In a world where the Internet allows us all to find out about almost any topic in just a few seconds, we have been seeing a particular trend that has been around for a long time. Unfortunately, it is not the trend towards comprehensive information gathering, but rather the opposite. It's about the selective intake of information and its impact on society. This development has serious implications for the way we learn and discuss.
The trend is: opinions versus facts. There is an increasing tendency to question experts who present objective data and facts. The antagonists are often “normal” Internet users (preferably from YouTube University or the School of Life) who counter with collected and sometimes unrelated online sources. An example is the discussion about climate data, as shown at the beginning of the quoted tweet. Experts post precisely measured temperatures, but these facts are questioned by Internet users. They present randomly selected weather forecasts from various weather apps as “evidence”.
The selective intake of information
The core of this problem is the phenomenon of selective information intake. People tend to only accept information that supports their existing beliefs and ignore all others. It's a human impulse known in psychology as "confirmation bias." This error causes people to reinterpret or distort facts to fit their worldview.
Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance play an important role in this problem. Cognitive dissonance describes the internal conflict that people feel when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs. They try to resolve this conflict by rejecting the new information and instead focusing on confirming information.
Whether climate change, coronavirus or energy transition. Anything that doesn't fit into your own world view or seems uncomfortable is rejected. Even if the experts speak clearly, there will always be some absurd online source that serves one's own sensitivities. The seriousness of this source is then no longer questioned. Why should they, because their own convictions were not self-critically assessed.
Impact on society
The consequences of the phenomenon described go far beyond individual Internet discussions and influence our society in many different ways. But we should be clear that not only the rejection of expertise, but also the way people absorb and interpret information is central. If we want to move forward as a society, we shouldn't turn a blind eye just because a situation is uncomfortable.
Especially on the Internet, where we are constantly surrounded by a flood of information, our ability to select and interpret information plays a crucial role. However, if we tend to only pick up on the information that confirms our existing beliefs and ignore all others, this leads to increasing polarization. As a result, we radicalize ourselves in more or less self-created “echo chambers” or “filter bubbles” in which they only hear opinions and views that reflect their own. Social media algorithms increase the selective intake of information.
This is not only problematic because it impoverishes public discourse and makes it more difficult for common levels of discussion and consensus to emerge. It can also lead to people making wrong decisions because they are based on distorted or incomplete information. Whether they are individual decisions in everyday life, such as those relating to health and finances, or collective political decisions, the quality of our decisions depends largely on the quality of the information on which they are based.
Selective intake of information creates mistrust!
Furthermore, this selective intake of information can also lead to distrust and hostility. When people only operate within their own information bubble, they may begin to distrust or even fight those who present different information or hold different views. This undermines social cohesion and the ability for constructive discussion and collaboration. Especially when phantom discussions arise or political opponents are accused of doing things that they have not done and do not want to do.
Yes, selective information intake is a deeper problem. It is not a new trend that influences our society in many ways - from the quality of our decisions to the quality of public discourse to social cohesion.
We somehow have to find a better way to deal with information and knowledge in the long term. Education and media literacy are key to solving this problem. Improved media education could help teach people how to view information critically rather than simply accepting it. Especially when experts present a consensus that I as an individual don't like. It's not enough to cling to your own position with the help of a grotesque internet source.
Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )