Especially now, with the United States presidential election at hand, we are assailed by a never-ending barrage of comments about misinformation and disinformation. So, I wonder, what is the difference between the two and what are the implications? One way to differentiate is to say that misinformation is merely something objectively wrong. Whereas disinformation is objectively wrong and vigorously, manipulatively propagandized. Both definitions lead to further questions. First, how can we be sure that we know what is objectively wrong? Second, what does the propaganda promote? An in-depth discussion of these questions is far beyond the scope of a modest blog post such as this. However, the fact that I’m writing about it means that I think I have something useful to contribute.
Let’s presume for the moment that you are confronted with information, and have access to the source (s) that will allow you to identify and determine relevant objective truth. Equally important, you resolve to accept the relevant objective truth when you find it. Persons who are mindfully reading will realize that nothing that I’ve said so far is easy. Some might say that much of what I have said so far is virtually impossible. For both groups, I hear you.
How do we proceed, then, to assess the proffered information? An initial consideration is to decide whether it is “mal-information”—implying the possibility of bad or evil influence. Of course, what is bad and evil require value judgement. For instance, murder is abhorrent, but it would neither be bad nor evil, I think, to murder someone who is about to slaughter an innocent family.
Human beings naturally default to what Daniel Kahneman (2011) called “System One” thinking, by which he meant thinking that requires the least amount of effort. Accordingly, I’m asking you to resist the natural inclination to default to System One, but to put forth more deliberate mental action than usual. I justify my request by returning to the mal-information concept. Since mal-information deals with values, you need not burden yourself by ruminating about each piece of new data that you encounter, only about what you truly value. Complicating things, however, is the uncomfortable truth that I mentioned earlier—that deciding what you value is itself a value judgment. Then gather as much objective, relevant data as possible, and mindfully process it to the extent that you’re able. All this requires commitment and independence of thought that enables you to resist exogenous influences
When you’re in a reflective mood and have the time available, I suggest that you sit down and list your core values. You might do so in a kind of hierarchy. For instance, you could list the values that you have for yourself as an individual, the values that you have for your children—if you are a parent— and for your family—if you have one—the values you have for your friends and neighbors, and the values that you have for your town, state, and country. After that exhausting exercise, you will appreciate the difficulty of determining your values, and—more important—of deciding what to do about the values that you truly embrace. Ideally, going forward you will be less inclined to disparage others and slander them with ad hominem attacks whenever they make some non-valued comment at odds with your System One beliefs. That stance will help combat the rampant contemporary interpersonal conflicts plaguing us and our nation.
Earlier, I asserted that your ability to assemble objective, relevant data and to mindfully process it requires you to value independent, autonomous thought that resists exogenous influences. In other words, after adequate reflection, you must VALUE and TRUST yourself above all outside implicit and explicit pressure. For many of us, that means that the values are solidly based on the best authentic data that we can find, and, importantly, that we do not mindlessly succumb to our “tribal” standards to earn social approval. Resist the "bandwagon effect" by which you simply jump aboard the latest and/or loudest group-promulgated ideas. By default, assume that virtually your entire tribe is using System One—not having mindfully thought through whatever they are endorsing. Your own value-guided research alone ultimately should determine what is and is not mal-information. If you do that and vote accordingly, you need not answer to anyone.
Reference
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast And Slow. New York: McMillan
No comments:
Post a Comment