The confirmation bias that prevents us from thinking

When the pioneers shaped the Internet, they may have had in mind the founding of the new Library of Alexandria. A place where knowledge would be gathered and stored. A digital wonderland accessible to all, and a digital agora for communicating and connecting.

Today, however, they are more bitter about their creation. British engineer Tim Berners-Lee, considered one of the founding fathers of the Web, is apprehensive about the network. In a powerful text published in the Guardian in March 2017, he denounced the hijacking of the Internet by states to spy on citizens, through political targeting by advertisers and, above all, the proliferation of fake news. This last trend is in fact totally opposed to what he was trying to do.

The news of 2016 and 2017 have accentuated the spread of "infaux". With acrimonious presidential campaigns in the US and France, the climate was ripe for all sides to shout nonsense at each other. We've covered the issue of fake news at length, and the importance of separating the wheat from the chaff on the Internet. One important question remains: "How did we come to 'set fire' to the Internet's digital library and corrupt it with loads of misinformation? What if the last few years were a sign that, especially for the younger generations, we need to teach them the most difficult intellectual effort there is?

A difficult bias to overcome

The question is: have we all become idiots, ready to believe anything on the Internet? Many of us would say "no", that we're not gullible! And yet, according to experts who have been studying these issues for a number of years, we have nothing to boast about. Italian researchers analyzed millions of their fellow citizens' data between September 2012 and February 2013, a period during which the country was in the midst of an election campaign. Walter Quattrociocchi's team realized that Italy was no exception to the phenomenon of misinformation on social networks.

They came up with three explanations.

• The first is that the country, like France, has a majority of functional illiterates, i.e. people who can technically read, but have little or no understanding of the content of a text.
• The second is linked to major changes in the way information is distributed. Today, Facebook and Twitter allow us to share information that hasn't had to go through any filtering process before being disseminated. No more exasperating editors or reading committees to prevent the publication of falsehoods; an article on a blog, for example, is published immediately.
• Finally, and probably one of the most important factors, comes confirmation bias. In fact, the human mind is shaped in such a way that an Internet user will choose the information that corresponds to his or her deepest ideas and ignore the rest. As a result, it's very difficult for them to admit they're wrong, or to read information that invalidates this thinking without becoming enraged. Add to all this a generalized distrust of everyone (from elites to scientists, journalists and politicians) and you have a perfect cocktail of online misinformation.
  

Sociology professor Gérald Bronner, who wrote the book "La démocratie des crédules" (The Democracy of the Gullible), explains confirmation bias with an example in this interview. Suppose we showed part of Thot's readership the side of a pyramid painted orange. If we asked them what color the complete figure was, they'd probably answer orange. Yet if, in the same exercise, another group looks at a green face, they'll tell you it's a magnificent pyramid with emerald hues. What if the truth is that all four surfaces are different colors? They'd have to look at it from every angle to admit their mistake.

In Bronner's example, recognizing the blunder is not so difficult. But when it comes to deeply held beliefs, the brain isn't ready. American cartoonist Matthew Inman, known for his humor site The Oatmeal, composed a long and interesting comic strip on this in the summer of 2017.

Those uncomfortable with the language of Shakespeare can read this post from Le Démotivateur, which takes up the same type of exercise. That is, showing banal facts and then others that are more likely to shock (touching on subjects such as Nazism, slavery, communism or capitalism) and comparing the effects of the different facts and why the latter provoke indignation or anger?

As these two pages explain, this is the "backfire" effect. The brain will perceive this information with the amygdala, the same part of the brain that reacts to frightening stimuli such as a tornado racing towards a person or a bear about to attack. Even if these are credible, verifiable facts, it will reject them and even immediately look for an article or status on social networks that contradicts them.

Practicing confrontation

Strictly speaking, there are no magic solutions to counter the effect of confirmation bias. Nevertheless, understanding this phenomenon is already a first step. It helps explain why we and our fellow human beings cling fiercely to our ideas. Then, the next step out of this negative approach would be to apply the conclusion of Matthew Inman's comic strip. Learn to settle down, silence the sense of aggression we feel inside, and listen to the other side without immediately wanting to retaliate.

So, watchers would do well to adopt this posture and get out of their informational bubble to observe what is being said elsewhere and avoid feeding their confirmation bias. This doesn't mean approving, but at least understanding what others are trying to say. The YouTube channel horizon-gull , which has made a video on the ultimate attribution error (another cognitive blunder similar to confirmation bias), also suggests putting oneself in the position of observer and being able to see the weaknesses and biases of one's camp before reproaching those of others.

Listening rather than hearing

However, this requires extremely difficult self-education. The brain reacts almost instinctively to protect its fundamental beliefs. The University of Peace explained well the psychological processes that block the admission of error or the denial of the other's arguments in a text published in the summer of 2017. To counter these internal blocks, you need to reframe your point of view, i.e. accept that you're wrong, that you've believed false information. It also means understanding that never wanting to change one's mind is not proof of strength of character, contrary to what is conveyed by the media or certain people. Finally, individuals need to rationalize their beliefs and write down the effects counter-arguments have on them, in order to understand why they create pain, make them so angry, and so on.

If this intellectual and psychological work is necessary for adults, what about young people? For UNESCO, this is a serious matter, and it's becoming important for there to be solid media and information education (MIE) courses all over the world.

This means reminding the youngest users of the Internet that not everything on the Internet is the pure truth. In Gérald Bronner's view, we need to go even further , and talk to young people as soon as possible about the cognitive biases of confirmation and attribution, the "backfire" effect and so on. By understanding them, they can become more aware of these phenomena in themselves and others. This could perhaps lead to more civilized debates in the coming years and decades. We could really use it.

Illustration: Free For Commercial Use (FFC) Angry Head Emojis via photopin

References

Charnay, Amélie. "For Tim Berners-Lee, its creator, misinformation threatens the web." 01net. Last updated: March 13, 2017. http://www.01net.com/actualites/pour-tim-berners-lee-son-createur-la-desinformation-menace-le-web-1120698.html.

Chiron, Bruno. "Information age or age of gullibility?" Bla Bla Blog. Last updated: January 29, 2017. http://www.bla-bla-blog.com/archive/2017/01/29/ere-de-l-information-ou-ere-de-la-credulite%C2%A0-5904852.html.

Hirschorn, Monique. "Conversation with Gérald Bronner: It's not post-truth that threatens us, but the extension of our credulity." The Conversation. Last updated February 19, 2017. https://theconversation.com/conversation-avec-gerald-bronner-ce-nest-pas-la-post-verite-qui-nous-menace-mais-lextension-de-notre-credulite-73089.

Lecomte, Julien. "'I don't accept being wrong'. A belief-based approach." Université De Paix Asbl. Last updated: August 11, 2017. http://www.universitedepaix.org/je-naccepte-pas-davoir-tort.

"When plausible trumps true." Le 15-18 | ICI Radio-Canada.ca Première. Last updated: March^1, 2017. http://ici.radio-canada.ca/premiere/emissions/le-15-18/segments/entrevue/17403/fausses-nouvelles-post-verite-sociologue-gerald-bronner.

Texier, Bruno. "Veilleurs, sortirz de votre bulle informationnelle!" Archimag. Last updated March 23, 2017. http://www.archimag.com/veille-documentation/2017/03/23/veilleurs-sortez-bulle-informationnelle.

Weber, Nathan. "That's why, no matter how many facts and rational evidence contradict your deeply held opinions, you'll never accept them." Demotivateur.fr. Last updated May 5, 2017. http://www.demotivateur.fr/article/voila-pourquoi-qu-importent-tous-les-faits-et-les-preuves-rationnelles-qui-contredisent-vos-opinions-profondes-vous-ne-les-accepterez-jamais-9868.

Oatmeal - Believe - To believe or not to believe
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe