1/It's good being back on Twitter. Since being back, I've been thinking about how/why misinformation proliferates so widely on social media like Twitter.
To adapt an old canard, Twitter is a medium because it is neither rare nor well done.
To adapt an old canard, Twitter is a medium because it is neither rare nor well done.
2/These qualities are simultaneously features and bugs. Twitter is ubiquitous and open to everyone, which makes it ideal for disseminating information. But Twitter is also ubiquitous and open to everyone, which makes it ideal for spreading misinformation.
3/The misinformation that concerns me is that which is driven by what I will call "gadflies."
These are individuals who do a bit of "research" on YouTube, or perhaps even via a pre-print, and then find a quote that accords with their pre-conceived notion (confirmation bias).
These are individuals who do a bit of "research" on YouTube, or perhaps even via a pre-print, and then find a quote that accords with their pre-conceived notion (confirmation bias).
4/They then seize on that notion and will often use it to play "gotcha" with experts.
Gadflies mean well, since they are "just asking questions."
But their approach does not lead to productive conversation.
Gadflies mean well, since they are "just asking questions."
But their approach does not lead to productive conversation.
5/Many gadflies are individuals who do not appreciate the fundamentals of a field. They have often skipped over the hardest part of any field, which is the the deep understanding that comes from years of painstaking knowledge acquisition.
6/Instead, they prefer to jump straight to what they find to be the "fun" parts of a field: throwing out contrarian viewpoints and drawing people into hackneyed arguments.
7/Indeed, they prefer the role of a gadfly to spending years on knowledge acquisition. Why not? It's easier and you get to make waves.
It's like having the only pin at a balloon party. It's a lot of fun for you, but pretty pesky for everyone else.
But it's also low yield.
It's like having the only pin at a balloon party. It's a lot of fun for you, but pretty pesky for everyone else.
But it's also low yield.
8/Having skipped over the difficult, often boring, parts of a field, gadflies are drawn to salacious-sounding topics.
They seize those tropes and promote them. At best, it’s nonsense; at worst, it’s misinformation.
They seize those tropes and promote them. At best, it’s nonsense; at worst, it’s misinformation.
9/Experts in the field - those who have mastered the fundamentals - often see such misinformation and have two reactions:
1. If I respond, I am dignifying the misinformation, and, given the way Twitter's algorithms work, could actually amplify it.
1. If I respond, I am dignifying the misinformation, and, given the way Twitter's algorithms work, could actually amplify it.
10/
2. Responding takes time. And since the gadfly doesn't have the base of knowledge, I have to build that base for them. That takes even more time. And by the time I respond with sufficient clarity, the gadfly may have moved on.
2. Responding takes time. And since the gadfly doesn't have the base of knowledge, I have to build that base for them. That takes even more time. And by the time I respond with sufficient clarity, the gadfly may have moved on.
11/This is Brandolini's law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolin…
In short, the amount of energy required to refute misinformation is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.
In short, the amount of energy required to refute misinformation is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.
12/So misinformation spreads unchecked because those who have the wherewithal to check it do not (for the understandable reasons noted above).
But to casual observers, the lack of a response might mean that the gadfly's point stands.
But to casual observers, the lack of a response might mean that the gadfly's point stands.
13/This is what Mark Twain meant when he quipped that a lie can spread half way around the world before the truth even gets its shoes on.
14/The problem is more pronounced on social media.
That's largely because of the allure of misinformation.
Misinformation proliferates because it is easy to produce, can be deployed rapidly (before experts have analyzed a situation)...
That's largely because of the allure of misinformation.
Misinformation proliferates because it is easy to produce, can be deployed rapidly (before experts have analyzed a situation)...
15/...,it confirms individuals’ pre-exiting beliefs about the world, and, critically, is easy to understand in times when the world seems uncertain.
Misinformation satisfies our need for clarity in a topsy-turvy world.
Misinformation satisfies our need for clarity in a topsy-turvy world.
16/Gadflies often respond to these criticisms by saying that they are "just engaging in the scientific method" and that if we were "real" scientists, we would welcome the questions and engage in the debate on honest terms.
17/Like many other mistruths, this one has a hint of reality underpinning it.
The arc of scientific progress *does* depend on disagreement. This is, in effect, what Thomas Kuhn noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
The arc of scientific progress *does* depend on disagreement. This is, in effect, what Thomas Kuhn noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
18/I've seen gadflies position themselves as the revolutionary thinkers in the room.
One theme is for them to claim that they are "just doing what Galileo did."
One theme is for them to claim that they are "just doing what Galileo did."
19/But with one major difference: the debate that underlies a Kuhn-style paradigm shift is usually driven by a contrarian who *has* mastered the fundamentals of a field, and just sees them through a revolutionary lens.
20/Put differently, Charles Darwin just wasn't some guy in 1860s England with a Twitter account. He was a skilled naturalist who mastered the fundamentals of the field.
Likewise, Galileo wasn't just some chap who was bored on Facebook and wanted to taunt the Catholic Church.
Likewise, Galileo wasn't just some chap who was bored on Facebook and wanted to taunt the Catholic Church.
21/He was highly skilled and had, again, mastered the fundamentals of his time.
Engaging with gadflies rarely produces beneficial outcomes. Their goals can sometimes be outcome driven and intended to sow distrust.
Engaging with gadflies rarely produces beneficial outcomes. Their goals can sometimes be outcome driven and intended to sow distrust.
22/When presented with robust facts, gadflies either quickly change their argument or claim that there is a larger conspiracy afoot.
For example, many cannot state their preconditions for changing their viewpoint (falsifiability).
For example, many cannot state their preconditions for changing their viewpoint (falsifiability).
23/Recently, I have seen gadflies claim that they are being "shamed" when their errors are corrected. When they do engage, experts run the risk of punching down. Personally, I need to be better about engaging in non-judgmental terms.
24/Dunking on someone might feel great, but it does nothing to quash misinformation and likely exacerbates it.
Also, experts often only interact with themselves. That has value when it comes to knowledge advancement, but it can make discussions rarefied.
Also, experts often only interact with themselves. That has value when it comes to knowledge advancement, but it can make discussions rarefied.
25/I personally admire the approach of @ProfPCDoherty, a Nobel laureate. He asks individuals for references to peer-reviewed publications to back up their claims.
If gadflies want to get into the arena, they should be ready to offer citations.
If gadflies want to get into the arena, they should be ready to offer citations.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
