Intellectual Maturity: Rising Above Misinformation

If you have been sent to this article then it may be because you have been talking about “something I read somewhere” or made a really bold claim without backing it up.  If that is the case, don’t worry; you are not alone.  If this does not describe you, then you will probably want to read on, anyway, since I examine the cause and solution to the problem of the poorly informed newbie (but we will call them novices, here, to be polite).

What is the root of this problem, anyway?  In today’s world we are bombarded with information from every angle.  We are immersed in the “Information Age” during every moment of our lives.  We seem to be obsessed with the concept of a maximal amount of information in a minimal amount of time.  This is abundantly clear with the advent of websites such as Digg, StumbleUpon and Facebook (don’t forget to add us to Digg, Stumble and Facebook using the buttons at the top, by the way.)  In a twenty minute time span, the average person can be exposed to dozens of short videos, articles and lectures on topics ranging from engineering, economics, world politics and even dirty jokes.

With all of this information swirling around it is easy to get a bit lost.  When there is so much information, how can one possibly sort through it to make a logical, informed decision on the important topics?  It turns out that one of the most common ways we try to sort through our questions is to seek out the guidance of an “expert” by reading articles, blogs, books, etc.

Let’s step back for a second to analyze this situation.  We willingly and knowingly put some of our most important decisions into the hands of someone who is, at best, an outsider to your personal situation or, at worst, a complete stranger.  While this seems incredibly impersonal and impractical it is the only method that makes sense.  There are simply too many important domains that exist and not nearly enough time to investigate each domain thoroughly.

Now, I am not saying that you shouldn’t think for yourself.  In fact, my opinion is the exact opposite.  I believe that one can achieve a working level of ability in many domains.  Specialization is for insects, after all.  Yet, it is impossible to get through life without letting people do some of the thinking for us.  It is somewhat laughable to think that we could all learn the detailed intricacies of health, fitness, nutrition, theology, religion, finance, engineering, art, design, computing, optics, photography, survival, quantum physics, sustainability, economics, construction, architecture, baseball statistics, painting, feng shui…I think you get the point.

While we must defer to expert advice on at least a few domains of knowledge, some of us can get “lazy” and just have other people do the thinking for us.  I contest that this issue is more likely rooted in maturity – not laziness.

For someone totally new to a domain (or who simply does not care about that domain at all) we have little choice but to be at the mercy of experts.  When we are new, our knowledge consists mostly of things heard in passing by someone more knowledgeable on the topic (mostly everyone).

Additionally, at this early stage we are at a disadvantage because we are reliant on simplifying complex subject matter so that we can make better decisions in the future (e.g. “fat = bad” or “cardio = running”).  This is commonly referred to as judgement heuristics (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Todd & Gigerenzer, 2007), that is, a mental short-cut.  It is also common for a novice to not understand context dependence and this puts them at a heavy disadvantage when trying to understand complex subjects.  This is the main reason why a novice often refers back to blanket statements.  For example, when we are this new to a domain we may say things like “carbs are bad,” or “thirty year mortgages are the best option” without addressing the context around those choices.  Oftentimes this is done because we may have heard that applied to another specific context by an expert.

Now, being so new, studies show that when if we are confronted with expert advice them we will pretty much comply with anything that said expert says – unless we care about the topic. (Epley & Gilovich, 2006; Petty & Wegener, 1999)  When we start to develop a genuine interest we immediately react more pro-actively and show higher levels of critical thinking than someone who does not care at all.  This is one of the first steps towards not being such a newbi — er, novice.

This means that we are starting to weigh expert advice.  At this stage, it becomes clear that experts often contradict one another and these contradictions require that one “picks a side.”  This is especially true in any sort of controversial field like fitness or health (which most of us should be reading this for, anyway.)  Sadly, this leaves us with a ton of options regarding which expert is correct.  If you haven’t figure it out by now, I really like scientific studies – and there are quite a few to show that we often avoid making a choice when there are “too many” options (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000).  This is where we see many people get stuck and may avoid fully considering the available data.  The more choices that exist, the more complicated the decision.

Once we decide on an opinion that makes the most sense to us, we are still not out of the woods.  There is a snare in the road that catches many people – the phenomenon of defending the first opinion/conclusion we have ever heard   even if they have a lesser background on the subject matter.  This can likely be traced back to the human tendency to even just appear to be consistent with what they have stated in the past. (Brinol, Petty, & Wheeler, 2006; Mather, Shafir, & Johnson, 2000; Rusbult et al., 2000).  People are very reluctant to go back on their ideas once they state them to others.  Getting someone to state their ideas out in public may instill that dedication to consistency which makes a belief so hard to change.  Studies even show that we will trick ourselves to perceive things differently just to remain consistent with previous actions and beliefs (Regan & Kilduff, 1988) What is worse is that most of us reading blogs on the web are likely also avid forum junkies/bloggers that write down and broadcast their views to a very wide audience regularly.  It is very difficult to step back away from a massive commitment to an idea such as a massive written broadcast. (Tedeschi, Schlenker, & Bonoma, 1971; Schlenker et al., 1994). At the bottom line, the reason for the trap doesn’t matter – it’s escaping the trap.  Getting out can be tricky business since it often gets compounded by a second trap – arrogance.

Arrogance is understandable.  Being more knowledgeable than a true novice their statements may be taken as expert advice.  The grandeur of being hailed as an expert can be empowering and is often something we may be reluctant to sacrifice for the greater good of propagating wholly true information.

What allows us to mature and progress beyond this point where we have read many things and have reached some neophyte conclusions?

Consider this: you have dozens of concepts and ideas in your head that were created out of convenience because you were under informed.  At one point you had to blindly believe others so that you could just learn more about a topic.  A closed mind cannot assimilate new evidence to older, more convenient ideas.  With a closed mind our original and incomplete opinions cannot be refined and corrected.  Without challenging our existing knowledge it is impossible for false assumptions to be fixed.

At this point it may seem a bit daunting since we would seemingly have to investigate every new bit of information.  This is not necessary.  Rather, there is an understanding that we can continue to gain more knowledge until we are confronted.  This confrontation may be an idea or concept that is inconsistent with their knowledge.  If it is important to the individual, then they will be able to investigate the point and analyze the argument from both sides to come to a logical conclusion.  Sometimes that logical conclusion is that no definitive conclusion can be made.  This leads to the common “more information or research is needed,” mantra that oftentimes irritates some people.  Sadly, the world is not painted in black and white, alone.

From my experience, one only needs to go through this process a couple of times.  Once we understands that things are not in black and white; that sometimes more research really is needed; that some opinions just cannot be generated then it opens their mind to see that this applies to all domains across the board.  For example, I may know nothing about the Chevy Camaro or the Ford Mustang – but I will understand that there may be more to the “which is better?” argument than engine size and turning radius.  I may make a decision on my preference with no further information – but at least I realize that I have made a shortcut in the interest of time and energy.

Reaching this level of understanding can take a great deal of time for most people.  For most, it requires that one is confronted with conflicting viewpoints over and over again before coming to the realization that justification is always needed to make a final decision.  There comes an understanding that there can never be the “one study to rule them all” and that logical decisions need to be made based on existing theories, concepts and practices.

The long and short of it is that sometimes we understand that there is not enough information. Even when there is enough information we can still be challenged with a new idea.

So, if you are one of those people who were sent to this article because you have been talking about “something I read somewhere” or made a bold claim without backing it up, then you may want to consider the following things:

1. Who wrote or told me about what I am passing along?  Is this a credible source for this information?
2. If I am being told that my information is inaccurate, why may that be so?  Why does someone think I am wrong?  Do they have counter evidence?
3. Is it possible that both of us can be right, just in a different context?  That is, does my claim apply to some people whereas the other claim can apply to others?
4. Is there really enough information to make a decision or should we call for more research?

If you take the time to consider and ask these questions then we all stand to learn a lot more from each other.

Did you like this article? Check out these related articles:

1. 10 Common Mistakes in Achieving Fitness/Performance Goals