Seems very both-sidesy even after you take into account Drutman's thesis. You can talk about all manner of fancy concepts like “confirmation bias” and “motivated reasoning” but is there really anything to this analysis beyond saying people are often biased and biased people inevitably handle information in biased ways? Thanks, but we already knew that.
And why do we have to choose between demand and supply side analysis at all? Isn’t it necessary to do both? Isn’t that like saying the passing game in the NFL is all about the quality of receivers and you should just ignore the quality of quarterbacks?
The more I've thought about it, the more I feel that, if fake/manufactured news stories on Facebook really were enough to move the needle in 2016, or could be enough for any future election, then I am FAR more worried about the American public than I am about any foreign bad actor. If we're susceptible to that sort of crap, then it's on us.
Much to unpack here, Lee, but what struck me most as I read through the entire article is the lack of curiosity (on your part? on the part of the academics you cite?) about the evolution of human psychology that drives the demand side here. For instance, the excerpt you conclude the essay with says, “'To understand misinformation, and ultimately counter it, we must better understand its drivers.' Affective polarization, one of the strongest factors for misinformation sharing, is fed—at least in part—by the incentive structure of oppositional politics.” But isn't that just a big tautology?
Having spent many years of my life researching the underlying psychology--both individual and collective--I've come to understand that there really isn't a whole lot anyone can do to create significant shifts in our internal worlds. Gradual seems to be the only possibility. All utopian thinking--and the evils always derived from taking it seriously--derive from the misplaced belief that one can force people to change our psychology, one way or another.
Well, you can't. We simply don't work that way.
But trying to deal with the deep, mysterious currents of human consciousness is too frustrating for most of us, so we focus instead on externalities, overlooking, as this article does, that all externalities are generated by our internalities.
I give you credit for at least acknowledging this. For instance, you write, "We didn’t evolve what we call reason to pursue the truth. We evolved it to get along with each other." I'm not sure that's true, but it does imply that the source of our behavior toward one another results from internal drivers. There, I believe, is the gold you are seeking.
If you haven’t, check out Ben Thompson over at Stratechery. His theory on the Internet is that because marginal cost of distribution and marginal cost of production of digital good are both zero, on the Internet, it’s all about demand. That’s crucially different from the physical world when those numbers weren’t zero and so it made more sense to focus on supply. Feels very similar to the arguments you’re making here.
Seems very both-sidesy even after you take into account Drutman's thesis. You can talk about all manner of fancy concepts like “confirmation bias” and “motivated reasoning” but is there really anything to this analysis beyond saying people are often biased and biased people inevitably handle information in biased ways? Thanks, but we already knew that.
And why do we have to choose between demand and supply side analysis at all? Isn’t it necessary to do both? Isn’t that like saying the passing game in the NFL is all about the quality of receivers and you should just ignore the quality of quarterbacks?
The more I've thought about it, the more I feel that, if fake/manufactured news stories on Facebook really were enough to move the needle in 2016, or could be enough for any future election, then I am FAR more worried about the American public than I am about any foreign bad actor. If we're susceptible to that sort of crap, then it's on us.
Great article.
Much to unpack here, Lee, but what struck me most as I read through the entire article is the lack of curiosity (on your part? on the part of the academics you cite?) about the evolution of human psychology that drives the demand side here. For instance, the excerpt you conclude the essay with says, “'To understand misinformation, and ultimately counter it, we must better understand its drivers.' Affective polarization, one of the strongest factors for misinformation sharing, is fed—at least in part—by the incentive structure of oppositional politics.” But isn't that just a big tautology?
Having spent many years of my life researching the underlying psychology--both individual and collective--I've come to understand that there really isn't a whole lot anyone can do to create significant shifts in our internal worlds. Gradual seems to be the only possibility. All utopian thinking--and the evils always derived from taking it seriously--derive from the misplaced belief that one can force people to change our psychology, one way or another.
Well, you can't. We simply don't work that way.
But trying to deal with the deep, mysterious currents of human consciousness is too frustrating for most of us, so we focus instead on externalities, overlooking, as this article does, that all externalities are generated by our internalities.
I give you credit for at least acknowledging this. For instance, you write, "We didn’t evolve what we call reason to pursue the truth. We evolved it to get along with each other." I'm not sure that's true, but it does imply that the source of our behavior toward one another results from internal drivers. There, I believe, is the gold you are seeking.
If you haven’t, check out Ben Thompson over at Stratechery. His theory on the Internet is that because marginal cost of distribution and marginal cost of production of digital good are both zero, on the Internet, it’s all about demand. That’s crucially different from the physical world when those numbers weren’t zero and so it made more sense to focus on supply. Feels very similar to the arguments you’re making here.