Since the election of 2016 interested the general public in “fake news”, efforts to combat misleading content have been an issue for educators. Somehow, it was assumed that educators should prepare learners in a way that would take care of the problem. A new “literacy” skill was proposed as the antidote. Digital literacy involved skills that encouraged readers to question the legitimacy of a source and encouraged readers to read laterally (cross-check statements that raised red flags).
Because digital literacy was associated with technology by so many, my wife and I have written about the suggested issues and instructional tactics in our textbook for future teachers. My background studying such issues as why students can learn scientific concepts in school and ignore them when involved with situations to which these concepts might actually apply led me to add a caveat to what were widely circulated suggestions for how to prepare learners not to be taken in by “fake” news. Simply put, we are quite capable of putting aside valid information that challenges what we want to believe. Changing personally developed ways of understanding the world (concept change) is not easy. When it comes to being influenced by facts, we are often the weak link.
As the issues of what is fake news and what needs to change about Google, Facebook, and other online services that take our personal preferences into account and feed us information accordingly and even knowingly circulate known falsehoods from politicians, others are taking the same position on what will be necessary to better educate the public on contentious issues. This article from Political Psychology explains my position in much greater detail complete with references if you are interested.
More and more I have come to accept the position that the only way to improve the effectiveness of online experiences for actually educating people is for participants to push back when encountering inaccurate information. Flawed arguments must be challenged. Yes, some see this as encouraging the lack of civility already widely present online. I don’t agree. Many of the inappropriate memes and posts I see online are not really part of discussions. Inappropriate content is often a way to gain attention from like-minded folks because hate and emotion are what gets you noticed and what gets you noticed lead to the likes and shares that social media platforms reward. Understanding why hate and fear work so well online is important. Emotions gain attention and the online platforms have the opportunity to offer more ads and make more revenue when content is liked and shared. Again, we are the weak link in perpetuating and elevating this type of content.
I prefer to think in terms of processes such as debate and the publishing processes of science as a way to think about how facts and sound thinking are elevated. When scientists publish, they often call into question the flawed arguments, methodology, and models that exist. The idea is to establish these weaknesses as a basis for a more improved understanding and the acceptable of superior ideas. We don’t call each other names or post inappropriate images to attack positions we feel are flawed or inaccurate. We point to limitations in existing positions and offer our own data as proof of a superior way of thinking and acting.
I doubt the success of the scientific method will be influential in changing the behavior of trolls and politicians. When you can’t argue the facts, you must resort to something else. However, I see no alternative to direct confrontation if we collectively want to move ahead. Debate, argumentation, the scientific method, or whatever you want to call it accepts the reality of differences of opinion and what it takes to pursue truth and logic. So, I will support your efforts to challenge positions different from your own as long as you do so with logic and facts and do so with a focus on the issue and not the individual you disagree with. People being people this will not solve the problems of online misbehavior, but refusing to participate will only lead us down a destructive path.
The reference I provide above may not be available to some without institutional access, here is a blog post with a similar argument.
You must be logged in to post a comment.