Imlisanen Jamir
Brainwashing is a pretty strong word. If someone accused any of us of being brainwashed, our reactions would be pretty confrontational. Perhaps a few would keep hold of their wits and carefully consider why they might think that.
Let us for a moment consider the scenario that in response to this accusation, we try to communicate with the accuser to understand why they came to that conclusion?
Because here’s the thing: To varying degrees, we’re all the sum of strong outside influences on the way we see the world and think. Brainwashing involves pressure or influence that leads to adopting radical ideas and beliefs, but what, these days, is radical? And how often do we critically examine why we might be thinking the way we do, especially when visceral reactions should set off warning bells that something isn't right?
People naturally seek to be right, that what they think and believe is correct or completely justified — a perception supported by many studies. Even when people encounter balanced information containing views from differing perspectives, they tend to find supporting evidence for what they already believe.
So the task for truly objective consideration of information is already daunting. The hill gets much steeper, however, thanks to internet manipulators. Massive vendors like Google and Facebook understand a user’s preferences based on what that person has been looking at online.
They (can) prioritize information in our feeds that we are most likely to agree with — no matter how fringe — and shield us from information that might change our minds. The practice is manipulative marketing at the least. Far worse is the practice of bolstering radical beliefs through misinformation and disinformation while restricting contrary evidence or verifiable information.
We may say, 'Not so, I am open-minded!' The evidence shows otherwise. A study published in Scientific American disclosed, “This tendency is extremely difficult to correct. Experiments consistently show that even when people encounter balanced information containing views from differing perspectives, they tend to find supporting evidence for what they already believe.”
When people receive information counter to their own beliefs, they dig in. They become even more committed to their established views on the subject. This behavior is being used by many Internet vendors for their own benefit, but not ours. Many large-scale Internet vendors, such as Google and Facebook, rely on user sessions to gain knowledge of users' browsing preferences.
This invaluable pool of information is used by many of the major search engines to personalize what is displayed to a user based on the user’s history; that is, what the user’s preferences are.
What it leads to is bombardment of our internet lives with enough of the proverbial 'snake oil,' that the fence-sitter will likely get off the fence. How so? By echo chambers, bots and memes spreading false-but-negative information, all designed to manipulate our behavior.
Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com
