The Human Information Machine

You have information, I have information, and we have information.   Neither you nor I independently can accumulate or apply all the information necessary to make the most of our lives.  The information that we possess has been created both through our own efforts and experiences (ontogenetic) and through the efforts and experiences of our species (phylogenetic). In fact, much of culture involves mutually giving and receiving information.  What happens when your information and mine are in partial or total disagreement?

Roy F. Baumeister and his associates (2017) proposed that human beings relate to information in five fundamental ways, we 1) seek and acquire information. 2) communicate our information to other individuals, 3) communicate our information to groups with whom we interact, 4) manipulate our information, and 5) collectively create a socially shared reality.

All five of the aforementioned purposes seem constructive and prosocial. On the other hand, the Baumeister group did acknowledge a destructive and antisocial feature of information accumulation and dispersal.  Namely, they noted that people deliberately can communicate falsehoods, withhold helpful information from others, or conspire with their group to manipulate others via the information that they possess.

The knowledge that we possess and share, then, create our individual and group “self.” Herein lies the opportunity for the partial or total disagreements and discontinuities with which we began our discussion.  We wittingly or unwittingly can manipulate others or be manipulated by them.  In the former case, we delude ourselves or others into believing that which we want to believe in order to satisfy our self-serving, unrealistic desires.  In the latter, we accept what others self-servingly tell us.  In the second case, it is unfortunate to be duped into misinterpreting reality when we do not know any better.  More damning, however, is when we know the reality, but follow inaccurate information disseminated by our group in order to be accepted by its members.

Practical physical and mental implications result from these circumstances.  How about one simple, concrete example of following inaccurate information disseminated by our group in order to be accepted by its members?  Suppose, for whatever reason, that you correctly believe that alcohol is unhealthful for you so that when alone you always prefer not to imbibe it. However, your mates just love to "chill out" on weekends, meaning go to a bar and drink themselves into oblivion.  They always "demand" that you participate with them, insisting that "a little wine actually is good for you."  Their information is in total disagreement with yours.  Who wins the battle of information interpretation, your individual or group self?

References:

Baumeister, R., Maranges, H. & Vohs, K. (2017).  Human Self as Information Agent: Functioning in a Social Environment Based on Shared Meanings.   Review of General Psychology, June, No Pagination Specified. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000114