True Enough - Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society by Farhad Manjoo

As far back as I can remember I have always wanted to know the world. As laudable as this sounds, the pursuit of knowledge can be confounding and painful. It take a modicum of courage expose one's self to the dissonance of discovery.

From my earliest days of hunting crayfish in wonder and awe of the environment, to my technical studies of how systems work, I have been deeply affected by what we can know - and what we can't.

In this, what I hope is the second half of my life, I have a growing interest and concern for how we can know something about ourselves and about each other. Psychology, Sociology, Culture and the arc of human evolution are a most wonderful mystery to explore.

Somehow the American dream, having the right to act independently i.e. to progress one's self, transmuted into a right to hold and act on beliefs in conflict with fact. "I am the boss of me!" is the battle cry with a consequence of distorting what it means to "know" something. 

Beliefs rarely arise from independent thought, they come from indoctrination and assimilation. Family, friends, social institutions and other group associations create a physical environment and a mental "place" within which we live a life as "internal story."

We take solace in being "of" a group that "knows" what is going on. Belonging takes on the attitude of desiring inclusion and a disposition to defending the group and its positions. This process incorporates attention to and belief in the groups espoused sources of information.

The word "bias" is deceptive. It has the feel of meaning an orientation toward or away from "one" thing or another. Bias can be far more complex. Our biasing behaviors can include a level of sensitivity and depth that have no compliment.

Accepting inclusion creates an internal compulsion that informs and steers attraction and attention.

Not only do we come to accept our thoughts as a form of reality, we build stories around those thoughts in support of the overall scheme.

Indoctrination at the level of informal groups and formal institutions creates a processing filter for gathering information.

Our associations color and fuel our creativity. We are "free" to choose images and then manipulate them by perspective and rational to support our in-group meaning and purpose.

Whom ever gets to present their "detailed" perspective of an event provides the ongoing basis for interpretation. This "explaination" also creates the touchstone for conflicting views and, in essence, adds to its substantiation.

Form can be a scheme of entrapment, legitimizing content by the context of delivery. Our assumptions of the "look & feel" of an expert afford our attention and acceptance of information. Once we "accept" a "fact" we are inclined to support and defend it, but the messenger is not the message!

Memes may sustain themselves due to their productive nature. They may also be sustained because they have social binding value, even if they are not factual or pragmatic. This inertia is both productive in sustaining knowledge in a social group but counter productive when the meme is untrue or prejudicial to human rights.

Information gathering may be active or passive. When expectations of active intervention are low then hope and passive "waiting" strategies tend to be used. When environments of appear to provide "streams" of information which have a high cognitive cost to consume and interpret there is a tendency to acquire an aggregating interpreter that becomes the legitimized "trusted" source.

The number of sources and immense volume of information overwhelm the consumer. This becomes and equalizing (and dumbing) force which causes structural changes in the delivery of media. Consumers become selectively similar and "simple" in their information consumption habits as media reciprocates to satisfy markets.

Consumers exhibit satisficing behavior, accepting a minimum of information that can be rationalized as true. Their indoctrinated perceptions and their "right" to reality allow them to select and rationalize an interpretation with little or no responsibility to challenge sources or facts. 

The world we come to perceive includes a framework of ideology in sourcing channels and content. Those channels are accepted as legitimate, in part, because they have been legitimized through indoctrination and assimilation. The biases of association or likeness allows for the structuring of the individual's reality.

Knowledge is of no use unless it informs action. When there appears to be risk in the exchange of knowledge then the flow of information and its potential are throttled if not thwarted. The level of trust in and across social groups affects progress and predicts the quality of life.

Sharing information and knowledge is risky but it also has its rewards. As knowledge spreads and the potential for creative expression and interactions grow, the potential for productive actions rises. The initial cost of conveying and the anxiety bound to risk are part of "vig" you pay to play the game of growing societal progress.

As we "share" our knowledge we are also putting those accepting and acting on our information at risk. An on going question for any would be "world advisor" (which is most people opening their moths!) is: "Are you being responsible for your knowledge?" "Auditor emptor" (listener beware) may be a good attitude for your own consumption but is a poor ethic for sharing.

Building and mastering the tools of information accumulation, assimilation and dissemination are both a personal and societal responsibility. Observing your own predispositions and clarifying your values is an important starting point.