Posts Tagged ‘agnogenesis’

Ann Applebaum’s Column on Facebook

December 14, 2015

The title of her column was Undoing Facebook’s damage.  Anyone who has read any of my sixteen previous posts about Facebook should be aware that I am not a fan.  However, I must applaud Mark Zukerberg and his wife on their pledge to give away $45 billion dollars.  Nevertheless, I also applaud Anne Applebaum for her column.  Here is her advice “…use it to undo the terrible damage done by Facebook and other forms of social media to democratic debate and civilized discussion all over the world.”  She goes on to say that weak democracies suffer the most.  Given the extensive damage done in the USA, that is an extraordinary amount of damage.  Just let me cite one example, the conversion of Moslems to radical jihadism.  This is a problem most acutely felt by Moslems, in general, and by the parents of those converted, in particular.

Of course, this was not Zukerberg’s intention. Rather it is an unintended and rather extreme consequence.   Applebaum goes on to write, “The longer-term impact of disinformation is profound:  Eventually it means that nobody believes anything.”

Readers of the healthy memory blog should be aware that it is extremely difficult to disabuse people of their false beliefs.  Moreover there are organizations who produce false information.   This has become an activity with its own name, agnogenesis.

So an activity is needed to counter agnognesis. Disagnogensis?  Please help, Mr. Zukerberg.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Persistence of False Beliefs

January 8, 2014

While perusing my copy of the May/June 2013 of the Ohio State Alumni Magazine, I found an interesting article on page 24, “False beliefs persist despite facts.” It reported some interesting research by R. Kelly Garrett and Brian Weeks of the Communications Department. They conducted a study with a diverse group of participants from across the country. The experiment was designed to study reactions to inaccurate statements made in a political blog about electronic health records. The political blog was written by the experimenters. All experimental participants read the same blog, but they were divided into three groups. One group received a statement saying that a fact checking organization, Factcheck.org (a genuine website) had found errors and posted a correction at the bottom of the page. A second group performed an unrelated three-minute task after reading the blog post and then saw the same correction as the first group. The third group did not receive a correction. After the experiment all the participants were asked how difficult it would be for several groups to access electronic health records. Those who received the immediate correction were slightly more likely to answer accurately than those who received the delayed correction. Those who received no correction were the least accurate.

The more interesting results came when the researchers analyzed who was influenced by each type of presentation. For those who at the beginning of the experiment indicated that they supported electronic health care records it is not surprising that the real-time correction worked well. However, for those who opposed the records to begin with, the correction had virtually no effect. Unfortunately, it is difficult to disabuse people of their incorrect beliefs. Moreover, there are organizations who produce false information. This has become an activity with its own name, agnogenesis.

For earlier healthymemory blog posts on this important, but difficult topic, “Misinformation,” “The Origins of Misinformation,” “Cognitive Processing of Misinformation,” and “Solutions and Good Practices for Misinformation.”

I also urge readers to make active use of FactCheck.org.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

More on Avoiding Collapse

March 3, 2013

Preceding posts have been on Costa’s The Watchman’s Rattle: A Radical New Theory of Collapse. The immediately preceding post has been on Insight, a cognitive capability that Costa believes could prevent collapse. This post expands on that theme. Insight is closely related to creativity, and there have been many healthymemory blog posts on creativity (just enter creativity into the Search Box on the healthymemory blog).

The central thesis of Costa’s The Watchman’s Rattle: A Radical New Theory of Collapse is that societies collapse as a result of beliefs not keeping up with facts. She writes of five supermemes that threaten civilization. They are: Irrational Opposition, The Personalization of Blame, Counterfeit Correlation, Silo Thinking, and Extreme Economics. These supermemes result in defective cognitive processes and unhealthy memories. We need to be aware of them in both ourselves and others. When appropriate, challenge others you find fostering these supermemes. The reality is that the solutions to the vast majority of our problems exist, but these supermemes operate to prevent their implementation.

These supermemes are types of unhealthy memories. And they are unhealthy memories that threaten civilization. They need to be stamped out.

Transactive memory is one of the major topics of the healthymemory blog. There are two types of transactive memory. One is technological, and includes conventional technology, paper publications, and modern technology of electronic publication and communication. Many of the solutions can be found there as well as the technology for collaborations and discussions that lead to these solutions. Our rapidly changing and increasingly complex societies requires collaboration and team efforts to reach solution. Social interactions are important to maintaining a healthy memory, and interactions among many, many healthy memories are what is needed not only for our civilization to survive, but also for our species to survive.

In addition to the supermemes, one of the risks is the amount of misinformation that is available. What is particularly alarming is that there is ample evidence of concerted efforts by vested interests to disseminate misinformation (See the healthymemory blog post, “The Origins of Misinformation). This willful manufacture of mistaken beliefs has earned its own term, “agnogenesis.” The comic strip Doonesbury introduced an online service, myFacts, that would provide you with facts that would support anything you believed or wanted to support. Although Doonesbury is a comic strip it is portraying a parody of an underlying reality. One needs to be on the alert for these efforts.

There is an increasing realization that being cognitively active is important not only to reduce or preclude the effects of dementia as we age, but also to allow us to participate effectively in our complex society. Costa writes of businesses, analogous to gyms and health centers designed for our bodies, that are set up like exercise facilities, but the exercises and workouts are designed to sharpen our minds. The digital brain health market is expanding at a rapid rate. Just enter “Healthy Memory” into a search site such as duckduckgo.com to find a wealth of resources (enter Healthy Memory Blog to find the current blog). Brain fitness will also return a wealth of sites. Many of these sites are commercial, but others are free. Readers who have found worthwhile sites are encouraged to enter these sites and their reviews as comments to this post.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Origins of Misinformation

October 8, 2012

The immediately preceding post introduced the problem of misinformation. This post discusses the origins of misinformation. The sources discussed here are rumors and fiction, government and politicians, vested interests, and the media. This post, as was the preceding post and the next post, draws heavily on a review article in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.1

Although the believability of information is one factor determining the propagation of information, there is a strong preference to pass information that will invoke an emotional response in the recipient, regardless of the truth value of the information. People also extract information from fictional sources, both in literature, the movies, and the theater arts. People rely on misinformation acquired from clearly fictitious stories to respond to quiz question even when the misinformation contradicted common knowledge and when people where aware that the source was fictional.2 These effects of fictional misinformation are difficult to correct. Prior warnings were ineffective in reducing the acquisition of misinformation from fiction, and that misinformation was reduced, but not eliminated only when participants were instructed to actively monitor the contents they were reading and to press a key whenever they encountered a piece of misinformation.3 Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear misrepresented the science of global change yet was introduced as “scientific” evidence into a U.S. Senate committee.

Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, U.S. Government officials proclaimed that there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Bush administration also juxtaposed Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the frontline in the “War on Terror.” Moreover, it implied that it had intelligence linking Iraq to al–Qaida. All of this turned out to be misinformation, yet large segments of the American public continued to believe these claims. Moreover, 20% to 30% believed that WMDs had actually been discovered in Iraq after the invasion and about half the public believed in the links between Iraq and al–Qaeda.

In the political arena Sarah Palin made the claim that Obama’s health care plan had provisions for “death panels.” In five weeks 86% of American had heard this claim and half either believed this myth or were uncertain as to its veracity. Although the public is aware of politically motivated misinformation, particularly during election campaigns, they are poor in identifying specific instances of misinformation, being unable to distinguish between false and correct information.

There is also ample evidence of concerted efforts by vested interests to disseminate misinformation. This willful manufacture of mistaken beliefs has earned its own term, “agnogenesis.” In 2006 a U.S. Federal Court ruled that cigarette manufacturers were guilty of conspiring to deny, distort, and minimize the effects of cigarette smoking. In the early 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association, and The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) drafted and promoted campaigns to case doubt on the science of climate change. These industry groups have formed alliances with conservative think tanks, using a handful of scientist as spokesmen. More than 90% of books published between 1972 and 2005 that expressed skepticism about environmental issues have been linked to conservative think tanks. This review is hardly exhaustive and supplies only a hint of the magnitude of this type of misinformation.

The media, defined roughly as print newspapers and magazines, radio, TV, and the internet are also a source of misinformation. There are a variety of factors at play here. Journalists with weak backgrounds in the subjects they are addressing can oversimplify the topic they are addressing. There is also a strong motivation to sensationalize their stories. Sometimes, in an effort to be fair and balanced, they can be misleading. For example, an overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of actively publishing climate scientists agree on the fundamental fact that the globe is warming and that this warming is due to greenhouse-gas emissions caused by humans. Yet, the media, in an attempt to be even-handed will give equal time to individuals, often without appropriate backgrounds, who hold a contrary view. Consequently, the public misses the relative weighting of opinion among knowledgeable scientists.

There are also differences among media outlets as to how much misinformation they disseminate. Research4 has shown that the level of belief in misinformation among segments of the public varies according to preferred news outlets. The continuum runs from Fox News (whose viewers are the most misinformed on most issues) to National Public Radio (whose listeners are the least misinformed overall).

This blog has argued that the internet is not the cause of misinformation, but merely the means of communicating misinformation. A good argument can be made that this is not entirely true. There is a phenomenon known as selective exposure that can produce fractionation. Blogs and other social media tend to link to blogs and social media having similar viewpoints and to exclude opposing views. This can lead to “cyber-ghettos.” It is likely that this bears some responsibility for extreme divergent views in the political arena and an unwillingness to compromise or negotiate.

1Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U.K.H., Seifert, C.M., , Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131.

2Marsh, E.J., Mease, M.L., & Roediger, H.L. III. (2003). Learning Fact from Fiction. Memory & Cognition, 49, 519-536.

3Marsh, E.J., & Fazio, L.K. (2006). Learning Errors from Fiction: Difficulties in Reducing Reliance on Fictional Sources. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1140-1149.

4For example Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 569-598.

© Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and healthymemory.wordpress.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.