To combat misinformation, start with connection, not correction

Misinformation and disinformation can be a threat to our democracy. [Almost stopped reading right there] It can divide communities. It can make it harder for people to make informed choices — at the ballot box, at the grocery store and at the doctor's office.

No one is immune. “We just don't have the time, the cognitive resources or even the motivation to literally fact-check every piece of information that comes our way,” says Briony Swire-Thompson, director of the Psychology of Misinformation Lab at Northeastern University.

People trust information more when it comes from sources or cultural contexts they are familiar with, so talking to your loved ones can make a difference. The big picture idea here? Start from a place of connection, not correction.

1. Consider using the term "rumor" or "misleading content" instead of "misinformation" "[The terms] mis- and disinformation trigger a sort of reaction, and usually distaste,” says Sarah Nguyễn, a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington who studies how people share information with each other. She says the terms have become politicized.

Nguyễn leads workshops for the Vietnamese community in the Seattle area about how to address problematic information and deepfakes. In the workshops, they try to avoid using those terms altogether, instead opting for “rumors” or “misleading content.”

“What people consider mis- and disinformation can be really different,” says Rachel Kuo, the research facilitator of the Asian American Disinformation Table.

2. Take time to understand why your loved one believes the misleading content Nguyễn and Kuo both stress the importance of putting aside the idea of intervention to start. Recognize that your friend or family member has a whole life's worth of experiences that affects how they engage with whatever they read online or hear on the news. “So often people's memories really shaped the ways that they engage in current ways with political systems and their media environments,” says Kuo.

Kuo recommends starting the process somewhere surprising: by asking them questions about their family history. Try asking about their childhood. What are some things they remember? Who were they close with growing up? What do they remember about migrating to the United States, if they did?

From there, you can build up to the present day. Kuo says you can then ask questions like: “What are some of the things that you've engaged in recently? Have you voted, for example, or have you been vaccinated? Why or why not?”

You can break up these conversations over time. Alternatively, if the current conversation is going well and you think your loved one would be receptive to pivoting to current events, you can try having the discussion in one go.

Psychology research examining how to effectively correct misinformation occurs in a very controlled experimental setting. Swire-Thompson notes there haven't been studies that take into account more complex social dynamics, like a family setting. That being said, we can still take learnings from peer-reviewed studies and try applying them to our conversations with people we care about

Swire-Thompson says she’s found discussing sources to be an effective way to help debunk misinformation. “Instead of saying ‘here's the misinformation, it is false,’ you can say, ‘what is the evidence,’ for both the individual who believes in the misinformation and for your side.’” That will help you have a conversation about who or what you both trust and why.

In one study, Swire-Thompson found highlighting a source’s low expertise worked well to discredit dubious health claims. “It was far more effective than just correcting the misinformation,” says Swire-Thompson.

To point out how unqualified a source is, you can highlight the source’s lack of skills, professional training, relevant educational background, etc. You can also point out any conflicts of interest they might have.

4. Realize you’re not trying to change anyone’s core beliefs. You’re simply addressing a piece of information that is not correct Nguyễn says these conversations are not about trying to change someone inherently. “It is more about how [we can] build this coexisting trust with each other and continue these types of conversations in a sustainable and healthy way.” The goal here is to keep the conversation going. Making someone feel like there’s something wrong with their worldview is just going to cause them to shut down.

Swire-Thompson has studied misleading political statements. “For political misinformation, we found that correcting misinformation didn't make much difference in terms of how much they trusted that source in the future, or how much they were going to vote for that political candidate.” So instead of trying to convince your uncle or auntie to not vote for a particular candidate, try discussing a piece of misleading or false information the candidate or their party has circulated.

5. When you do attempt to correct misleading information, provide a detailed fact-check You might think keeping that correction short and sweet is better, but “providing a good amount of detail for why something is wrong is more effective,” says Swire-Thompson. Research shows providing a “factual alternative,” or saying what is actually true, is more effective than just saying a piece of information is false.

For example, say your friend expresses concern about the integrity of voting by mail. Let’s say they believe, in particular, that fraud is rampant with mailed-in ballots. After you’ve taken time to understand why they believe that to be true, you can tell them instances of voter fraud are extremely rare. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, multiple analyses have shown it’s more likely someone will be struck by lightning than commit mail ballot fraud. Voting by mail also dates back to the Civil War and since then, states have developed multiple layers of security to safeguard elections.

6. Don’t expect things to change after one conversation All three experts say you can’t expect things to change after one conversation. If things are getting unproductive or you’re getting stonewalled, it’s OK to take a step back, says Kuo. “And sometimes, if you just don't see eye to eye on a topic, it's OK to [drop it to] preserve the relationship,” says Swire-Thompson.

But if things were going well, and it’s a conversation you both feel comfortable returning to, “repeating the correction is really important just because of our limitations on memory,” says Swire-Thompson.

Researchers have found a phenomenon called “belief regression.” It’s when a correction to misinformation works really well in the short term, “but over time, people's belief kind of creeps toward these pre-correction levels.”

“Despite whatever media literacy or information literacy tools are out there, it is, like many types of changes and evolutions, a slow process,” says Nguyễn. “There is always this sense of urgency when we hear something true or false and saying ‘false, I want to correct you!’ But in the spirit of building long-term relationships, to be able to do this on a slower scale will have a larger impact.”

Sunday Talks – Former Secretary of State John Kerry Explains Intent of Next Administration to Eliminate First Amendment

September 29, 2024 | Sundance

Comrades, I’m really glad to see former Secretary of State and Climate Czar, John Kerry, outline the transparent truth of their intention in such a matter-of-fact way. Trust me, this is a really good thing. Perhaps no 2-minute encapsulation of current events more accurately outlines the worldview of the Biden-Harris administration, than this one.

Within the recent WEF discussion, Secretary Kerry outlines how freedom of speech is a ‘threat to the global democracy‘ because the governing officials have a difficult time controlling information. Kerry goes on to posit how the next administration, presumably in his hope Kamala Harris, will forcefully structure all the tools of government to stop Americans from using the first amendment to freely speak about issues.

Governing is too challenging, according to Kerry, when the government cannot stop people from seeking and discovering information that is against their interests. Effective governing required compliant adherence to a singular ideology. Against the backdrop of COVID-19 and a host of similarly related government narratives, if people are free to find alternative information and think for themselves, they become increasingly more difficult to control. Yes, this is said quite openly. This is the mindset of those in power.

WATCH:

John Kerry says "1st Amendment stands as a MAJOR BLOCK" to THEIR ability to control the "FACTS"

On another positive note, millions of people now accurately understand why it is so important to refute the terms “mis-dis-mal information.” When CTH initially warned about the labeling, most people did not understand; however, as the consequences begin to surface, I would argue almost a majority of people now understand.

2022: CTH encountered criticism for our position on information. Perhaps it is important to step back and explain exactly why we should not be playing by rules, like those proposed by John Kerry, which are established to control us while engaged in the battle of ideas.

First, my position:

…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”. There is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”…

There is only information.

There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.

In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.

When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades. You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.

When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem. You are correct; however, this is where people may make a mistake. The problem is supposed to be there.

It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones. You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide. You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.

If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you. You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter.

The sliding scale of Pinocchio’s is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.

Put more clearly, when you accept the terminology “disinformation”, you accept a problem.

The problem is then the tool by which authorities will step in to make judgements.

Speech, in its most consequential form, is then qualified by others to whom you have sub-contracted your thinking.

When you willingly sub-contract information filters to others, you have lost connection with the raw information.

CTH was founded upon the belief that truth has no agenda, nor does it care about you, your feelings, or your opinion of it. It just sits there, empirically existing as evidence of information in its most pure form.

The search for truth, in all things, is the mission objective of this assembly. Often, we don’t like the truth; often, the truth is bitter, cold, challenging and even painful to accept. However, the truth doesn’t care. Information in its most raw form is ambivalent to your opinion. If you struggle to accept these things, that’s when you need grey. The New York Times is not called the “grey lady” accidentally.

Personally, I am an absorber of information – perhaps on a scale that is unusual. But I do not discount information from any form until I can put context to it and see if the information makes sense given all the variables present. When something doesn’t feel right, it’s almost always because it isn’t right.

Often, I find myself struggling in the grey and complex. It is not unusual to spend days, perhaps weeks, researching, digging, clarifying a situation, only to discover the path to finding the truth is in another direction entirely. Erasing everything and starting over is frustrating, but it is genuinely the only approach that works; and often finding truth is supposed to be difficult, that’s why it is rewarding.

In the digital information age, we are bombarded with information. It is easy to be overwhelmed and need to find something or someone who has better skills at separating the black grains from the white ones. All opinions in this quest should be considered; thus, it is important to allow the free flow of information.

I am not necessarily a speech absolutist. There is some language, particularly foul language, that needs to be constrained if we are to participate in a respectful society, with grandma’s rules and knowing the audience. Articulation of arguments needs to be effective, respectful and forthright.

CTH has guidelines for comments for this exact reason. It’s not about what is said, most often it is about how the opinion is said, vulgarity is not appropriate. Those constraints need to be based on a set of inherent values. However, when it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.

There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized. We are in this situation right now.

Saul Alinsky spent decades pondering the best techniques to weaponize information and speech. Alinsky’s intentions in the endeavor to change society by changing how language and information was used were not good. He devoted his completed rulebook book to Lucifer.

Be careful about anyone saying we need to label or categorize information in order to control or remove a certain speaker from the discussion.

You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a God-given brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.

COVID-19 and the subsequent government lies, have helped many people to see just how dangerous the modern political Marxists are. Those who proposed a “global information governance board,” are now on their heels and increasingly desperate. Hence, “governing is now hard” according to John Kerry.

The flickering flame of liberty and freedom has been under assault for decades, we are at an inflection point. I remain optimistic in our ability to defeat those who are trying desperately to use all the mechanics of every system to retain power, for the same reason that all abusive relationships eventually have to end.

WOLVERINES!

Do not get alarmed, get informed.

RESOURCES:

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.