resembles that of our primitive ancestors; analyzing every rustle and movement in search for predators. In order to counter-act the fast-paced news cycle, scanning of information, and deleterious effects of shallow conversation and thought, our culture must shift back from a rapid-fire information fueled one to a more pensive, more thoughtful, more deliberate one. That way people might instead analyze information more thoroughly as it comes to them, perhaps diffusing the hegemony of errant opinions based on flimsy facts in the first place.
Unfortunately, this one could be pretty hard to legislate.
But hell, what do you think? I believe we have enough intelligent people reading this blog to come up with a real solution. Just put your fingers on the keys and fire away.
3 comments:
One thing I found particularly interesting: "Furthermore, scientific studies show that fear and the perception of threat also prevents people from accepting fact as, well, fact"
This may explain why the Republican party uses scare tactics so often, ie the Democrats are going to kill you/take your money/kill your unborn baby/accuse you of being a racist/and on and on and on. It could be an evolutionary trait the bush elephants picked up long ago.
Second point I'd like to make is that I think the digital era is also largely at fault, and it's because of media stratification. Anyone with any particular niche interest can find an outlet for it.
It used to be that there were only three major television networks, and if they held a viewpoint you didn't agree with...tough cookies. Now with cable and the internet you don't have to be presented with opposing viewpoints. You can just hang out in your own corner with a bunch of like-minded people. Like we're doing right now.
Now whether we can actually do anything about is a bit more difficult. The internet sort of jumped the proverbial shark, so to speak, when it comes to how we inform ourselves.
I think the only real solution is making a concerted effort to improve our education system so that citizens grow up more open-minded and intellectually curious.
On the other hand, maybe all this misinforming the public will reach a critical mass and people will finally say "eff it" and start fact checking everything.
I'd like to emphatically agree with your point about the digital era providing niches for radicals. I think that's an important point to make, especially when one observes the rise of the Tea Party in particular: couple easy, niche, political organizing with irresponsibly cherry-picked half-facts and you've got yourself a political movement based entirely in erroneous, fear-based politicking.
I think that, perhaps, the internet can be equated to the atom bomb. That is, the technology came on quite suddenly and was used with reckless abandon (one or two uses on large civic populations can certainly be considered reckless abandon with regard to the atom bomb). It wasn't until we understood the consequences of our actions, both positive and negative, that we were able to moderate the use of the technology, as well as develop systemic and cultural infrastructure to moderate that use.
Post a Comment