5 ms·

Critical thinking isn’t helping in the fight against misinformation

4 points by aww_dang 5y ago

jleyank 5y ago
Of course not. “Critical thinking” implies a willingness to learn and change one’s beliefs. Most people are not interesting in or willing to change their beliefs, having inherited them from parents or from the society they grew up in. It’s like Kuhn and scientific paradigms, they change not by convincing the leading lights of a field but by having them grow old and die off.
- jfengel 5y ago
  Basic critical thinking skills aren't difficult, and are pretty much universal. Everybody uses them every day. They're just basic problem solving, for the problems directly in front of you. When the problem isn't directly in front of you, it doesn't really matter if you apply the skills or not. The effects, if any, are distantly removed from the cause. The vast majority of misinformation (in the sense being applied here) doesn't affect you in a way that you can observe. That makes it really easy for everything to reinforce what you want to believe. You'd never apply that kind of poor reasoning in your daily life; it would bite you in the ass. Some people do fall prey to that as well, but even functioning people can believe the most obvious crap if it makes them feel better. Teaching critical thinking isn't the answer -- unless it were taught in such a way that explicitly called out things that are politically sensitive. That would never happen. As for what is the answer... I wish I had one. I'm afraid that this problem is only going to get worse.
  - jleyank 5y ago
    Given the amount of drunk driving and other Darwin Award efforts that go on, it’s an open question if there’s much critical thinking really going on…
    - jfengel 5y ago
      The problem is that most drunk drivers get home fine. If it really were a Darwin Award situation, they'd have evolved out of it by now (as it were). Drunk driving accidents are horrifically common, and yet only a small percentage of the number of people who go out with more alcohol in their bloodstream than is safe. A critical thinker could well assume that it's sufficiently safe to take that risk, rather than the inconvenience of leaving your car somewhere else. That's wrong, but it's a judgment call rather than an obvious failure of reasoning.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    >As for what is the answer... I wish I had one. I'm afraid that this problem is only going to get worse. How much worse can it get and how can we quantify that? How truthy was the previous media landscape? I'm not sure this is measurable. As a hypothetical, if the basic premises which informed our respective political views or national identities (assuming we subscribe to one) were the product of a well orchestrated propaganda campaign, how would we know? The intended audience of propaganda isn't aware of the deception in the classic sense. This is by design. People believe what they want to, I can accept that much. The phenomenon of misinformation hysteria is a symptom of the fracturing of our collective narrative. The "Flat Earth Club" was a debate society, then an Internet forum. People explored implausible ideas and tested their rhetorical ability. Today flat-earther is a pejorative. It is plainly hysterical, a boogeyman of misinformation. The bounds are not to be tested. Those who rail against the dangers of misinformation are arguably misinformed about the boogeymen they have conjured up out of hysteria. Perhaps a fair appraisal might allow that misinformation has always been with us. The sources and dominance of political players have changed. There is a wider spectrum of information accurate or otherwise. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily dangerous in itself. The danger is in how we interact with those who do not share our personal mythos. Demonizing dissent, misidentifying divergent information as misinformation or as the author suggested, sticking to "trusted sources" all appear to be part of a regressive trend. This is more problematic in my view. The alleged democratization of the Internet, where anyone can publish with no technical ability required, is ushering in an era of walled gardens. Choose any beverage you'd like, Pepsi or Coke. Select any sources you'd like for that Wikipedia article. Just make sure they're establishment sources within our parameters. You can say anything you want, as long as I say it isn't dangerous misinformation. See, the Internet is a free and open place. If you cannot find it in [insert walled garden]'s search, then it must not be. The process creates the illusion of consensus greater than what could be achieved by the dying broadcast media. If the misinformation hysteria has been ginned up to achieve a goal, this is it.

4 points by aww_dang 5y ago

Of course not. “Critical thinking” implies a willingness to learn and change one’s beliefs. Most people are not interesting in or willing to change their beliefs, having inherited them from parents or from the society they grew up in. It’s like Kuhn and scientific paradigms, they change not by convincing the leading lights of a field but by having them grow old and die off.

jfengel 5y ago
Basic critical thinking skills aren't difficult, and are pretty much universal. Everybody uses them every day. They're just basic problem solving, for the problems directly in front of you. When the problem isn't directly in front of you, it doesn't really matter if you apply the skills or not. The effects, if any, are distantly removed from the cause. The vast majority of misinformation (in the sense being applied here) doesn't affect you in a way that you can observe. That makes it really easy for everything to reinforce what you want to believe. You'd never apply that kind of poor reasoning in your daily life; it would bite you in the ass. Some people do fall prey to that as well, but even functioning people can believe the most obvious crap if it makes them feel better. Teaching critical thinking isn't the answer -- unless it were taught in such a way that explicitly called out things that are politically sensitive. That would never happen. As for what is the answer... I wish I had one. I'm afraid that this problem is only going to get worse.
- jleyank 5y ago
  Given the amount of drunk driving and other Darwin Award efforts that go on, it’s an open question if there’s much critical thinking really going on…
  - jfengel 5y ago
    The problem is that most drunk drivers get home fine. If it really were a Darwin Award situation, they'd have evolved out of it by now (as it were). Drunk driving accidents are horrifically common, and yet only a small percentage of the number of people who go out with more alcohol in their bloodstream than is safe. A critical thinker could well assume that it's sufficiently safe to take that risk, rather than the inconvenience of leaving your car somewhere else. That's wrong, but it's a judgment call rather than an obvious failure of reasoning.
- aww_dang 5y ago
  >As for what is the answer... I wish I had one. I'm afraid that this problem is only going to get worse. How much worse can it get and how can we quantify that? How truthy was the previous media landscape? I'm not sure this is measurable. As a hypothetical, if the basic premises which informed our respective political views or national identities (assuming we subscribe to one) were the product of a well orchestrated propaganda campaign, how would we know? The intended audience of propaganda isn't aware of the deception in the classic sense. This is by design. People believe what they want to, I can accept that much. The phenomenon of misinformation hysteria is a symptom of the fracturing of our collective narrative. The "Flat Earth Club" was a debate society, then an Internet forum. People explored implausible ideas and tested their rhetorical ability. Today flat-earther is a pejorative. It is plainly hysterical, a boogeyman of misinformation. The bounds are not to be tested. Those who rail against the dangers of misinformation are arguably misinformed about the boogeymen they have conjured up out of hysteria. Perhaps a fair appraisal might allow that misinformation has always been with us. The sources and dominance of political players have changed. There is a wider spectrum of information accurate or otherwise. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily dangerous in itself. The danger is in how we interact with those who do not share our personal mythos. Demonizing dissent, misidentifying divergent information as misinformation or as the author suggested, sticking to "trusted sources" all appear to be part of a regressive trend. This is more problematic in my view. The alleged democratization of the Internet, where anyone can publish with no technical ability required, is ushering in an era of walled gardens. Choose any beverage you'd like, Pepsi or Coke. Select any sources you'd like for that Wikipedia article. Just make sure they're establishment sources within our parameters. You can say anything you want, as long as I say it isn't dangerous misinformation. See, the Internet is a free and open place. If you cannot find it in [insert walled garden]'s search, then it must not be. The process creates the illusion of consensus greater than what could be achieved by the dying broadcast media. If the misinformation hysteria has been ginned up to achieve a goal, this is it.