What weight do you attach to the source of the data when making a decision?

In 2018 the Jersey Policy Forum ran a series of workshops with the media and key persons of influence to discuss fake news and the effect on democracy.

Link
https://medium.com/nine-by-five-media/what-is-the-role-of-media-in-a-healthy-democracy-71ee33bd4b44

This happened about the same time the Parliament and ICO Regulator were reviewing the effect of social media manipulation on Brexit and Trump votes.

Link
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcumeds/363/363.pdfa

The 1960’s Stanley Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was interesting in so far as it showed with the right context and in the right circumstances anyone can be persuaded to act in ways that they would not otherwise countenance.

Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

But we already knew that. Joseph Goebbels said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Link
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

Of course, now with social media and the four horsemen of the information apocalypse: Google; Apple; Facebook; Amazon. The power that once belonged to the State now belongs to those that hold and control the data and opinions we consume and believe. Accordingly the effect our behaviour whether that is buying or believing.

So we appear to be at risk of being manipulated by authority figures and data holders into making bad decisions.

Take for example the fraudulent research paper authored by Andrew Wakefield and published in The Lancet claimed to link the MMR vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders. This was totally untrue but the naïve public and press chose to believe it and many denied their children the MMR vaccine and thus put them needlessly at risk.

Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_and_autism

The problem however is that if we have “had enough of experts” (as Michael Gove suggests) how do we know what is true, or properly evaluate the credibility of the people who try to influence us?

Link
https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c

One simple approach is to be skeptical about everything and ask a probability question. Is it more or less probable that there is an ulterior motive behind what is being said: perhaps a sale or a vote? This is more honest about uncertainty because probability acknowledges that there is seldom 0% or 100% certainty.

Another approach with interesting implications (but a few challenges in application) is the dot collector approach championed by Ray Dalio in the book Principles and the TED Talk of the same name:

Link
https://www.ted.com/talks/ray_dalio_how_to_build_a_company_where_the_best_ideas_win?language=en

This means that instead of authority (I’m the boss, I decide) or democracy (we all get a vote, no matter how stupid we are) there is a weighting system applied to people’s opinions based on their track-record.

It is an interesting idea particularly if we can jolt the system with radical transparency and radical honesty. If the iconoclast can scream “The emperor has no clothes!” we need to be cautious that this isn’t the headline grabbing and attention seeking idiot. Are they credible, qualified, experienced, knowledgeable or consistently right? Maybe we should check.

Link
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the%20emporer%20has%20no%20clothes

We need people to stir things up, to challenge the norm and rebel against the country-club group-think that places being liked above being right. In her book Wilful Blindness Margaret Heffernan demonstrates the danger of willful blindness, and praises ordinary people who are willing to speak up.

Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
https://www.ted.com/talks/margaret_heffernan_the_dangers_of_willful_blindness?language=en

So how should we use all this knowledge and experience to make better decisions?

My view is that we have an obligation to educate ourselves and others. Ironically however that education should not be along the lines of “here is the answer” or even this it right or wrong but more along the lines of …

What are the implications if this is true or false?
Is this useful to our thinking, what if the opposite is true?

This is useful in terms of the asymmetric bet: some truths have little impact but the opposite may have a massive impact. Or vice versa. So if the truth has discernible impact but the opposite is catastrophic which should influence our behaviour?

Link
https://asymmetryobservations.com/definitions/asymmetric-betting/

Having said that, don’t believe the author – go a check for yourself.

I hope the references are helpful rather than distracting and if you have knowledge, experience, qualification of any type (especially opposing views) please add to the comments and provide a different perspective to readers.