There have been many complex societal issues brought to a boil in recent years, though this is nothing new. There is one that connects and exacerbates them all; our ability to spread information has vastly outpaced our ability to utilize it properly. Information was once formally funneled through limited sources over time, through several layers of filtration. Currently, this practice has been arguably superseded by large platforms where every individual can and does act as an information node.
The upside:
Individuals have more capability to get their own message out. Information can be spread from the farthest reaches of the world across populations with incredible speed allowing for the truth of a situation to reach the masses quickly.
Several movements like Me Too and Black Lives Matter are two such examples where social media has helped to contribute to awareness and activism in order to hopefully affect positive change. These movements could not have spread as effectively without current technology. The collective speed and empathy of large groups of people, many of which were able to speak out because of their safety within the group is a testament to the positive side of this technology.
In this vein, we do not have to be fed one perspective from the established system. Rather we can be fed narratives that would otherwise be swept up in the carefully manicured narrative that is delivered through outlets that can be and are often influenced by financial or political agenda. By allowing the narrative of the individual to surface unfiltered it bypasses many of these former power structures. This on its surface level is a positive thing as it acts as a check to those former sole sources and sheds a light on many things that have until now been swept under the carpet.
The downside:
The ability of information to spread quickly has outpaced our ability to absorb, refine, contend with, and contain information. In the same way that relevant, socially valuable, and truthful information can spread quickly, so too can information of lower quality, untruths, and misinformation. Once a cat is out of the bag so to speak, there is no putting it back in.
Societal Stratification:
Society is a mixing pot of different people belonging to different overlapping groups with different individual and group agendas. The stratification of society whether or not people belong on one side or the other of an issue is largely similar (speaking in generalizations about critical thinking, empathy, and intelligence). Please note that when I refer to intelligence and critical thinking I do not refer to the level of formal education one has. I would argue that while more education could correlate with the refinement of critical thinking (so can any situation where problem-solving occurs repeatedly) in specific contexts it is more of a plausible indicator of greater breadths of knowledge in studied subject areas. In simple terms, dummies exist throughout all strata of society regardless of whether or not they received formal education. Similarly, intelligent, critically thinking people, exist in all strata as well.
Over-estimation of expertise (and a story about airplanes)
It is normal to desire to be in the know. No one likes to feel inadequate when involved in a group. Unfortunately often times a person will take the small amount that they do know (think about learning a random interesting factoid) and allow this to amplify a sense that they really do know what they’re talking about.
As an example, a given non-expert (as it relates to the topic) person may be able to describe Bernoulli’s principle which states that within a horizontal flow of fluid, points of higher fluid speed will have less pressure than points of slower fluid speed. In even simpler terms, it is the principle that makes winged flight possible and allows for the lift of an airplane due to the shape of the wing. A person may describe this or draw a diagram that adequately illustrates the effect. This person in an average group may be the only one who knows this and spreads around the knowledge that they know this. The knowledge will be impressive and seem expert in relation to their colleagues.
The same person in a group of aeronautical engineers may profess knowledge of this and enter into a conversation about airplane design. The person will quickly find that they know very little about airplane design as the more detailed conversations about friction, fluid dynamics, thermal coefficients, and many more topics come to light.
A factoid about any subject may be useful, interesting, or impressive to know but often is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
However, rather than speaking with the experts, a more realistic situation maybe this:
The same person, upon reading an article about a newly designed plane from Boeing, may share on their social media some reason why the design is flawed, stupid, genius, insane, etc. Within the context of their social media circle they are the “expert” and within the span of an hour people 6 degrees removed have become made aware of an “expert criticism” of a new airplane design and are emphatic in their group belief of an opinion from a non-expert.
The above situation can be even more apparent if the ironically dubbed “amateur expert” is in a position of influence or power. The word of the person (especially for example a celebrity or political leader) can seemingly override fact or actual expert opinion.
The cat is out of the bag
As stated once a piece of information, opinion, or otherwise is out in the open it is incredibly difficult to contend with. The original information will travel quickly; especially if the information is attached to a politically or emotionally charged topic and compounded if the information is spread through channels with heavy influence.
Countermeasures using experts from various camps on a topic may be utilized. Leveraging influencers on one side or the other of a topic to spread counter information to either correct misinformation or push an opposing view are put into effect with diminishing returns.
Diminishing returns of misinformation countermeasures:
One reason is the delivery method. The nuance of human conversation, intent, and context cannot often be succinctly packaged in the formats available for fast delivery. The long conversation and contextual knowledge, empathy, and narrative that is required to reach an understanding by multiple parties is simply put, not possible in the vacuum of social media. Long-form content, critical thinking, empathy, and real conversation are needed even if the basis for the divide was something as simple as misinformation. This is even more important within deeper, more fact-based philosophical rifts.
Another reason outside of and maybe compounded by the delivery method is groupthink. Once lines are drawn and emotional involvement occurs people dig in. At its simplest, people don’t like to be wrong. At its most complex, people are often driven to share that which they are outraged by. Any scroll through the average Facebook timeline shows this. The algorithms are set to spread, advertise and make money, and the statistics used to develop these algorithms know that they should outrage us to get the job done.
Once shared and grouped many feel the need to signal what side of an issue they stand on in order to clearly show that they are on the “right” side. Many often do this by sharing the original posting, stating their own opinions and thoughts. At best, this is heartfelt and valuable as more stories about a topic validate or invalidate something. At worst, it is a bandwagon game with virtue-signaling driven by fear of being placed outside the group and possibly ostracized.
The desire to be right, the desire to show that one is on the right side of an issue, and the desire to share one’s “expertise”, or to display that one is in the know (or rather dispel their ignorance) often times confounds an issue. Even the best of intentions fall short and are effectually shred to pieces.
All of these issues together make new information conflicting with one’s view far less effective than the original information even if it empirically disproves whatever the initial source of the conflict was. In essence, placing a correction or introducing new information no matter how valuable is never as effective as initial outrage.
The right to a platform
It is a wonderful and powerful thing that so many individuals have the ability to share their own stories, opinions, and knowledge so easily. This free flow of information keeps people connected and can at best draw people together around the world as we see that there is more in common between humans than the news, or human-made political boundaries would have one believe. The ability of the common person to espouse their thoughts alongside the news, political pundits, etc. is a far cry from the method where only a few had the capability to speak for everyone. It also acts as a check to the powers that be and a method of push back against wrongdoing.
We must think critically about this. It is important that all have a voice, and a right to speak and to be heard, and yet we must also come to grips with the fact that in each situation many may speak without actually having anything valuable to add to the conversation.
The right to the platform often leads to using the platform whether or not there is anything of value to say. The intrinsic feeling of self-worth to the individual and the feeling of belonging in certain groups can lead one to feel that they “must” speak up about an issue. This can be as benign as telling a joke or as intense as written sparring with vehement ideological opposition. Objectively everyone does have value. Objectively everyone does have the right to their opinion. In the same vein and ironically, it is not likely that everyone stating their own opinion on a topic has value (to the topic).
For example, if one were a passenger on a flight and the plane had to make an emergency landing due to a technical malfunction; it would be the charge of the flight crew, who are experts, to decide how and where that should be done. Each person on the plane would assess the information based on what they know. There may even be some amateur or off-duty pilots on board that may be able to give more insights to the problem (in some cases said passengers may even be consulted).
However, the rest of the passengers could possibly react with fear, or maybe even annoyance due to the inconvenience, and register their personal view on the spectrum of what they believe should be done.
One passenger may profess to having read about a similar case and that since they are currently safe and it is a low risk they should continue on to their final destination. Perhaps a camp of people will begin to agree with said passenger who has become vocal about their opinion.
Another passenger hears the group and contends that they read the same article and a tangential article that called the previous anecdote a lucky case and that there is a small likelihood that the mechanical failure could be catastrophic, therefore it is of the utmost urgency to land the plane as quickly as possible. A camp of passengers will fall in line with this passenger who has now become vocal.
Many will have an opinion and stay quiet. Many will not form an opinion at all. Some will simply rely on the experts.
Each is entitled to their opinion but whether or not you agreed with camp A or camp B is moot. The experts flying the plane and in communication with the radio towers and mechanical experts on the specific plane will have the final say, no matter how strongly the passengers feel about it. And this is probably a good thing in this situation and many others.
There may be some context where one of the pilots really felt like landing in one particular airport versus another and this became the point by which the choice was made. If we found out about this later each camp would then say that they were right and that the whole thing was motivated by an ulterior motive by those in power. This is at least partially relevant in this context and we can easily extrapolate this to problems of expert opinions in media and politics.
While this brings into question the issue of corruption and the downside of hierarchical structures it still must be said that most people on the plane while having an opinion, don’t have much to add to the situation. Even the most well-educated person (a brain surgeon as a generic example) may have a strong opinion but their opinion won’t mean much as it relates to the issue of the plane.
Coming back around to the point, we must think critically about this. It is important that all have a voice, and a right to speak and to be heard, and yet we must also come to grips with the fact that in each situation many may speak without actually having anything valuable to add to the conversation.
I fear that having this particular issue actually forces former media outlets to compete using the same lowball tactics that the lowest common denominator will use and thusly become more biased, emotional, easily externally influenced, and corrupted than ever before. We could argue that these outlets have always had some level of bias and corruption but some level of journalistic integrity was more likely upheld. In effect, competing with the level of noise, the signal of the original news sources has been modified.
Signal versus Noise
Everyone speaking creates noise. It is important for all to be able to do so. However, if everyone speaks up who has something to say (and everyone might) and doesn’t necessarily have something of value to say we will lose the signal and thus the important core information of whatever the actual narrative is.
This is simply put why we put radio stations on different frequencies. If all stations broadcast on the same frequency, one would not be able to pick out one real song from the cacophony.
How do we contend with all of these issues?
The question then becomes multi-faceted:
How do we contend with misinformation?
How do we contend with outright false information?
How do we contend with the speed of transmission?
How do we contend with human nature?
How do we contend with our own limits of comprehension?
How do we allow all voices to be heard while simultaneously staying locked onto the actual narrative?
The simple (conceptually, not practically) answer would be for everyone to learn critical thinking, work through full empathy, and carefully vet all information before spreading it.
One might suggest bettering education generally. Better education at its best has the ability to sharpen critical thinking skills and expand empathy. Knowledge, empathy, and critical thinking are the most effective way in which each node in a system (an individual) capable of spreading or offering insight on information can increase the quality of the individual node value.
That is to say, what is spread may be more accurate and worthwhile in a narrative. This would rely heavily on the integrity of individuals without other external means of filtration.
Perhaps a more pragmatic approach given the methods of transmission would be stricter filtration on information as well as neutral sources giving the accuracy of said information. This is beginning to happen with varying degrees of success on various platforms but was perhaps implemented too late.
Adding filters to a configuration after the fact leads to populations questioning the integrity of the filters themselves. Who decides what information is correct? Where is the line between censorship and good sense? These philosophical questions are apparent.
No matter which controls are put in place they will be questioned. The questions will often be in the nature of “Who watches the Watchmen?” to quote Allen Moore. In addition, one should venture to say that all major systems should have checks and balances to help assure their actual function performs with minimal outside interference.
Bandwidth
I believe that what we are dealing with is a question of bandwidth. The greatest genius among us cannot compete with the amount of information available and the speed at which it spreads in our day and age. We are, all of us affected by it, consciously or otherwise, and cannot hope to process whichever piece we choose to delve into, in a completely neutral manner.
Any system put in place is questionable and speaking from a time of pessimism in 2020 trust in governing institutions is tumultuous at best. Adding systems to vouch or filter the accuracy of the information in the current political climate may be a laughable idea (despite any honest intention).
Dealing with these issues one to one as humans is simple enough. Personal mediation often yields the best results when remedying misunderstandings or even serious differences. Long conversations with hard data, approached with empathy, often render results.
In groups, we often opt to do something similar in that we vote for a person who represents our interests (officially or unofficially) by proxy. They will then meet with the other party in hopes to have a similar conversation as in case one with the hopes of mediating. This can also be successful.
But what do we do as the groups get larger? When one leader cannot effectively represent all of the sub-groups within the grouping? Many of our social struggles now are related to this fact. The overarching and well-intentioned group cannot pick a concerted goal to focus their efforts on due to the nuances of the sub-group ideologies.
It has been suggested that humans are living in groups that have greatly outsized the ability to effectively represent every one’s interest. This is inferred from the idea that we were once all tribal in the sense of community. Nature seems to maintain a balance. In a simple view we can see that when a lion pride is too big, it will split and spread in order to support a more sustainable grouping.
What do we do then when we cannot have individual conversations? When the group influence is loud? When now all nodes (people) try to speak at once while speaking to both individuals and the whole group simultaneously?
The ability to listen, absorb, and react with critical thinking and empathy becomes drastically reduced. Especially in the forums where these conversations are taking place (the most publicly available vis a vis social media).
These questions are all posited with the knowledge that at this moment in time there is no clear answer.
It is the issue of bandwidth that is the critical point as we are not able to process all that is available and parse it correctly. This tells me that our capability to create noise has outpaced our ability to receive the clear signal at all.
How we’ve outpaced ourselves:
Technological Innovation
Our technological capability in the last century as a species has increased exponentially following Moore’s law. Moore’s law which dates back to 1965 states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles about every two years, though the cost of computers is halved.
This statement might not literally be true anymore. As we develop the technology further I feel that that the next leaps will be paradigm shifts as opposed to iterative improvements. Of course, computer chips will continue to become more efficient and cheaper, and faster however they will merely be improving on what already is. I liken this comparison to making the car that can go 2 miles per hour faster with less energy versus inventing teleportation. I cannot predict which innovation will leap us to that next level. Trying to imagine paradigm shifts is the stuff of science fiction (which oftentimes becomes science reality given enough time and creativity).
That being said, many including myself have always thought of Moore’s law as more of an indicator of the rate at which our technology improves overall. Over time our capabilities technologically still continue to increase at an alarming rate and while this comes with many benefits (look at that shiny new smartphone you’re looking at right now). There are major concerns about it.
Biological Development
Unlike computer chips, artificial intelligence, and even medicine, biological functions take far longer to cope with environmental changes. According to Scientific American it took approximately 30 million years for organisms to develop the capability of walking on land as an example.
The main cause of biological evolution is environmental stimuli over time causing pressure and competition for resources. Millions of years of innumerable complex multivariable equation sets for every change led to the current biological configuration for every organism in existence.
The bottom line is that comparing biological development with human technological development may as well be comparing the movement of a snail with that of a supersonic fighter jet, respectively.
The Singularity
The Singularity coined by Ray Kurzweil as described in his book of the same name has been the fodder for many a science fiction writer and philosopher. In my interpretation, I see it as a point in which technology and biology become indistinguishable from one another. It is the merger of the natural and the artificial.
As we increase the technology for prosthesis, artificial intelligence, and medicine we see a continued overlap. We’ve seen many science fiction horrors about artificial intelligence taking over and replacing us, or of killer robots seeking to dominate us.
There are many predictions about what will ultimately happen as technology progresses but I for one am in the camp that believes that there will end up being a merger of technology and biology.
We have artificial limbs that can interact with the human nervous system. Conversely, we have artificially derived plants from inorganic materials that can complete chemical photosynthesis. There are computer chips that are being built that can function from cellular division. We are getting more adept at encoding proteins and cellular engineering generally.
A human is no more than a fleshy machine with various subsystems derived to take care of the whole. Down to an atomic level, often simple positive or negative charges and space availability are what drive chemical changes. Similarly, the nervous system (and brain function) is a mixture of chemical processes controlled via electrical impulses.
In a similar fashion, computer chips use various small electrical components to funnel individual pulses of electricity through various channels. These pulses function as binary messages, which in simple terms are able to translate all instructions, language, and information into the form of ones and zeros. Every major leap in computer capability has largely occurred due to the increase in the efficiency and number of pathways the ones and zeros can take in computer chips. In other words, the bandwidth increased.
People have damage detection, a cooling system, an exhaust and waste system, a fuel system, and a security system all built-in. We are advanced vehicles with advanced computers built in. Technology seeks to augment, repair, and improve what already exists in our biology. We also invent technology that seems more like natural biology, self-repairing, self-fueling, autonomous problem-solving machines.
I’m sure the truth of our future is somewhere in the middle. We will enhance ourselves. We will make our bodies strong, stamp out disease, we will augment ourselves to far outdo our original abilities. This may start as opting to have an arm that is stronger. Maybe it means tapping into the ocular nerves and making our eyes capable of seeing farther and clearer. Eventually, it will mean how we interface our brains with technology.
How the singularity could save us:
Immediately, the implication will mean that the bandwidth limitation of how much one can communicate out and receive in will be dramatically increased. In the far-reaching implications, it may mean that we could immediately know what one person or even a whole group fully feels about a given topic and that group theoretically would understand exactly how you felt.
This would mean instant full empathy (albeit forced) both ways. One should remember that empathy doesn’t mean agreeing. It simply means having a full and honest understanding of how a view is formed. All motives and nuances would be fully digested and truth would be exactly that: truth (at least honestly perceived truth). It would be pointless to lie.
One of the great motivators of dishonesty is shame. If there were no shame because everything was out in the open, there would be no need to lie, and often times no need to hate.
We would likely start to think about things in terms of what was good for all of us (ideally) and be able to instantly determine whether it was true or not.
Why we wouldn’t let it
I believe that the singularity in the context that I described could be the best thing for the species. However, it would involve huge leaps of faith that I do not believe realistically possible. One would be that whoever created the system wouldn’t corrupt the system and use it for ulterior motives.
The other would be the level of autonomy one was giving up. There would have to block that allowed access to only certain parts of you. There would have to be a true on/off switch. People already think the government is out to track their every move. Never mind if everyone could have access to everyone else’s thoughts.
I think that trying to consider what it would be like to have a collective mind is such a far leap that people will struggle to fully grasp the implications. It would be a paradigm shift that could only be understood once it actually happened. And even then assurances would need to be made that we retained our own individual identities and freedoms.
Ironically though, people protest for their freedoms in groups. Perhaps if they could peer into each other’s minds and fully grasp their fears, they would be more likely to embrace a collective.