Disinformation and You

I was going to start this blog with a standard, "We all think..." and then I would have inserted some sort of common sense argument that may not be as true as it initially appears. It's one of my go-to phrases that makes it sound like I've put more thought into my work than I usually have.

But then I thought, "I actually don't know what WE ALL think. I only know what I think, and what others have told me about what they think." Maybe I should get some better go-to phrases.

Point is: Disinformation is bad. We can talk about why it's bad, and why it's here, and that might help us try to stop the spread but at a certain point you've gotta come to the realization: your blog is not popular. Your words aren't going to reach the people in power, they're just going to go to regular people and even then, none of them will care enough to try changing the big picture.

The only thing that might even be valuable to you, that I might be able to provide, is a list of ways to identify disinformation when you see it, so that you can live and still have some semblance of trust in at least some experts out there. Cause that's the real harm.

Promoting the spread of disinformation, or even the discourse about disinformation, just makes everybody paranoid and not know who to trust. If someone you don't like is spreading facts you don't like, and you want to do something about it, you can do one of three things. You can either put in the effort to make well-reasoned argument with evidence supporting it about why you feel the way you do, you can make a bad argument (also known as common sense) where you don't support your stance with evidence or even all that strong of logic, or you can try to lie faster than people can correct you.

I'd like to think WE ALL like the first option more than the other two, but come on. I've used the second option so many times, because actually taking the time and effort to make a big huge argument is exhausting and most people don't appreciate hearing it.

If you choose the first option, you are letting your conversation partner know that you think that they are not one of you and so regardless of if you are talking up or down at someone, you are making them feel like The Other. That is not always pleasant. Additionally, it's always very unsatisfying when you do take the time and effort to make a quality argument and then... the other person doesn't agree with you. It's as if they are just being stubborn and unfair, because you spent all that time trying to convince them and yet they won't agree! And so, sometimes people aren't even willing to try the first option, because it only hurts all the worse when it gets rejected and even when it does succeed, that's not guaranteed to make you feel better. Most of the time, the best you can hope for is a compromise of ideals, where you are not entirely satisfied and neither is your partner, but you both have to be satisfied with that because neither of you can agree or disagree any further. It's almost safer to make a worse argument and fail, than to make a better argument and succeed because better arguments require a good deal of investment and risk.

If you use the second option though, it can help to strengthen the bond between you and your partner, but only a great risk. If you know you are making a bad argument and they know it too, and they follow along the path of your argument anyway? It's because they care about you or already agreed with you. Both make you feel good. But if they opt to not follow you along your argument's path of logic, it feels like they are denying you of both the good feeling of validation at being right, but also the chance to have gotten to know you better. This is why many people feel like the other person won't compromise and are being unfair. In truth, it's actually because they, in their denial of your half-assed argument, are forcing you to spend the energy to make a better one or admit defeat (neither of which is pleasant). Then you feel as if they are actively working against your interests instead of merely being unconvinced of your argument.

The third option however is way more interesting though, because it's no longer about changing the mind of the person who disagrees with you, but now it's all about making that one person who disagrees with you invisible. Think about it. If there's a dog barking at you from across the street, and you've already yelled at it and thrown your shoe to try to make it stop, but it hasn't stopped, what do you do? I would put on some music and try to drown it out. It doesn't even have to be good music. It doesn't even have to be music. It could just be a series of sound effects played at random. So long as what you were playing was louder than the dog, you'd have an easier go of it.

That's what some politicians, and some businesses and even some individuals are trying to do. If you can lie faster than the other person can correct you, you can create a situation where there are more lies flying around and being repeated than there are truths that might hurt you. The lies can hurt you too, but so long as they are lies, you can always dismiss them as such and then you don't even have to fight all that very hard.

That doesn't mean that in order to try to distinguish what is a truth and what is a lie is very simple though. Just because something is loud doesn't mean it is a lie. As lies get louder, people who are telling truth are also going to get louder to make sure that their message is heard. As a result, if you've been keeping your ears open to the news, everybody's screaming all the time! And you can't make heads or tails of it!

The only measuring stick I think might be valuable to determine what is a truth and what is a lie, is how much energy someone has put into making it look like a good argument. Like the first option. If you are listening to a person trying to make a claim of some kind, how long do they spend supporting this claim? How much time to they spend treating the claim like it has already been proven? Is the other side given the benefit of the doubt? In supporting their argument do they use any fallacies? In trying to put down someone else's argument, are they using any fallacies?

Liars usually try to make their lies look like truth all the time, but even that takes time to do, and many liars don't just tell one lie, they tell multiple.

Does the person you are listening to have a history telling lies? How about half-truths? How about mostly-truths? How quick are they to jump to a conclusion? How quick are you?

Not only are lies made more quickly than truths are, they are also made to withstand a quick judgement, but not necessarily a slow one. I hate to say it, but sometimes the only way to be sure is to double-check. Triple-check. Quadruple-check.

Many people my age (late teens to early twenties) seem to be lacking certainty, but many others aren't. It could be said that some are too sure of themselves and those they think are reputable. That's another thing. Just because someone has passed your inspection before, doesn't mean that they are necessarily telling you the truth again.

Just because something has always been done in a particular way, it doesn't mean that that way will persist forever.

Also... just use your best judgement. Be especially careful before you retweet or share a post, because you don't want to spread disinformation, and you don't want to ruin your credibility. Unless of course, you are trying to bring someone else down with you too in your pursuit of the third option.

I would urge you though, to pursue the best argument you can whenever you can. It might not always seem like it is worth it, but for every unpopular tiny little blog post that tries to support truth over lies... an angel gets its wings.

And that's a FACT.