Honest debate in an era of misinformation

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/01/2025 (281 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What did you do?” — Economist and philosopher John Maynard Keynes

Discussing current affairs with friends and acquaintances has become a desultory experience. Many of my associates seem deeply knowledgeable and spout facts with great certainty.

However, I often sense that I am engaging with CBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, and the Globe and Mail, reflecting the left-centre academic tranche of society imposed by my academic employment.

Another group I encounter is those who ingest a steady diet of Fox News, Tucker Carlson, and TikTok. They, too, have the conviction of true believers and will breathlessly cite calumnies of the left, adding that “Donald Trump/Pierre Poilievre will fix that, too.”

Both sides bemoan that no one fact-checks and misinformation has infected everyone except themselves. Many news sources claim they offer independent and objective information. After the first Trump presidency, COVID-19 actions and reactions, Tucker Carlson’s manure-gun fabrications, and the Democrats’ spectacular deceit in obscuring Joe Biden’s decline, then parachuting a poor facsimile of a competent candidate in the form of Kamala Harris, many do not know what to believe.

Similarly, Trump and his MAGA acolytes pepper the atmosphere with a barrage of fantastical fabrications and nonsense.

However, all these opinions have some truths that withstand scrutiny. The volume of facts, opinions, and innuendo overwhelms us. The challenge is to separate fact from fiction.

The problem has increased because post-modernists maintain that no objective truth exists. Reality is a social construction reflecting identities. We use our race, sex, and ethnic backgrounds as fulcrums of power.

Cognitive dissonance is the mental and emotional discomfort that occurs when we cannot reconcile contradictory beliefs, or our behaviour is at odds with our values. As Keynes suggests in the aforementioned quote, we should change our beliefs and behaviour when confronted by evidence, but that is quite hard, especially when we have proclaimed our allegiances. Denying the existence of objective reality only compounds the problem. Also, we instinctively distrust those who change their minds and value consistency in ourselves and others.

The age of TikTok and YouTube, with their algorithmic tuning of information to our interests, drives us ever deeper into silos. Our worlds tighten around us, and when we discuss politics, the conversations become a series of competing “gotchas” as each “side” pulls facts out of the air to “prove” its case and often with triumph, like showing a winning hand in poker.

Rooting out misinformation requires time. Few want to sift through an ocean of contradictory opinions and competing facts. So, the most common strategy for managing cognitive dissonance is to rely on a few “credible” sources. Many of us park the TV or radio on the channel that feeds our prejudices — CNN, Fox, CBC, or BBC — and let the 24-7 drip feed of “facts” reinforce our prejudices.

If we add a newspaper such as the New York Times or Globe and Mail, we assume we have the full spectrum of facts and opinions to form a balanced perspective. This is all we can manage in our busy lives, and we dig in.

I also fall prey to this. The Los Angeles fire is a case in point. This is the largest and costliest fire in U.S. history. President Donald Trump was quick to blame environmental policies. He opined that California’s environmental policies prioritized the preservation of the smelt (and near-extinct fish) rather than forest management.

Others have blasted the emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies instead of merit in public services. Others point to “progressive” policies, such as removing budgets from firefighting while expanding health care for undocumented residents. Underinvestment in water storage was the contributory issue.

My libertarian buttons were pushed, giving me a dopamine hit of confirmation.

Then, a corrective emerged that claimed the Los Angeles fire was inevitable. The hubris of constructing a large city in a location prone to large-scale fires is the “real” reason for the devastation.

Now, we have a ping-pong of explanations and counter-explanations. Which is correct? It is too soon to say, and no doubt, over the following weeks, we will see a tsunami of conflicting opinions.

Here are some maxims that might help one maintain sanity:

● Your first reaction is undoubtedly wrong. It is a smelt. Many see the initial reaction as the most genuine, but this is usually far from the truth.

● Put yourself in danger. If your habit is CNN, watch Fox even though your teeth hurt, and vice versa.

● Do not be afraid to change your mind publicly, providing evidence for why you have revised your thought.

● Rather than a gotcha confrontation, ask your “adversary” for the evidence supporting their position. Picking apart evidence is much more effective than a counter-assertion. When you hear mumbled generalities, the weakness of their position reveals itself. This is the jiu-jitsu of debate.

● Ask your protagonist, “What evidence would change your mind about X?” If they state with self-assurance that nothing would change their mind, they reveal resistance to added information and a closed mind; little point exists in continuing the discussion.

● Finally, it is “OK” to hold two opinions. As F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

The goal of debate in this age of polarities should be mutual discovery. This can only occur among those who are open to evidence, dare to be wrong, and change their minds when confronted with evidence.

Gregory Mason is an associate professor of economics at the University of Manitoba.