All right, all right.Welcome back to another edition of Beyond the Told, Destroying the Narrative.I'm your host, Dr. David Robertson.Thanks so much for being a part of the program.I do appreciate you.
Today I want to share some audio from a video that I did talking about disinformation, deception, and misinformation, and really kind of how this impacts all of us to a very high degree.
And it's scary because there are certain elements that really kind of dig in from our own tribes, from our own groups that we trust. And in recent weeks, ironically enough, I've seen this numerous times, and it really does, it impacts us all.
And so I wanted to share this video here on this, or the audio here on this podcast, because I do think it's important.And I know a lot of people haven't watched that video, so here we go.
Welcome to Beyond the Told, the sanctuary of the unspoken and the home of the unseen. In today's episode, we're peering through another keyhole to unveil a few insights into our proclivity to believe and share false information.
Indeed, social media platforms are valuable resources for information, communication, and entertainment.However, as we all know, they're also plagued by the persistent issue of inaccurate and deceptive content.
This phenomenon, in many ways, is tearing us apart.We need to understand what we're up against if we want to resist it. So today, we're going to examine a few key details about digital deception.We'll begin with misinformation.
This is when false information is published and circulated without the intention to harm.In other words, it's the accidental spread of false information.
Unfortunately, it's remarkably easy to distribute with just a click, and it becomes a formidable challenge to manage or correct. Misinformation spreads well on social media because it tends to sound about right or is emotionally charged.
This issue is compounded by echo chambers, where isolated online communities with similar views perpetuate falsehoods and typically resist factual corrections.
While research shows that misinformation is predominantly propagated by a minority of super-spreaders, the truth is that their influence is magnified by social media.Of course, the spread of misinformation is more than just a nuisance.
The spread of misinformation can have profound psychological effects on individuals and society.Exposure to false information can increase anxiety, stress, and confusion.
particularly when it pertains to sensitive topics such as public health or personal safety.The polarization fueled by misinformation campaigns can lead to social fragmentation, undermining trust in institutions and among community members.
This division makes it more challenging to address collective issues and can exacerbate feelings of isolation or alienation.Moreover, the resulting division undermines democratic processes. then there's disinformation.
Disinformation involves the deliberate spread of false information to deceive, a tactic that has been increasingly used both domestically and internationally over the past decade to disrupt democratic processes, undermine norms, and like misinformation, erode trust in public institutions.
Unfortunately, social media enables the anonymous, efficient, and widespread dissemination of misleading content, allowing adversaries to sow chaos, manipulate public perception, and diminish confidence in critical societal structures.
Disinformation campaigns are often politically motivated. Factors such as source ambiguity, personal involvement, confirmation bias, and social ties can fuel the spread of disinformation.
In fact, it's so bad that Eileen Donahoe, executive director of Stanford's Global Digital Policy Incubator and former U.S.ambassador to the U.N.
Human Rights Council, recently highlighted the weaponization of Internet and social media platforms to divide and destabilize societies.
Understanding the spread of false information involves recognizing psychological factors and behavioral tendencies.
Understand that we're more inclined to share false information that aligns with our personal identity or social norms, especially if the information is novel or evokes strong emotions.
Furthermore, exposure to false information increases the likelihood of belief in subsequent sharing.
Interestingly, people often spread false information without necessarily believing it, sometimes simply to signal political affiliation or gain what they see as social rewards.
In fact, the World Health Organization has termed this deluge of information both accurate and misleading as an infodemic, which is a fairly accurate term.
In many ways, this demonstrates the critical need for individuals to arm themselves with the knowledge and skills to identify and combat false information.
Understand that false information producers seem to have the upper hand, but a meticulous and informed approach can restore control to the consumers of information.
Understanding the mechanisms and strategies employed by those who spread false information is the first step in safeguarding oneself against their manipulative tactics.
While exceptionally difficult to pull off, the concept of pre-bunking, which involves debunking myths and lies before they reach you, has proven effective in some instances.
However, this proactive approach requires a continuous learning and skeptical mindset, something that social conditioning has hindered in recent years. Of course, being a skeptic can go too far as well, so we have to be careful here.
Nonetheless, gaining a deeper understanding of how internet and social media platforms operate, as well as familiarizing oneself with scientific research and standards of evidence, can bolster one's defenses against misleading claims.
Still, even that may not be enough.Again, it can be exceptionally difficult to discern accurate information from false information, especially when efforts to identify authentic expertise are hindered by personal biases and preconceived notions.
Professional social media platforms are not immune.In fact, they might be the worst offenders, noted by the proliferation of individuals presenting themselves as experts while spreading misleading information under the guise of authority.
Similarly, many popular platforms utilize algorithms that foster emotional reactions for engagement and selectively present information, reinforcing existing misconceptions.
Or worse, they might censor the accurate information in the belief that they're censoring the misinformation, because they too fell for the misinformation.
Of course, this is demonstrated by the recent dissemination of false health information, along with false political information aimed at shaping public perception.
And these are just two examples, but they underscore the critical nature of these issues.So, how can we truly protect ourselves and others from false information?
In many ways, we have to ask ourselves, do we want to be right, or do we want to be accurate?There is a difference.
Of course, that may sound simple enough, but as it turns out, if we have a misconception but we're told the accurate information, we will often defend the misconception, even if we know it's wrong. It boils down to individual responsibility.
Recognition of one's vulnerabilities is a vital component in combating false information.
That's because research indicates that individuals are more likely to be misled by information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.
This bias makes it imperative for individuals to critically evaluate information, especially when it originates from sources or groups with whom they identify or agree.Just remember that the key is in the contrast.
This means that we must acknowledge our bias, reject the idea that only others are more susceptible to bias, and then proactively seek out contrasting viewpoints and diverse sources of information.
This tactic typically results in a more balanced and less emotional perspective. However, that's easier said than done, for several reasons.
For example, Pierre Bourdieu's concept of the habitus, which are the deeply ingrained habits, skills, and dispositions that we possess due to our life experiences, shapes our perceptions, thoughts, and actions in ways that often go unnoticed by us, as they're the result of the internalization of the social and cultural conditions we live in.
Unfortunately, social media plays a big part in shaping our habitus, and our habitus is actually reinforced by social media.
When considering misinformation and the conditioning regarding false information, Bourdieu's concept of habitus can be particularly illuminating.
It suggests that our susceptibility to misinformation may be influenced by our socialized dispositions and pre-existing beliefs, which are shaped by our social background, education, and broader cultural environment.
These factors can predispose us to accept certain types of information or narratives that align with our worldview. making us more likely to believe and disseminate false information that resonates with our habitus.
Moreover, our habitus influences how we interpret information and which sources we consider credible, which can hinder our ability to critically evaluate the reliability of the information we encounter.
For example, individuals conditioned by a habitus that values certain ideologies or rejects accuracy may be more prone to believing in spreading misinformation that supports their views or comes from sources they perceive as more trustworthy.
Similarly, Edward Bernays, often regarded as the father of public relations, introduced techniques that leveraged psychological insights to influence public opinion and behavior.
His work, grounded in the idea that the masses could be swayed through the manipulation of desires, emotions, and beliefs, has significant implications for understanding the dynamics of misinformation and conditioning regarding false information.
Bernays' techniques show how the media, government, and various communication platforms can be used to shape perceptions and attitudes, making them highly relevant to the spread of propaganda.
By simply creating messages that appeal to people's unconscious biases, it's possible to encourage the public to adopt certain views or take specific actions without them being fully aware of the manipulative forces at play.
Of course, this manipulation plays into the concept of habitus, in that it exploits the pre-existing dispositions and beliefs shaped by one's social and cultural environment.
Bernays' work demonstrates how easily these dispositions can be activated or reinforced through strategic communication efforts, thereby influencing how people interpret and respond to information.
In the context of misinformation, the techniques pioneered by Bernays demonstrate how false information can be crafted and disseminated in ways that resonate deeply with target audiences, making them more likely to accept and spread it.
Similarly, Bernays' emphasis on the engineering of consent highlights how the manipulation of public opinion through misinformation can have broader implications for democracy and societal trust.
By exploiting the habitus of various social groups, misinformation campaigns can deepen divisions, erode trust in institutions, and undermine informed decision-making processes.
Understanding the spread and impact of false information necessitates acknowledging both the psychological factors and emotional influences that drive it.
As stated, individuals are more likely to share false information that resonates with their personal identity, adheres to their social norms, is novel, or triggers strong emotions, increasing the probability of its acceptance and further dissemination.
Therefore, fostering a critical mindset and carefully evaluating one's emotional reactions before sharing information are essential strategies to reduce the spread of inaccuracies.
Of course, evaluating the credibility of information sources is another key to discerning the reliability of news and reports.Credentials are equally important in this effort.
However, it must be realized that there have been deliberate attempts to ensure that you don't trust credentials.At the same time, I want you to know that two experts in the same field might have differing opinions on a topic.
That's usually not a bad thing, but part of the conditioning that we're all subject to revolves around the either-or fallacy, also known as the false dilemma fallacy. In this, we're conditioned to accept an all-or-nothing mindset.
However, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.The truth is often somewhere in the middle, often just beyond what's told.
Engaging in critical thinking about the sources of information is shown to enhance one's ability to distinguish between fact and fiction, but also the ability to understand that various experts may arrive at different conclusions for different reasons, which, again, allows us to have a more nuanced and level-headed position or understanding.
In other words, we must learn to control our emotions.Sure, while emotions are a fundamental aspect of human experience, we need to be acutely aware that excessive emotional reactions can compromise decision-making processes.
Specifically, they often obscure rational judgment, leading to suboptimal decisions.
This phenomenon is particularly evident in the context of sharing emotionally charged biased information without adequate consideration of its truthfulness or the consequences of its dissemination.
Consequently, it's essential to adopt a reflective approach before distributing information online.Remember that false information frequently proliferates due to swift, emotionally-driven actions rather than deliberate consideration.
And finally, while fact-checking is sometimes a valuable tool in verifying information, it's important to recognize the potential biases inherent in fact-checking organizations themselves.
Critiques of fact-checkers, such as those presented by the Paradox Project's analysis of PolitiFact, highlight the subjective nature of the fact-checking process and the influence of political ideologies.
This is to say that fact-checkers are dealing with their own habitus and conditioning, and not all fact-checkers have their facts right.
Making matters worse is the idea that sometimes the fact-checkers are not experts on the topic they're fact-checking, and are likely missing important context or insights.
So, we have to apply a discerning eye to the objectivity and reliability of fact-checkers, acknowledging that sometimes the whole truth can be elusive, and that fact-checking is not immune to bias.
Indeed, the spread of false information is a growing concern.When false information circulates widely, it increases the likelihood that more individuals will begin to accept it as truth.
This phenomenon is largely due to a psychological principle known as social proof, which asserts that people tend to adopt beliefs or behaviors that they see being repeated by others, even if initial skepticism existed.
The repeated exposure to a piece of information, regardless of its veracity, can lead individuals to accept it as true over time.It's conditioning.
acknowledging the complexity of false information, and despite what any organization or expert might say otherwise, it's important to recognize that there's no one-size-fits-all solution to combat its spread.
Even the use of AI in this context is not without challenges.For example, the risk of censorship, whether unintended or through overly aggressive content moderation, poses ethical dilemmas.
Similarly, ensuring that AI systems do not inadvertently censor legitimate or innovative content or introduce biases would require ongoing refinement and costly oversight.
The effectiveness of strategies to counter false information varies depending on numerous factors, including the nature of the false information itself, the timing of the countermeasures, and the characteristics of the target audience.
Some types of false information may prove more resistant to correction efforts, while certain strategies may only work under specific conditions or with particular groups of people.
With these challenges in mind, just remember that you can't save everyone, but you can save yourself.
By critically evaluating the information encountered and employing a discerning approach to the sources of news and data, we can significantly reduce our susceptibility to confusion, deception, and falsehoods.
Cultivating an awareness of the mechanisms through which false information spreads, including the roles of social proof and astroturfing and shaping beliefs, is essential in developing resilience against misleading content.
Now, if you'd like to learn how some of these tactics are being weaponized against you, I would encourage you to watch my video on 5th generation warfare. All right, my friends, I do appreciate you.Thank you so much.
By the way, if you do have a request, if there was an article you didn't get to or a video that you didn't get to, but you would like me to do it here on this podcast, feel free to reach out.
You can reach me by hitting the contact on dmrpublications.com. and be happy to hear from you and, of course, produce the podcast for you.So, yep, that does it for me.Appreciate you.Until next time, take care.
Sign in
