Harvard Business Review: Becoming a More Critical Consumer of Information

 +

JMJ

 I've made it no secret that I have an allergic reaction to conspiracy theories, something that I have to work to manage.

This Harvard Article gives a quick guide to assessing information that crosses our virtual and real doorstep.

Tradical Summary

1. WORTS: Information that 'weakens our relationship to truth'. While the acronym is a little contrived, the reality is that we need to understand the background behind a 'news' item.  Is the person paid to make the statement? Do they have motivations are they mixing truth, speculation and fiction. I was sent a conspiracy video a little while ago. I did some digging and couldn't help but notice that the video author has a nice splashy merch page. When I fact checked his story, within 10 minutes I found that he was either ignorant, ignored or lied about the evidence that debunked his theory.  It made me wonder if he's more interested in living of our merch and clicks than dealing in the truth.
   
2. Error-Free Data: I've already discussed lying with statistics, misrepresenting data and half-truths. So it is important to check if the data is reliable. Christopher Ferrara's reliance on the Chile vaccination affect was a good example of a confirmation bias and part to whole fallacy.  
3.  Real Expertise: This is actually my first step in fact-checking. Does the person making a claim that would require some degree of expertise have actual credentials in that domain?  Case in  point is Rashid Buttar. It seems that someone puts 'Dr.' in front of their name and they immediately disconnect their common sense.  First Buttar is an Osteopath  (OD not MD), in most cases this is a chiropractor. 

So when you hear a new juicy bit of news (these days about COVID, vaccines, etc) take a step back and ask yourself these questions:

• Does the source of this information have verifiable expertise in the domain?
• Are they supporting their claim with reliable data, half-truths etc that provides a complete view of the context.  A good habit is to search for either fact-checking or dig into the context of the claim.
•  Do they have any conflicts of interest to provide truthful data?  Is it a paid advertisement or their own experience? Does it translate reliably to a broader context?
  

This helps me to sift the data that comes across my desk!

 P^3

 

Source: Harvard Business Review

 

Author Summary: Trust is our most important foundation for navigating a complex, data-filled world. And yet, an ADP Research Institute study shows that having a high level of trust in our colleagues and organizations is at its lowest level in recent memory. In a world where content marketing is on the rise, content makers are everywhere and can reach into your life more directly than ever before, there are three skills to help you confer your trust as wisely as possible. First is to look out for and call out practices that Weaken Our Relationship to Truth (or “WORTs”). Next, we need to become data-fluent by learning how to spot error-free data. Finally, we need to ensure the experts we listen to have knowledge and experience in the area in which they are speaking or writing.

Key Excerpts

• WORTs

• A wort is anything that deliberately tries to blur the line between what is true and what is not. The outcome of a wort — whether intended or not — is that it reduces the overall level of trust in the world. It Weakens Our Relationship to the Truth.
• For example, magazines used to draw a bright line between advertising and editorial. Today those lines are increasingly fuzzy.

• Error-Free Data

• Data can definitely help you know whom and what to trust. But the trick is to become data-fluent by learning how to spot error-free data.
• There are only three ways to generate data. You can count things, rank things, or rate things. Of the three, counting things is the most reliable, the least error-filled. For example, conversations are not data. So when someone tells you “Well, we’ve talked to a lot of people…” this isn’t data. It’s anecdote, and, as the saying has it, the plural of anecdote isn’t data.
• And data isn’t just “numbers.” What you’re looking for are reliable numbers. ... So, if someone throws a number at you, ask how that number was generated, as in, what specifically were they counting?

• Spot Real Expertise

• The simplest sign that you’re listening to an expert you can trust is experience. Before you give your trust to someone, ask yourself if they have patterns of experience in the very thing they claim to be expert in. You don’t have to be a medical expert to know that, in an expertise “battle” between a retired radiologist such as Scott Atlas and a working infectious disease specialist such Anthony Fauci, you don’t need to layer on politics; instead you simply give your trust to the person with the deepest relevant experience.[Tradical; I know that Fauci messed up on masks, but the point is that Scott Atlas is less trustworthy than Anthony Fauci]
  
• Second, look for humility. Online we are under constant assault by the arrogance of amateurs. Amateurs — because they don’t know very much about the particular subject — tend to be grandiose in their claims. Experts take a humbler approach. They know that knowledge is like a circle: the more knowledge they have, the more the circumference of what they realize they don’t know grows. So, whenever you hear careful and limited answers, you’re probably listening to someone you can trust.
• Third, trustworthy experts are independently accredited. Their credibility doesn’t come from hordes of followers, but instead from unbiased groups of fellow experts — people whose only agenda is to ensure that their subject area maintains its integrity.
• Finally, stay alert for expertise-creep. Check to make sure that the expert is credentialed in the area in which they’re claiming expertise. ...  to be a critical thinker, always be curious about precisely what their doctorate is in. ... PhDs, though valuable, reflect depth, not breadth. They are non-transferable, subject to subject.