Has unlimited information made us dumber?
Introduction to Information Age
Human beings have always craved for knowledge. Knowledge and its preservation was at the heart of civilisation for many societies. Different civilisations left their mark in history by virtue of the developments that erupted out of the knowledge they acquired. Languages, agriculture, architecture and clothing, to name a few, act as testimonies to the knowledge developed in a civilisation.
This knowledge acquired by various civilisations have a unique property as well: unlike other species, human beings have the great ability to preserve their knowledge and transfer it to the next generation. In fact, this transfer of information is what gave birth to the existence of civilisations in the first place. Imagine if every generation of people had to develop its own information that could not be transferred to other generations. Contemplate where would we be if our ancestors left no mark of their knowledge to us. Wouldn’t we still be trying to figure out how to make fire from rubbing stones? Would it be possible that we would transport hundreds of people in sky inside a vehicle weighing thousands of kilograms at a speed of more than six hundred miles per hour?
The answer is no. It is therefore important for one to appreciate the great blessing of knowledge that Allah has blessed the mankind with in this world. It is not merely information that is integral to us, rather the preservation and transfer of information is a primary requirement for the survival of our species. However, preservation of knowledge is not an easy task. As much as knowledge has enlightened us, knowledge also has the potential for evil. The discovery of atomic bombs and weapons of mass destruction show us that knowledge by itself is not enough. Divine guidance is necessary to properly channel knowledge for the betterment of our species and others.
Who should read this Blogpost?
- This blogpost is suitable for all people who surf in the Internet.
Who Has Access To Knowledge?
One of the ways to ensure that information is utilised in the proper way is by keeping in check who gets access to the information. Not all people are competent for all the information in the world. We do not have the ability to decode any kind of information unless we have an expertise on it. Nor is all information necessarily useful to us. For example, the information on a CT scan report is decoded by and is of massive use for a radiologist or physician but a common layman fails to understand the medical jargon used in such reports. Hence, regulation of access of knowledge is an essential practice to be done to curb ignorance.
But in the world of Internet, do we regulate the knowledge that is circulated via World Wide Web? In fact, how much information does an individual possess in his or her hands now? Seven centuries ago, the Library of Alexandria was the “brain and heart of ancient world” as described by astrophysicist Carl Sagan. However, the information available today in our smartphones with the development of internet surpasses the knowledge present inside the entire Library of Alexandria.
I Am An Expert, Everyone Is : The birth of Illusory Expertise
Yet despite the presence of such enormous volume of information within the reach of a click, there is however little to no regulation of who can access this information. What is the consequence of availability of unregulated, unlimited supply of information to a layperson in today’s “Information Age” (A term that is perfectly coined)?
One of the impacts of such an unlimited supply of information is the illusory confidence that is incorporated into the common man. Internet provides a platform that allows lay people to mimic intellectual accomplishment and expertise on areas where they are incompetent. The limitless supply of facts at hand makes those on the internet believe that they are now an expert. They indulge in conversations that are supposed to be meant specifically for experts. This kind of behaviour is very much prevalent on social media where everyone shares their two cents of opinion on virtually every single matter: be it Why Russia invades Ukraine or How To Raise Your Child. This easy journey to expertise has created a culture wherein expert opinions are devalued and communications between experts and layperson have become challenging.
David Dunning rightly stated on his article, “We Are All Confident Idiots”: The way we traditionally conceive of ignorance as an absence of knowledge leads us to think of education as it’s natural antidote. But education can produce illusory confidence.
The study conducted by Daniel Kahan on 2006 about public perception of nanotechnology teaches us about illusory expertise. Ignorance about nanotechnology did not stop people from giving their opinions. Initially, the opinions received were all over the place. But when these people were given a brief two paragraph description of pros and cons of nanotechnology, their opinions where shaped based on their beliefs. They gave an opinion that fitted with their worldview.
Everyone Has The “Freedom To Express” On Internet
Before we move further, let’s clarify something. One may rightly ask: What is the problem with freedom of expression? Don’t people have the right to express themselves on Internet ? Well, one might expect a straight forward yes. However, answers are not always a simple yes or no. One starts to think about how much freedom should actually be allowed in the world of internet when one realises Sturgeon’s Law.
Theodore Sturgeon was a science-fiction writer who said that “Ninety percent of everything is crap”. Whether it is art, literature or sports, he believed that ninety percent of all content was of low quality. However, the real dilemma arises when one enters the World of Internet. There are over 1.7 billion websites on the Internet. That adds up to 1.5 billion websites of low quality. But why should this bother freedom of expression on internet? After all, this applies to everything and people continue to prefer the top 1% in all fields: Be it arts or sports. Why should Sturgeon’s Law have any face value when it comes to Internet?
One of the consequences of “freedom of expression” on Internet is the production of awful and false information on a massive scale. This is particularly significant when it comes to serious matters such as world politics or development of propagandas and conspiracy theories. The Internet provides an arena where in false information and ideas formed on half-baked thinking can be flooded into the public masses. Even worse is the fact that these ideas and information are projected as “research work”or classified as “expert opinion” rather than their true nature. This provides a fertile growth medium for the development of random bloggers and influencers whose opinion has more worth on a public space than an expert or researcher. Moreover, Internet provides these people with everything they desire: money, popularity and ultimately power in the public space.
The lack of regulation of content of Internet further fuels the issue. When no one really regulates the content, the content gets driven by marketing, politics and propagandas. Rather than providing the truth to the people, Internet is exploited by those who play big to control the mindset of people. This is why conspiracy theorists and entertainers are more valued than public intellectuals and experts even on matters of war and peace. As Tom Nicholas rightly points out: “Can fifty million Elvis fans be wrong? Yes, they can!”. What more would make the general public ignorant on a large scale?
Public Discussion: Everyone Talking To Everyone Else Is Not A Good Idea
Yes, you read that right. Everyone talking to everyone else is not a good idea in reality. Especially when the information in internet is unregulated. While one may argue that Internet has enabled the common man to reach out to and even interact with great people, (something which wouldn’t have been possible last century) the Internet also allows the influx of thousands of other incompetent, ignorant individuals who are within the distance of a click. And guess what? The number of such individuals outnumber the number of “great people” (just like what Sturgeon’s Law teaches us) by far. You are more likely to encounter an Instagram lifestyle blogger who speaks about mental health than an actual psychiatrist or clinical psychologist on Internet.
The adverse effects of existence of a large volume of people on the internet producing low quality and often false content becomes widely visible on public discussions. Public discussions serve a purpose: they are meant to transfer information between individuals on various topics so as to rule out confirmation bias and learn new things. But Internet has changed the game. The availability of mass, unregulated content on any topic instilled a sense of delusional expertise on the common man as we discussed earlier. The moment one enters a discussion with the mindset of an “expert”, (rather than that of a “learner”) it is difficult to exchange knowledge.
Such people use the public discussions to conform their views rather than seek the truth. In other words, such people use the Internet to confirm their ignorance. And when the existence of “such people” becomes huge and a majority, intellectual discussions come to a halt. Ignorance becomes the norm. Falsehood overtakes the truth. The ability to think and reflect will be lost. Instantaneous information makes people vulnerable to feelings or emotions rather than logic or reasoning.
Anyone who ponders about the current state of Internet will quickly realize these effects on the public space. The generation before us had limited access to information. There was limited knowledge available to exert illusory expertise. Moreover, there was no free flow of information. This made regulation easier. When information becomes unregulated, both bad and good information will be available. However, only one of them will flourish and get flooded on the Internet. Which one gets flooded will be decided by propaganda, marketing and politics.
Let’s read the following excerpt from Caitlin Dewey’s Washington Post “What’s Fake on Internet This Week”:
Walter Quattrociocchi — the head of the Laboratory of Computational Social Science at IMT Lucca — and a team of seven other researchers studied how two groups of U.S. Facebook users interacted with news on the site. One group was comprised of people who interact with reputable science pages. (Those are the ones who presumably have a level of news literacy.) The other group was made of people who like far-out conspiracy pages — anti-vaxxers, Illuminati-watchers, that kind of thing.
They quickly came to two conclusions about the conspiracy and non-conspiracy groups. First off: They didn’t overlap at all, which means the misinformed, as we’ll politely call them, were unlikely to ever see the truth. And second, when the conspiracy group did encounter “debunking” information, it didn’t change their mind. In fact, it just made them more resolute: After encountering a post that challenged a conspiracy theory, theorists tend to like and comment on pages about that theory even more. Facebook and Twitter have created a direct path of content from producers to consumers, changing the way users become informed, debate ideas, and shape their worldviews,” Quattrociocchi writes. “This scenario might foster confusion about causations regarding global and social issues and thus encourage paranoia based on false rumors.”
Kahan also came up with a similar conclusion on his study on perception of nanotechnology. If two paragraphs of text are enough to send people on a glide path to polarization, simply giving members of the public more information probably won’t help them arrive at a shared, neutral understanding of the facts; it will just reinforce their biased views.
Conclusion
Tom Nicholas states on his book, “The Death of Expertise”:
Internet is making us meaner, shorter-fused, and incapable of conducting discussions where anyone learns anything. The major problem with instantaneous communication is that it’s instantaneous. The Internet is an arena in which people can react without thinking, and thus in turn they become invested in defending their gut reactions rather than accepting new information or admitting a mistake.
David Dunning quotes in his article “We Are All Confident Idiots”:
In many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.
To know more about how internet has affected the way we read and think, see our next post on “Has Internet changed the way we read, learn, think and discuss?”.