Date of Entry: October 2nd, 2020Since high school, I maintained the casual habit of sharing articles, podcasts, or videos I found interesting on Twitter. In a way, Twitter served as my version of a "brain dump" — a personal timeline and content database.
Tweeting my secondary thought process signified a cursory experiment of some sorts. Reviewing my history over months and years gave insight into what I was interested in & willing to publicly share at certain points in time, and how those perspectives or interests may have changed/shifted. Without my Twitter, I could have easily succumbed to hindsight bias, and bore the impression that whatever I believed in at present was either consistent with or immediately reflective of my history. My Twitter feed thus served the analogous purpose of a blog or diary; it was honest in the moment, yet perhaps conflicting in hindsight.
In recent days, however, I'd almost entirely paused my sharing streak. It wasn't until yesterday that I decided to include a reflection on why. The hiatus had arisen as a response to both the current social climate, as well as another shift in how I approached fulfilling a responsible online presence.
The inherent downside about Twitter is that even by exhausting the 280-character limit and dividing my reflection into six parts, it still conveys a very peripheral glimpse into the ways I now adopt online information sharing & consumption. Therefore via this article, I hope to further elaborate on the topic, and also bring to light some issues that may guide us towards being more critical of our own thoughts and others'.
For years, I shared information rather loosely — subjecting it only to preliminary checks and balances. As long as the content wasn't explicitly false, nearly anything could otherwise pass as valid input. In the dawn of fake news, I made efforts to support content creators and organizations that were both reputable and (for the most part) indicative of their primary sources. Only recently though, had I wondered whether or not that was enough to engage in mindful online discourse.
Oftentimes, the heuristics we employ in navigating the online world lead us to blindly trust certain names and organizations. For example, by believing that certain YouTubers are quality researchers, we may inappropriately apply a truth principle towards all of their claims; we don't bother to actively evaluate their resources. Similarly, if we assume universal credibility amongst TEDTalk speakers, we risk losing the initiative to question their ideas. Choosing to unwittingly follow and abide by the words of powerful media outlets (such as "Reader's Digest" or "The New York Times") are also lazy ways of filtering our knowledge consumption. In each case, we skip the mental effort of analyzing the frameworks of certain statements or arguments. And in doing so, we narrow our scope to that of the relevant speaker's. By force of circumstance, second-hand knowledge is manipulated to conform to the speakers' biases. When every fact or presupposing claim appears inarguably true, we fall into a trap of being easily persuaded or consumed by single compelling ideas.
I argue that since we now indulge in the fruits of science and empiricism (e.g., modern technologies), we have inevitably adapted our world-views to suit the obvious. There is less common a denial of science itself; rather, the debates centre around what this newfound science constitutes.
The widespread public adoption of the keywords "science," "facts," and "objectivity," however, is worrisome. Often used as a means of justification is the phrase: "according to science." This phrase is powerful; by signalling that an argument's underlying premises are grounded in hard objective truth, the argument becomes difficult to dismantle — unless another set of truths is proposed. Claims of science have been exploited by influencers and news outlets. What is worse is that claims of science have also been weaponized by sociopolitical movements in order to perpetuate radical or faulty ideologies, and convince their believers that what they stand for are rooted in a universal set of truths. Rarely do opponents manage to successfully instill scientific claims counter to those of radicals. Once "alternative facts" have been established, believers exhibit an equal skepticism of actual scientific consensus.
In the context of our increasingly information-laden world, there is no efficient means by which we can fact-check, evaluate scientific discrepancies, or simply know/be aware of everything. Research is being conducted constantly — as are ideas being communicated, exchanged, and reformed. Therefore, what type of information should we choose to critically evaluate, question, or ignore? What type of information should we seek and expose ourselves to?
Regarding such concerns, I've developed my own main areas of focus for approaching, handling, and evaluating modern-day knowledge. Though there are certainly many other considerations worth noting, here are the ones I've so far found to be most helpful:
Question the Sources of Influential "Empirical" Claims
One helpful practice towards becoming more mindful of the information you consume on social media or other online spheres is to identify central or convictive claims being made, and subject them to a quick literature search. Visualize the data and research process. Expert consensus may be relatively easier to find regarding well-studied topics in the "hard" sciences, where there's more meticulous control over the variables. Nonetheless, ask ourselves: what is the overall evidence-based consensus, and why? How much high-quality data has been compiled on the subject, and what biases remain?
For all influential claims — especially those rooted in the social sciences (such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics), it is most important to consider the limitations of the relevant studies. Limitations could, for example, be inherent in the study design (e.g., taking little steps to control for confounding variables), in sample size, completeness of data, the validity of the variables themselves, and the replicability of the results. That way, you can practically gauge yourself around how plausible or implausible the claim may actually be, and appropriately sway more for/against the idea provided additional evidence. This is important because the phrase "empirical data" is often stripped of its true meaning to help up-end sociopolitical propaganda.
Another thing to always keep in mind is that there is always room for skepticism. Regardless of how evident a claim may be, it could still be wrong due to statistical or repeated methodological errors. Thus, a tolerance for uncertainty is necessary no matter where we look. What we ought to focus on instead and try to research is to what degree we remain skeptical. Keep in mind that there is a stark difference between informed skepticism and baseless conspiracy.
Consider the Greater Context in Which Claims Are Being Made
While it's easier to conceive of ideas/beliefs in catchy quotes or well-rehearsed narratives, it is important to always be mindful of the context in which they're being applied, and the varying truth in their respective claims. Statements such as "men and women are equal" cannot be interpreted alone; otherwise, they'd lack any substance and verity. Discussing this statement in the context of societal rights versus average biological measures would render entirely different interpretations of what constitutes "equal." What if I combined these two scenarios, and argued that, because women differ biologically, they ought to have additional reproductive and sexual rights? This again would create an entirely new and different context through which we could interpret the initial statement.
The elaboration portion of a claim is important, and when it isn't provided (as is often the case on social media), then we ought to make the effort to find and retrieve it. Otherwise, it is really better off ignored, than taken to heart or conviction.
Be Aware of Potential Biases, and Explore Contrasting Views on an Issue
As mentioned earlier, whenever primary source information is extracted and synthesized into a summary or argument, the authors constructing their views must inevitably select, divert specific attention to, and conform certain information to suit their objectives or narrative. This act of "cherry-picking" facts to include or disclude is inherent in all forms of communication — including this article.
Possessing any freedom to mention certain truths but not others could ultimately create situations where facts prevail, but comprise a grossly incomplete representation of reality. The facts that comprise a narrative do not necessarily validate the overall intention or framing of multiple facts. Take, for example, the disagreements on the basis of facts between Vox Media and The Wall Street Journal editorial board. Political biases, in this case, help build contrasting narratives on often identical issues. Therefore, it is important to always consider the ways by which authors present and juxtapose their evidence, and the biases they bring to the table. That way, it may be easier to seek out opposing arguments, and — by weighing the pros and cons of each side — develop a more thoughtful and personalized stance.
Comments