Believing is seeing (and hearing)
An image of an actual book that contains a Greek folktale entitled, “Truth and Falsehood,” which appears on page 403.
Last week that Globe and Mail, through their newly launched foundation, held a panel discussion that focused on the role and effects of traditional media in enabling democracy in our AI-charged world. A shared understanding of reality seems to help a society function. Earlier this month, in a different and unrelated conversation, I heard that the expression “Speaking truth to power” may be dated because establishing “truth” is so challenging. I saw connections between mass communication and the more intimate interactions between collaborators.
Others can dissect the nuances of asking, “Is this real?” (vs. fabricated OR substantiated vs. not) compared to trying to establish what is true (vs. false). Before we agree that what want to be true should take a backseat our understanding of what really happened, let’s recall the academic term “confirmation bias,” which calls that cognitive order of operations into question. Two things happen with this bias:
We more easily perceive that which aligns with what we want to see. (These are preceded by, “See?” or “I knew it!”)
We dismiss, diminish, or fail to process that which challenges what we want to see. (Listen for, “Really? I didn’t notice.”)
Should we choose to believe that this bias affects what we actually take in as raw input, we accept a brand-new modus operandi for dealing with the information that arrives.
Consider the source
We all find some sources more believable than others. I still rely on the print edition of a national newspaper (and sometimes its website) to curate the information that I need to know. Media institutions are certainly not above critique, as political slants will flavour content. This could be due to editorial philosophy, bias among journalists (hey, they are human, too!) or subtle catering to what makes the subscribership or other supporters happy. Perhaps that new MO includes trusting a source to report accurately without having to agree with their analysis of how/if it affects reality.
The delineation between “news” and “opinion” may not be as clear as we would like, but the journalistic practice of vetting and confirming evidence is important, as is that of presenting readers with diversity of opinions. News organizations and a wide range of other content providers carry a responsibility to support their claims. As consumers of this content, we take responsibility to examine (or reluctantly insert) grains of salt.
Temper the optimism
Gone are the days of unbridled excitement when we hear good news. We have to be ready to learn that it may not be true. We can easily find ourselves reading what appears to be a headline or inside scoop from a person or entity whose credibility is at best unproven (i.e. new to us) and at worst dubious (i.e. known to make unsubstantiated and distorted claims). No matter the source, I do enjoy hearing:
Unflattering quotes attributed to figures with whom I disagree;
Reported legal transgressions by those whose ethics I question; or
Probable explanations of world events that align with my ideas of what is good.
A helpful first reaction to any welcome development might be to start looking for counter information: better to pop one’s own balloon! Such supporting and refuting content is often close at hand with the rise of such practices as: (1) sharing the source of the claim proactively, (2) discrediting the statement while including a source, or (3) asking the poster to offer such support (and questioning its omission in the first place).
Engage (and disengage) selectively
Direct engagement with content providers changed drastically when content became available online. Letters to the editor and call-in radio shows do still exist, but the comments section of a news article or a LinkedIn post provides a much more accessible avenue to express your support or criticism of someone else’s content beyond a simple “reaction.” Websites and platforms can limit such comments through moderation or restrict them to a sub-group of “followers” or subscribers. I have noticed recently that when a topic is more likely to invite stronger reactions, the comments feature is completely turned off.
We all make choices about what we share online and how we react to those who react to us. Online forums provide a very different context than working with our colleagues and collaborators, but in many collaborative environments, we find ourselves faced with the same variety of ideas as to what is real, true, just, desired, logical, prudent, etc. We do our own version of “turn off the comments” when we simply stop listening (which can be helpful). Hopefully, a strong recognition that everyone more easily takes in what they want to believe (AKA confirmation bias) will give us the energy to stick with the conversation longer so that we can better navigate what is real or true or simply helpful for our given context.