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