Yesterday was a long and dense blog, so I hope you have fully recovered from the cognition overload. :) Today will be softer but no less important!
Today I am going to talk about the importance of a claim's content and source credibility, and how to recognize a whether a person is communicating science (or accurate information of any kind) or science fiction (aka bullshit).
When we are preparing to make a decision that deserves some critical thinking, one important step in the process (and I will talk about the decision making process tomorrow) is to gather plenty of information before making that decision. So, where that information comes from is an important consideration!
In today's digital world of information, we hear a lot of complaining about the biases of this media outlet or that media outlet, and how the information they share should not be trusted. At its core, that concept is absolutely valuable: if the source of information is biased, then the way the information is shared, or the information itself, may be biased or tainted. So, yes, we all should be cautious about where we go or who we go to for information on any given topic.
So, how do we know if a claim is credible, or what or who is a credible source? Good questions! Let's tackle them.
First, content credibility. When you hear a claim (statement by a person who wants you to believe what they say and act on it), the first step is to consider on the surface whether the claim seems credible. Does the claim fit with your personal observations (life experiences) or the information/knowledge you already have obtained? The more unbelievable a claim seems, the stronger the evidence needs to be to support it. Just because you have heard a claim repeated many times doesn't make it more plausible or credible, so be cautious of popular or oft repeated claims.
Next, source credibility. Who is telling you this claim? Do they have something to gain (personally, financially, professionally) from stating this claim or getting you (or others) to believe or act on this claim? If so, could that bias impact the validity of the claim, or the information they provide to support their claim?
Is the source of this claim or information an expert in this area, making them a credible source? I wouldn't ask my medical doctor for advice on buying a new car, because that isn't their area of expertise. Who you gather information from matters!
Variables to consider when determining if a source of information/a claim is credible would be there knowledge on the topic, their truthfulness, objectivity, and reliability as a person.
Research has uncovered some tell tale signs when a person is being deceitful: excessive sweating, shifty eye movements, avoiding eye contact, staring up to the left and other micro-expressions, nervous laughter, or changing the subject when pushed for more information. If you spot these behaviors, you want to consider why this person is possibly being less than truthful with you. Of course, these are not guaranteed to be signs of deceit, it could be that the person is nervous for other reasons. However, take time to think about it.
If you are uncertain of their truthfulness, consider whether they are an objective party. Again, do they have anything to gain from influencing your attitude or action? If so, think about what they have to gain, and how the information they are sharing might be tainted by that lack of objectivity. It is not guaranteed that they cannot be objective just because they have something to gain from their influence, but it is worth calculating into the decision making process. At the least, you should consider getting more information from another party, one that is not likely to gain from the transaction.
Finally, are they a reliable source? The most reliable source is one that has accumulated expertise in the area, has experience in the field and has developed a positive reputation among peers or colleagues. Status or position and achievements add credibility to the source of information, but are not absolutely necessary to be considered an expert or a good source of information.
You want information about a scientific claim, maybe one about medicine? Go to a medical expert, specifically one that has a good reputation among their peers, has experience in the field (recent, since medicine evolves rapidly), and has expertise in the specific area of medicine upon which you are evaluating a claim. Don't seek advice about a cancer diagnosis from a dermatologist - it isn't their field.
This reminds me of a running joke I have with some of my friends from graduate school. When we would tell someone we were getting a PhD in psychology, we were likely to be met with questions or comments about clinical psychology, which was/is not our area of study. We would often joke that we were NOT getting a PhD in Everything! Science is a vast field of study, with new information that changes our theoretical understanding of thousands of topics, and no one scientist can be an expert in it all. Scientists, myself included, are experts in a rather narrow field. For me, it is Positive Developmental Psychology, and I consider myself an expert in that field, but most specifically on cultivating resilience, flow, and approach motivation through exercise and nature exposure. In adulthood. See, that is very specific. I have broad knowledge in many topics in the field of Positive Developmental Psychology, and deep knowledge in the areas I mentioned. So don't come to me expecting expert advice about the optimal developmental environment for toddlers in preschool. Not my area.
Get the picture? You need to go to the experts in the particular area in which you seek to find information about a claim/decision.
Sometimes you just know when you are listening to a bullshitter, right? Sometimes you can spot them right away and you immediately know: "This person is bullshitting me right now. I am not taking what they say with any amount of seriousness." But sometimes, the bullshitter is really good. When I teach Critical Thinking as a college course, one of my favorite textbooks* provided students with a rather tongue-in-cheek list of tips for being a good bullshit artist. I will share it, so you can use this list to recognize a bullshitter. Take their information as such, the work of someone is no longer a credible source.
Presenting Science Fiction as Science:
Look confident
Present polls and surveys as evidence (these are opinions, not evidence)
Make no excessive claims
Gain subject's cooperation; make them find meaning in your claim(s)
Use a gimmick
Use stock phrases that are familiar
Observe listeners' responses
Fish and listen
Be dramatic; pretend to more than you do
Flatter; tell them what they WANT to hear
There you have it. I hope this is helpful as you continue to manage life in a chaotic time. Stay resilience and avoid the fatigue that comes from persistent stress by practicing some critical thinking. It will help you make good decisions for your life, and will help you learn how to filter out the evidence/information you don't need to make those decisions.
Making good decisions is about taking your time in the process. Believing in the process of gathering information. Good information comes from truthful, objective, reliable sources. Use those and avoid the others. Avoiding the others will help you sift through a lot less bullshit, and help you find the valid information you need to make good decisions you can feel confident in, and that can hopefully help you feel some control over your life at a time when so much feels out of our control.
You've got this. Remember my mantra for the week:
Choose your words wisely. Listen to the words of others carefully.
Tomorrow, I wrap up the week on critical thinking by giving you a nice list of the steps in decision making, and some pitfalls to avoid in the process. Until then-
Be well, stay safe, and take care.
*Thought and Knowledge, An Introduction to Critical Thinking, 2013, by Diane Halpern, Psychology Press
Comments