[Music]
today in the palm of her hand you have
access to world of information you can
reach a multitude of news sources and
exchange your views the wide range of
people all over the world this new
reality should allow us to share our
wisdom to communicate to understand each
other and to become more understanding
of our differences more tolerant of our
differences but 2016 seems to have
replaced the information age for the
post truth era with Briggs it and the
Trump election we are found we’ve
discovered that more communication
doesn’t mean more information let me
show you what I mean here is a picture
of the Trump inauguration ceremony 2017
and the same picture of the Obama
inauguration ceremony in 2009 the White
House declared that the Trump ceremony
had been the largest in history did you
know that 28% of Trump supporters said
they believed that there were as many
people if not more at the Trump ceremony
30 percent said they didn’t know they
were not sure and 41 percent that is
only less than half said that they
disagreed with the White House statement
when you see these pictures these use
may seem crazy so how is it that people
can believe something so clearly and
sure but wait a minute
are you sure that you would never
believe something so clearly untrue
think about it these pictures are not
proof they could have been photoshopped
they could have been swapped so when
somebody raises these doubts to you you
will have to use your own judgement to
weigh the evidence and make up your mind
so now suppose that you wear a trump
supporter
are you sure that you would not give any
credence to somebody raising these
doubts are you sure that you would never
entertain that perhaps they were more
people at the trim ceremony and that
these pictures are not a proof today I
want to put to you that the cause of the
fake new success lies primarily with us
thank news work because we are willing
to believe them and because we are
willing to believe them we lie to
ourselves if we want a sound public
debate we need to stop lying to
ourselves when we engage with the news
let’s consider an ideal public debate
and think about it as a battle of ideas
all ideas are voiced and debated a good
idea is convincing and it wins over less
convincing ideas the philosopher Karl
Popper said that this process should
lead public debate to select the best
ideas unconvincing ideas
disappear and only the good one survived
and science seems like a perfect example
where public debate leads to selection
of the best ideas with this view in mind
the Internet should have a positive
effect on public debate on the Internet
IDs are free to be voiced and criticized
good ideas should be able to convince
more people and spread around or bad IDs
abandoned but when you look it doesn’t
look necessarily what’s happening on the
Internet at the moment so why is that
well perhaps this view of the public
debate is a bit unrealistic in 1949 Max
Planck famously joked about this vision
from popper Max Planck was a theoretical
physicist who eventually won a Nobel
Prize he said a new scientific truth
doesn’t triumph because it convinces its
opponents rather these opponents get old
and eventually they die and they
replaced by a new generation of
scientists and what Max Planck was
alluding to with our
was to the reality of debates with
humans us as humans we are not designed
as perfect rational thinkers only
looking for the truth the fact is that
often we are attached to our ideas we
can be attached to ideas because
somebody’s maybe convenient to us for
interest so going to the example of the
scientist for max planck these
scientists may have become famous
because of the ideas that they proposed
in the past and which are now old ideas
abandoning these ideas would be losing
part of the credit they got for
proposing these ideas in the first place
but it’s not just in science if you
think in politics if a government
proposed to extend social welfare those
who would receive social welfare have an
interest to believe it’s good for the
country and those would have to pay for
the social welfare have an interest to
think it’s bad for the country it’s bad
policy for the country but we are not
just attached to ideas for material
interest it’s much more complex often we
can be emotionally attached on to IDs
there may be part of identity so if I’m
a Christian conservative or left-wing
liberal these ID may be part of who I am
abandoning these ideas could be losing
part of my identity as a consequence we
are attached to IDs so we are not
neutral judges when we are considering
the evidence for against them
on the contrary science shows or sense
of behavior show that we typically
engage in self deception which is that
we are building beliefs which are
compatible with our interests and with
all the Beeb’s self-deception is subtle
it takes place all the time in your
everyday life so I’m going to give you
two ways into self-deceptions can change
the way we believe in and produce
convenient views for self first when you
receive a news you have some flexibility
into how you consider it
if it’s a positive news which is
compatible with your beliefs you can
accept it as positive positive evidence
and if it’s a negative news you can on
on the contrary choose to discount it
and not just to consider it let me tell
you about a study a group of people were
asked about beliefs political beliefs
and non political beliefs political
believes they had to say whether they
believed in statements such as abortion
should be legal very loaded statement
typical of political statements and non
political beliefs where statements such
as smoking second-hand smoking is
dangerous for your health what happened
so what happened is that these people
were confronted with contradictions to
these beliefs what do you think people
did how did they react when they were
confronted with these contradictions
well here’s how people reacted with
their non political beliefs so you have
the strength of their beliefs before the
contradiction and after the
contradiction so when faced with a
series of contradiction they updated the
beliefs and the strength of the ability
is lower after facing contradictions but
now look at what happens when they were
faced with contradictions to their
political beliefs here you can see that
people resisted much more the
contradiction and hold a hell to their
political beliefs that’s one way we
selectively interpret the news but there
is another way we are not just receiving
the news we are looking out for them
with selecting where we want to look for
information and typically we look for
confirming information if you are
conservative you are more likely to read
a conservative newspaper to watch a
conservative news channel and perhaps
even to turn off the TV or the radio
when a left-wing politician is being
interviewed let me show you a
hypothetical scenario let’s say that you
wake up in the morning and you open your
newspaper and you once in iou you’ve got
a news which is not good the
contradiction tío believes let’s say
that this new success that your favorite
politician is involved in a political
handle and consider the other situation
one of the contrary the news in the
newspaper is positive it goes with your
usual beliefs perhaps it’s another
politician a politician that you do not
like who is involved in a political
scandal do you think do you feel that
you would react in the same way to these
two situations well research show that
you would not most likely what happens
is then if you find a contradiction you
tend to look for all the new sources you
give yourself a chance to find something
which will contradict this negative news
there’s another newspaper perhaps you’ll
read the fine prints of the newspaper to
make sure that the title was really
reflecting here inflicted in the
information on the contrary if you have
the positive news you are more likely to
stop there
your monarchy to be happy to consider
that this piece of evidence is enough
for you to make your mind on this issue
so as much as we would like to think of
ourselves as rational thinkers it is the
fact that this tendency to look for
confirming news and to reject negative
information is inbuilt in us so now
before you panic and you think that
irrationality is making public debate
impossible you can relax
these bars existed forever and way
before so social media so what’s
happening on the social media is that
they are exacerbating some of the
effects of this balance let me give you
two ways in which start doing so first
on the internet you have a much more
freedom to look for the information
which is convenient to whatever beliefs
you have then then is like a giant
supermarket for any kind of ID you will
be able to find arguments for and
supporting society let’s consider a
crazy idea as an example let’s continue
that you believe that the earth is flat
well 30 years ago you would have been a
bit alone and maybe struggling to find
people to find you evidence for it today
you can just connect on the Internet
contact the flag of society and this
society is going to provide you element
of evidence arguments in favor of your
belief there’s another way in which the
internet helps you engage in
self-deception that you can do it
collectively you have now a multitude of
communities on the internet who have
created informational bubbles on their
own in these bubbles people select
information interpret information and
repackage it in a way which is
compatible with the communities view
when a new fact is discussed in this
community the elements which are
positive for the community’s views are
reinforced and the elements which are
not are dropped and the nuances are are
lost this community is built simple
views compatible with the beliefs of the
community so the social media have not
created unified Toolik space web ideas
are debated instead they have social
media have increased our ability to
connect specifically with the people
whose use mostly match or own and
whatever your views you can find a
community of like-minded people with
whom you can share arguments supporting
your existing beliefs and not
challenging them but what do you want do
you want a unified public space when
ideas where ideas are debated discussed
and maybe the best ideas can win or a
compartment a public space where
different visions of the world can
coexist unchallenged well if we want to
define and support and the existence of
an open public space we need to realize
that the problem starts with us with how
we form our opinions and how we share
them on the social media so perhaps in
the post truth era we need some
guidelines about how to interact on the
social media here are three steps step 1
avoid the narrow selection of
information which closely match your
views make sure that in your timeline
you’ve got
new sources which challenge your view
try to find out what people we really
disagree and exchange with them listen
to what they have to say try to
appreciate the points that they may have
give them a chance to change your mind
point to question your views the more
you’d like an idea to be true the more
you need to distrust the way you made
your mind about it are you sure that you
considered all the best control argument
to the views you have that you’ve
considered possibly the existence of
weak points in your reasoning try to
find them whenever you really want an
idea to be true you you may remember
that at some point in your life we all
like to believe in Santa and even though
we really wanted Santa to be true it
didn’t make him more real in the end so
the more you’d like an idea to be true
you need to be wondering is it too good
to be true do I believe this because I
want to believe it or because of the
evidence could it be another Center for
me step 3
avoid contributing to the distortion of
facts when you want to forward
information in the social media make
sure you’ve read it you understand it
and avoid to simplify it in a way which
is going to be conformed to the views of
the community try not to contribute to
an echo chamber effect within the
community of views you are participating
in if you follow these guidelines you
are going to make yourself a favor
you’re going to stop building a
convenient alternative reality you are
going to avoid spreading half-truths and
distorted facts and you will limit the
self-enforcing loops of confirming
exchanges which are pushing people in
different informational bubbles you will
help ideas to be questioned and
challenged and you will contribute to
making the public space an open space
where the best ideas can win will you
allow yourself to change your views and
to abandon all ones
smart people change their mind choose to
be one
[Applause]
you
[Music]
today in the palm of her hand you have
access to world of information you can
reach a multitude of news sources and
exchange your views the wide range of
people all over the world this new
reality should allow us to share our
wisdom to communicate to understand each
other and to become more understanding
of our differences more tolerant of our
differences but 2016 seems to have
replaced the information age for the
post truth era with Briggs it and the
Trump election we are found we’ve
discovered that more communication
doesn’t mean more information let me
show you what I mean here is a picture
of the Trump inauguration ceremony 2017
and the same picture of the Obama
inauguration ceremony in 2009 the White
House declared that the Trump ceremony
had been the largest in history did you
know that 28% of Trump supporters said
they believed that there were as many
people if not more at the Trump ceremony
30 percent said they didn’t know they
were not sure and 41 percent that is
only less than half said that they
disagreed with the White House statement
when you see these pictures these use
may seem crazy so how is it that people
can believe something so clearly and
sure but wait a minute
are you sure that you would never
believe something so clearly untrue
think about it these pictures are not
proof they could have been photoshopped
they could have been swapped so when
somebody raises these doubts to you you
will have to use your own judgement to
weigh the evidence and make up your mind
so now suppose that you wear a trump
supporter
are you sure that you would not give any
credence to somebody raising these
doubts are you sure that you would never
entertain that perhaps they were more
people at the trim ceremony and that
these pictures are not a proof today I
want to put to you that the cause of the
fake new success lies primarily with us
thank news work because we are willing
to believe them and because we are
willing to believe them we lie to
ourselves if we want a sound public
debate we need to stop lying to
ourselves when we engage with the news
let’s consider an ideal public debate
and think about it as a battle of ideas
all ideas are voiced and debated a good
idea is convincing and it wins over less
convincing ideas the philosopher Karl
Popper said that this process should
lead public debate to select the best
ideas unconvincing ideas
disappear and only the good one survived
and science seems like a perfect example
where public debate leads to selection
of the best ideas with this view in mind
the Internet should have a positive
effect on public debate on the Internet
IDs are free to be voiced and criticized
good ideas should be able to convince
more people and spread around or bad IDs
abandoned but when you look it doesn’t
look necessarily what’s happening on the
Internet at the moment so why is that
well perhaps this view of the public
debate is a bit unrealistic in 1949 Max
Planck famously joked about this vision
from popper Max Planck was a theoretical
physicist who eventually won a Nobel
Prize he said a new scientific truth
doesn’t triumph because it convinces its
opponents rather these opponents get old
and eventually they die and they
replaced by a new generation of
scientists and what Max Planck was
alluding to with our
was to the reality of debates with
humans us as humans we are not designed
as perfect rational thinkers only
looking for the truth the fact is that
often we are attached to our ideas we
can be attached to ideas because
somebody’s maybe convenient to us for
interest so going to the example of the
scientist for max planck these
scientists may have become famous
because of the ideas that they proposed
in the past and which are now old ideas
abandoning these ideas would be losing
part of the credit they got for
proposing these ideas in the first place
but it’s not just in science if you
think in politics if a government
proposed to extend social welfare those
who would receive social welfare have an
interest to believe it’s good for the
country and those would have to pay for
the social welfare have an interest to
think it’s bad for the country it’s bad
policy for the country but we are not
just attached to ideas for material
interest it’s much more complex often we
can be emotionally attached on to IDs
there may be part of identity so if I’m
a Christian conservative or left-wing
liberal these ID may be part of who I am
abandoning these ideas could be losing
part of my identity as a consequence we
are attached to IDs so we are not
neutral judges when we are considering
the evidence for against them
on the contrary science shows or sense
of behavior show that we typically
engage in self deception which is that
we are building beliefs which are
compatible with our interests and with
all the Beeb’s self-deception is subtle
it takes place all the time in your
everyday life so I’m going to give you
two ways into self-deceptions can change
the way we believe in and produce
convenient views for self first when you
receive a news you have some flexibility
into how you consider it
if it’s a positive news which is
compatible with your beliefs you can
accept it as positive positive evidence
and if it’s a negative news you can on
on the contrary choose to discount it
and not just to consider it let me tell
you about a study a group of people were
asked about beliefs political beliefs
and non political beliefs political
believes they had to say whether they
believed in statements such as abortion
should be legal very loaded statement
typical of political statements and non
political beliefs where statements such
as smoking second-hand smoking is
dangerous for your health what happened
so what happened is that these people
were confronted with contradictions to
these beliefs what do you think people
did how did they react when they were
confronted with these contradictions
well here’s how people reacted with
their non political beliefs so you have
the strength of their beliefs before the
contradiction and after the
contradiction so when faced with a
series of contradiction they updated the
beliefs and the strength of the ability
is lower after facing contradictions but
now look at what happens when they were
faced with contradictions to their
political beliefs here you can see that
people resisted much more the
contradiction and hold a hell to their
political beliefs that’s one way we
selectively interpret the news but there
is another way we are not just receiving
the news we are looking out for them
with selecting where we want to look for
information and typically we look for
confirming information if you are
conservative you are more likely to read
a conservative newspaper to watch a
conservative news channel and perhaps
even to turn off the TV or the radio
when a left-wing politician is being
interviewed let me show you a
hypothetical scenario let’s say that you
wake up in the morning and you open your
newspaper and you once in iou you’ve got
a news which is not good the
contradiction tío believes let’s say
that this new success that your favorite
politician is involved in a political
handle and consider the other situation
one of the contrary the news in the
newspaper is positive it goes with your
usual beliefs perhaps it’s another
politician a politician that you do not
like who is involved in a political
scandal do you think do you feel that
you would react in the same way to these
two situations well research show that
you would not most likely what happens
is then if you find a contradiction you
tend to look for all the new sources you
give yourself a chance to find something
which will contradict this negative news
there’s another newspaper perhaps you’ll
read the fine prints of the newspaper to
make sure that the title was really
reflecting here inflicted in the
information on the contrary if you have
the positive news you are more likely to
stop there
your monarchy to be happy to consider
that this piece of evidence is enough
for you to make your mind on this issue
so as much as we would like to think of
ourselves as rational thinkers it is the
fact that this tendency to look for
confirming news and to reject negative
information is inbuilt in us so now
before you panic and you think that
irrationality is making public debate
impossible you can relax
these bars existed forever and way
before so social media so what’s
happening on the social media is that
they are exacerbating some of the
effects of this balance let me give you
two ways in which start doing so first
on the internet you have a much more
freedom to look for the information
which is convenient to whatever beliefs
you have then then is like a giant
supermarket for any kind of ID you will
be able to find arguments for and
supporting society let’s consider a
crazy idea as an example let’s continue
that you believe that the earth is flat
well 30 years ago you would have been a
bit alone and maybe struggling to find
people to find you evidence for it today
you can just connect on the Internet
contact the flag of society and this
society is going to provide you element
of evidence arguments in favor of your
belief there’s another way in which the
internet helps you engage in
self-deception that you can do it
collectively you have now a multitude of
communities on the internet who have
created informational bubbles on their
own in these bubbles people select
information interpret information and
repackage it in a way which is
compatible with the communities view
when a new fact is discussed in this
community the elements which are
positive for the community’s views are
reinforced and the elements which are
not are dropped and the nuances are are
lost this community is built simple
views compatible with the beliefs of the
community so the social media have not
created unified Toolik space web ideas
are debated instead they have social
media have increased our ability to
connect specifically with the people
whose use mostly match or own and
whatever your views you can find a
community of like-minded people with
whom you can share arguments supporting
your existing beliefs and not
challenging them but what do you want do
you want a unified public space when
ideas where ideas are debated discussed
and maybe the best ideas can win or a
compartment a public space where
different visions of the world can
coexist unchallenged well if we want to
define and support and the existence of
an open public space we need to realize
that the problem starts with us with how
we form our opinions and how we share
them on the social media so perhaps in
the post truth era we need some
guidelines about how to interact on the
social media here are three steps step 1
avoid the narrow selection of
information which closely match your
views make sure that in your timeline
you’ve got
new sources which challenge your view
try to find out what people we really
disagree and exchange with them listen
to what they have to say try to
appreciate the points that they may have
give them a chance to change your mind
point to question your views the more
you’d like an idea to be true the more
you need to distrust the way you made
your mind about it are you sure that you
considered all the best control argument
to the views you have that you’ve
considered possibly the existence of
weak points in your reasoning try to
find them whenever you really want an
idea to be true you you may remember
that at some point in your life we all
like to believe in Santa and even though
we really wanted Santa to be true it
didn’t make him more real in the end so
the more you’d like an idea to be true
you need to be wondering is it too good
to be true do I believe this because I
want to believe it or because of the
evidence could it be another Center for
me step 3
avoid contributing to the distortion of
facts when you want to forward
information in the social media make
sure you’ve read it you understand it
and avoid to simplify it in a way which
is going to be conformed to the views of
the community try not to contribute to
an echo chamber effect within the
community of views you are participating
in if you follow these guidelines you
are going to make yourself a favor
you’re going to stop building a
convenient alternative reality you are
going to avoid spreading half-truths and
distorted facts and you will limit the
self-enforcing loops of confirming
exchanges which are pushing people in
different informational bubbles you will
help ideas to be questioned and
challenged and you will contribute to
making the public space an open space
where the best ideas can win will you
allow yourself to change your views and
to abandon all ones
smart people change their mind choose to
be one
[Applause]
you
[Music]
Please follow and like us: