Hello! Welcome to my digital void. It’s usually just me and a handful of bots wasting their (our) energy here, but today, we’re so glad you’ve joined us. Have a seat. Kick your shoes off. Water, tea, coffee?
I’m a human, just like you (right?), and I struggle every day to navigate this digital nightmare landscape where there is too much disinformation and manipulation. I bet you feel similarly because you’re a human (right?).
Where we’re likely different is seeing that stuff pervade causes me to think about undergraduate first-year composition (FYC).
NEEEEEERRRRRRD!
No, wait. Come back. This will be interesting and useful. I promise. Cool? Cool.
For the unacquainted, first-year composition is a course all* undergraduates have to take at most (if not all) American universities. Historically, it’s a course that has taught students to write at the college level, but it is SO much more than that. It provides an opportunity for students to learn rhetoric, argumentation, research, synthesis, and other skills that are not only useful in college but also vital in our daily ability to discern and understand our reality, since so much of our reality these days is constructed by digital media and information.
I mean, we could all go outside and experience the world, but ew.
(*)The trouble is, at least in the United States, half of us don’t go to college, and of those of us who do go to college, a significant portion either AP or test out of FYC, leaving a minority of students who ever get this education, so practically, most of us never get this education at all.
That’s a problem because, while people can prepare for this nightmare age of disinformation in other ways, I firmly believe FYC contains lessons that can offer solutions. And, the reality that far too many people lack these knowledge and skills is becoming increasingly clear, especially now with generative AI hitting the propaganda/delusion/disinformation/manipulation afterburners.
Without further preamble, if you’re like me and feel confused by the digital nightmarescape at large, here are five mini-strategies I’ve adapted from FYC for everyone’s use.
1. Observe Logic, Credibility, and Emotion
In the FYC classroom, we would talk about the Rhetorical Triangle and refer to these ideas in Greek (logos, ethos, and pathos, for you nerds out there), but I think that’s unnecessary for anyone besides academics (sorry, not sorry, nerds). Suffice to say, while I’m not expecting you to care about millennias-old rhetorical ideas, I am simplifying and adapting them to make them useful to you today.
And they are useful.
Aristotle essentially broke rhetoric down into three components: text, character, and sensibilities. In these three components, we see three distinct parties emerge: the product (a text or speech), the writer or speaker, and the audience.
Today, it’s useful to think about these concepts as logic (of the text), credibility (of the writer or speaker), and emotion (of the audience). How is the logic of the argument working? How do I know the person making the argument is credible? How is this argument intended to appeal to my emotions?
Or, more simply, whenever you’re considering something you see or read online, ask yourself these three questions:
- What is the argument?
- Why should I believe the arguing party?
- What is this argument making me feel?
If you’d like to take this line of inquiry a bit further, here:
- What is this person trying to get me to understand and agree with, and does the logic portion of their message hold up when I think about it? Does everything make sense? Does anything not make sense?
- Is this source trustworthy? What makes the person delivering this message credible? What about the publication, institution, or platform on which this message is delivered? Is it credible?
- What am I feeling in response to this argument? What am I supposed to feel, or what is the intended emotional reaction? Is the writer or speaker trying to compel me into action through my emotions? Which emotions?
While this work can be a bit laborious, I firmly believe everyone can do it, and the most important part is the disruption: stopping the process of information consumption and thinking about what someone is trying to pour onto your brain. Break it down into a three-step process of evaluating the logic, credibility, and emotions.
How do you do that? Well, teaching that is probably necessary but would be wading into the deep end of the nerd pool a bit. For now, be aware of these ideas, and make sure you’re getting your information from a diverse set of sources with credibility and reputations to uphold, not a post by Carl Rando that your Great Aunt Connie shared on Facebook. Also, if some source is cutting through the logic and credibility and lunging straight for your emotions artery (if they’re trying to make you angry, scared, or ashamed, for example), it’s probably best to shut them down and do literally anything else with your time, attention, and energy.
2. Spot the Logical Fallacies
Logical fallacies are basically cliches for argumentation. They’re common for good reason (usually because they come from weaknesses baked in natural human cognition), and they are everywhere these days. My guess is a not-insubstantial part of the explanation is we aren’t wired to analyze and digest so much information. We’re just not. So, in an attempt to process it all, we’re consuming it as fast as we can shovel it into our eyeballs and earholes and making snap judgements and decisions whether to keep or disregard it. It’s a toss-up whether we’ll actually reflect on that information later because we’re likely already back standing beneath the information Niagara Falls, so we commit logical fallacies to get our gaping faces back up under there, often because it feels good or otherwise satisfies our impulses
and oh no, I went nerd again, didn’t I?
The most important thing to understand here is that logical fallacies exist. No one expects you to name them casually or have your favorite (mine’s either the Nirvana or the false dichotomy), but if you know they exist, you might start to recognize patterns in how certain kinds of logic break down.
If you want to dig a little deeper, knowing logical fallacies will help in two ways: 1. It will help you filter them while you’re out there taking all of that information to your face. 2. It will help you prevent yourself from committing them or recognize when you do.
And you will. I do all the time. We’re both humans (right?). The key will be in understanding when that happens, why it happens, and how to think yourself out of it.
There are entire books written about logical fallacies (probably, *citation needed), but I see certain ones running absolutely amok in our public discourse. Here are the ones I see most often, but if you’d like to know more (and are a total nerd, like me), check out Wikipedia or Purdue’s Online Writing Lab for lists.
The False Equivalence—Someone tries to draw a connection between two different subjects that aren’t the same. Think apples and oranges. I generally regard this one as innocent because people try to use association or simplification to make a point.
The Whataboutism—Someone tries to distract from the issue at hand by bringing up an entirely different issue that, superficially, seems related, often in an attempt to suggest hypocrisy. This fallacy ignores the fact that people are complex and can care about separate issues separately and still be consistent with their values. I generally consider this one adjacent to the Ad Hominem fallacy (see below) because of the attempt to imply hypocrisy.
The Ad Hominem—In the absence of anything of merit to argue, someone attacks the opposing party instead of their argument. This happens when a conversation goes off the rails and the person committing the fallacy really needs to do some research and reflection. Be kind. No one’s mind was ever changed by a personal attack, and as a human (you are human, right?), I think you know that.
The False Dichotomy—Someone argues we can have either A or B. There is no other option. Sometimes, that’s true, but in many cases, a false dichotomy ignores reasonable compromise and alternatives that do exist, so a false dichotomy makes compromise and alternatives impossible.
The Nirvana—If we can’t have a perfect solution, it’s better to have no solution at all. Relevant idiom: “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.”
The False Balance—“Both sides are the same.” Nope!
The Anecdote, or Hasty Generalization—“A dog once bit me, so all dogs will bite me.” Nope! This is tied to human nature and instinct, probably where the idiom, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” comes from. I imagine it was extremely useful for survival back when we lived in jungles with tigers on the prowl, but nowadays, we have time to think about things without survival on the line.
The Appeal to Authority—“This authority says so; therefore, it must be true.” Nope! It ain’t that easy, kid. It doesn’t matter what someone’s credentials or status is, question what they say and verify it yourself. More to the point, if you commit this fallacy with someone who doesn’t think your authority has any credibility, they won’t believe you, so it isn’t an effective argument strategy.
The Proving a Negative, or Burden of Proof—Someone makes a claim, doesn’t prove it, and challenges others to disprove it. “Prove me wrong.” That is the reverse of how information sharing is supposed to work, and it’s intellectually dishonest. The burden of proof is on the person making an argument. If that person does not satisfy the burden of proof, you are under no obligation to consider it.
That’s just a short list of fallacies I see regularly. Feel free to learn more, or see if you can recognize any patterns on your own.
3. Distinguish Between Belief, Opinion, and Fact
These three words get misused far too often, and it drives me bananas. Beyond the misuse, I genuinely think too many people don’t understand the distinction between them, and I think blurring the lines between them is no good for anyone. So, let’s create some definition.
- Beliefs are attempts to explain the unknown in the absence of available facts. “Given we don’t know, here’s what I believe.”
- Opinions are expressions of core values within the context of available facts. “Given what we know, here’s what I think.”
- Facts are true whether we believe in them or not. “Here’s what we know.”
Facts can take us to the edge of the known universe, and there, we can speculate what is beyond. We can formulate beliefs that we will then have to re-evaluate once our knowledge of facts catches up, and round and round we can go.
That’s the natural state of these words, anyway, and as long as they stay within their respective spaces, all is well.
Note: I’m aware epistemologists, philosophy majors, and even linguists are probably foaming at the mouth right about now. I don’t care. My goal here is to provide useful frameworks for the typical demands of a quickly evolving and increasingly complex world. Muddying the water for most people outside of an academic setting isn’t useful.
In the United States, we have a culture in which everyone is entitled to their opinion. That may be true, but we take for granted that it also means everyone’s opinion is unassailable. That is not true. An opinion can be based on flawed logic or on false information. Worse, opinions can often be beliefs wearing a mask. Therefore, opinions can and should be justified, and they can and should be challenged.
It’s also okay to not know. Belief will fill in for the unknown, but it’s okay to not let it, and it’s a virtue to resist belief when you know the information is available and that you just don’t have it or don’t understand it. In our current time, it seems like everyone is chasing a state of omniscience, but that is impossible. It’s okay to not know everything.
Also, beliefs in spite of available facts? Well, that’s just willful, dishonest ignorance.
In these matters, strive to be honest with yourself and others.
4. Your Brain Is a Belief Machine—Fight It With Research
Uncertainty is uncomfortable, so once you’re convinced you know something, your brain resists going back to that uncomfortable place.
When I taught FYC, I saw this play out for students who approached research as an exercise to justify their opinions and beliefs instead of using research to learn and inform themselves so they can have better opinions and beliefs. They resisted actual research because the first step in actual research is questioning what you know, and nobody likes that. It’s another thing we aren’t wired for, and it makes sense.
Think about it. If you saw a leopard eat your friend’s face, you would believe all jungle cats will eat humans, and there would be no use in questioning that because that belief will help you survive in that wild world. Your brain wants to make decisions on what to believe so it can A). protect itself from danger and B). run on autopilot to reduce cognitive load and enable your attention to focus on other things.
Trouble is we don’t live in that world anymore.
To be better with this stuff, we need to understand what our brains are doing. That way, we can compensate for our own natures:
Cognitive bias—Oversimplified, this is our tendency to evaluate new information alongside information we’ve already decided is true. The effect is a subjective interpretation of information. Again, it has its use in the wild. It makes new situations easier to survive (big kitty = bad—run!) because we can make quicker decisions. However, when seeking an objective reality, our cognitive biases can be significant barriers. Awareness is key.
Cognitive dissonance—Also oversimplified, this is the uncomfortable feeling of encountering information that conflicts with information we already have accepted as factual or true. Because this is uncomfortable (again, no one likes uncertainty), we tend to resist the new information. Don’t do that. Instead, embrace it. Perhaps this new information means you were wrong, and now you can become right about it. If you have the option to choose being right or wrong, which are you going to choose? Nobody wants to be wrong, which is why we convince ourselves we’re right even if we’re not.
The Backfire Effect—You know how your brain is a belief machine? This is called belief perseverance. Very basically, because your brain is wired to do so, it does everything it can to maintain your belief system. The backfire effect is a phenomenon in which, when people encounter information that challenges their belief system, they regard that information as a threat and actually strengthen their stance further. Maybe your buddy has a pet panther and says not all jungle cats are that bad. You’re gonna stick with considering them a threat because it’s safer.
5. Find Credible Information Sources, Disregard All Others
Suffice to say, Carl Rando from your Great Aunt Connie’s Facebook post might have a point, but he’s probably not a credible source of information. Moreover, given the current state of information and computer technology, Carl may very well be a bot running on a generative AI engine weaponized by someone to feed you bullshit so that we fight each other and devour our own society from the inside out.
The problem is the Carls of the digital world are ingrained in our everyday lives. They’re embedded in our cute otter videos (Look! They hold hands while they sleep!) and even between posts announcing engagements, sharing baby pictures, boasting about professional achievements, etc. We don’t have to go looking for the Carl Randos of the world. They come to us.
There are ways to curate information sources to better feed us what we actually want, but they invariably go through an algorithm that’s specifically designed to get you to engage with content more, and wouldn’t you know it? Anger, fear, and outrage are really engaging.
The point is to start here: take all of your information sources that come through social media, anything you receive in meme format, literally any short video on TikTok or Facebook Reels or whatever, anything you read in a comments section or thread, and throw it all in the incinerator.
To be clear, it’s not all bad. There may actually be some good stuff in those places. Certain legitimate media publishers utilize those platforms, and there may be legitimate experts who share content on those platforms. However, flip whatever switch you need to in your brain and view it as what it is: entertainment designed to keep you engaged so that rich people can get richer.
I’ll say, if something in one of these feeds piques your curiosity, absolutely feel free to follow that curiosity. Chase the information. Just don’t let your feed be all of the convincing you need.
Once you’ve burned it all, you can re-evaluate the credibility of those sources, but I would advise caution. If what you had before the incinerator was Niagara Falls, we’re looking for a drip from the faucet.
One place that’s worth checking is Ad Fontes’ Media Bias Chart, and if you’re rolling your eyes, hold up a second. Do NOT take this thing as gospel (that would be an Appeal to Authority fallacy, and we’re not making those mistakes anymore, right?). Instead, consider this a starting point. It’s probably safe to discard any source of information on the fringes of this chart. Maybe you look at this chart and scoff at the sources that are listed as neutral, and that would be your right. However, I would encourage you to think of everything we’ve covered here and at least consider your interpretation of neutrality could be a result of your own cognitive biases, just as the people who created this chart did so with their own biases. In any case, the closer a source is to the center, the more likely it is to be credible, even if, in your view, it skews left or right. The exact position on this chart doesn’t matter. We’re looking for approximation.
After this, it’s important to put a couple other healthy frames of mind into practice. First, don’t take a single source’s word for it, even if it’s credible. (Okay, if it’s a piece of information that isn’t all that important or isn’t likely to be misinformation, you can probably accept it within reason and go on with your life.) If it’s a piece of information or story that’s particularly important, consult multiple sources. Read one or two, skim a few others, check more headlines. Whatever you need to do or can do to introduce variety into your information diet.
The point here is, the more credible sources are reporting some piece of information consistently, the more likely that information is to be true.
Second, consider the lifecycle of information. Today, information begins as posts on social media sites within minutes. Within hours, we have news articles. Within days, we have more extensive news articles. Within months, we have magazine articles. Within years, we have academic journal articles and books.
Remember this: the more time we have to evaluate information, the more likely it is to be credible.
Or, in practice, if you’re accepting vaccine information from social media influencers instead of medical doctors who read peer-reviewed, academic journals with years of post-graduate education and training, you’re choosing ignorance.
(Bonus!) 6. Seek Understanding, Not Victory
This one isn’t taught in FYC, but it’s fascinating to me. When the 24-hour news networks infected our TVs and cultures, it became normal to see talking heads yelling at each other over whatever the news of the day was, but I cannot stress this enough: that is not normal. For whatever reason, we found it engaging, and very rich people found they could monetize that engagement.
The trouble is that phenomenon has completely changed why we even talk to each other to begin with.
We debate to win, and that’s it.
You ever witness two very smart people going at it, and they’re just talking past each other, and nobody’s making any headway? That’s because they’re trying to win.
In our public discourse today—in this nightmare age of disinformation—we all have not only the desire but the ability to express ourselves to the entire world. Crucially, we’re doing it while following that talking-heads model of seeking victory at all costs.
What we all should be doing is seeking understanding and growth. We should seek to inform and enlighten. That’s our responsibility. However, we also should seek learning. That’s our responsibility, too.
Ensure your radio is not only transmitting but also receiving.
To put that in practice, I think it’s important for everyone to concede something. In the FYC classroom, we would call this a counterargument, but in that context, the point is to understand one of your opponent’s arguments so that you can pre-emptively refute it. That’s fine, but I’m not asking you to do that. I want you to understand other people, yes, but what I’m really looking for is for you to acknowledge when someone has made a good point.
If you can do that, and if the other person is communicating in good faith, too, you’ll be absolutely stunned by the magic of this. Suddenly, the other person will be more willing to accept outside information. Their cognitive biases and defense mechanisms will weaken if not lower. No one will be right or wrong. It will just be mutual expression that leads to understanding and growth.
If I have a wish for this world, it’s that we all can concede more often. We don’t have to admit we’re wrong. We just have to admit someone else has a good point and that it’s okay to consider it.
I genuinely think, if we all could commit to doing that just one time a day, week, month, whatever frequency, the entire world would loosen up.
And if nothing else, not worrying about having to be right all the time might help you let go of some of our daily public discourse stresses. Maybe, by seeking to understand everyone you’re connected to instead of seeking to defeat them, you too can survive this nightmare age of disinformation.