Let’s continue with the discussion of the traits in Western societies that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought into the light. An important factor to understand the global response to the pandemic refers to the way we collectively handle the information available to us through the internet. And I must admit that the outcome is not promising…
A controlled tsunami of information
When the internet technology was open to the public,
around thirty years ago, it was seen as a vehicle to share information around
the world, contributing to make our societies wiser and more intelligent.
It is hard to argue against the fact that the internet
is making available an unprecedented amount of information: for example, the
opening time of a grocery in Würzburg, the price of house in Comillas or an
article on the role of ghosts and witches in Shakespearean tragedies. That is
particularly stunning when we compare it with the situation some centuries ago,
where books and oral communication were the only means for humans to get new
information. In those times, the reach of the human mind was more limited, as
only what could be seen (usually the same city and country), heard (from
stories) and read (through books) could make it its way to the brain.
However, nothing of what was expected in terms of a
new era of enlightened society seems to have happened.
Actually, the internet offers such a huge amount of
information, but it must be filtered somehow for the consumption of the human
brain. Our brain can only process a limited amount of information and the
internet is offering much more than it can handle. I am referring here to the
information that we need to keep ourselves informed on what is going on around
us, not the storage of information that we can access on demand (the grocery
shop in Würzburg, for example).
The person or entity that is making the filtering for
us has a huge power. In a probably naïve conception of society, we could assume
that the filtering would be based upon principles of truth, quality and the
like. Unfortunately, the process of filtering the information has become a trap
for the truth. Commercial and political interests have revealed themselves as
more important than the truth. Business models based on selling personal
information of users have emerged and have become prominent in societies.
Censorship has appeared again, reflecting mainly the
values of those filtering the information for us. It can be censorship driven
by political interests or by moral, like the censorship of naked bodies in
certain social media.[1] On
the political sphere, we are in an era of unlimited information but are not
able to know accurately what is going on in Kazakhstan, for instance. The
phenomenon of fake news or “alternative facts” provide evidence of this
process.[2]
Like music for my ears
On our side, we have become trapped in our own
inflexibility. Even if everybody will answer to a hypothetical survey that
he/she is open to different ideas, the truth is that we all like hear views
like ours and dislike to hear views in disagreement with ours. It takes some
intellectual effort to accept different views and be able to argue to defend
ours.[3]
Just go to the bar of a pub for evidence on this.
So, the result is that information has often been
filtered to align with our own views, expressed before in how we navigate
through the internet. From a different perspective, we get access to
information in line with our views, because otherwise we would not access that
internet webpage. That implies that our views get narrower and then we get
access to a narrower set of information, in a type of loop.
Not being in contact with those not sharing our views
have created an important damage to our capacity of critical thinking, making
us more prone to blindly follow those who are able to trigger our deepest emotions.
There is a narrative created and to which we are constantly exposed, making us
believe in it blindly because we simply do not have the chance to access other
alternative views.
Repeating over time a lie does not make it true, but
it becomes ingrained in our brain.
It can be said that sharing loudly a message matters
more than the truth in that message. For instance, the United Kingdom had a
referendum some years ago to decide on its membership in the EU. The messages
from those in favour of leaving the EU were heard very loudly everywhere,
despite being based on false premises. Those in favour of staying in the EU
provided a quieter campaign, focused on facts and they failed miserably. The
lies in the campaign have been revealed some years later, but that is not
important now. The political tensions in Catalonia in 2017 offer another
example in this area. Sadly, there are many examples where the volume of the
message matters more than the truth in it.
What does it mean for the pandemic?
The obvious question now is how this trend of
narrowing our perspective and being subject to manipulated information has
affected the societal response to the pandemic.
When the enemy is so small that it cannot be seen, we
cannot rely on our senses to make up our mind on what is going on. Imagine the
virus were the size of an elephant, it would be hard to argue that it does not
exist when you have it in front of your garden.
So, the quick answer is that it has fed the many
bizarre theories about the virus, health measures and the vaccines. Many people
without any education are claiming to know the truth about the pandemic,
against the view of scientists from the whole world. They are aware of a secret
conspiration going on and not able to accept views opposing them, even if
coming from the scientific community. The opinions of epidemiologists are valued
close to nothing because they do not fit in the story made in their minds,
regardless of the amount of evidence to back up these opinions. That is sad in
itself, and also costly as it makes the fight against the pandemic less
effective.
I am not saying that there is an absolute truth in
what the OMS, for instance, is saying, but there is probably more truth than
fake in their work. These other theories, on the contrary, offer no scientific
evidence, beyond the results of some works of dubious objectivity. They are
often accompanied by a certain amount of aggressivity and the claim to be in a
superior level that is able to understand the truth.
There is also another important component in this
resistance to accept the pandemic. Past failures of governments have impaired
the trust of citizens on them to solve their problems, leading them sometimes
to just do the opposite the government is recommending to do. The quality of
government action has been decreasing gradually in the last decades and the
lack of trust is just a consequence of this long-term process.
Unfortunately, in the era of unlimited availability of information, the fight against the pandemic is more in the territory of “faith” than on the camp of science and evidence. There are huge information gaps (cases in China, for example) and an unprecedented amount of noise that impairs our global response. Somehow, that could be expected in the Middle Age, where the Black Death was plaguing whole Europe, but not in our “internet” times.
Comments
Post a Comment