"Critical Ignoring"

Considering this is the ODI World Cup year, and that too at home, this is perhaps a good time to discuss “Do India choke in high-profile ODIs?”. That’s what Kartikeya Date did in a data driven analytical piece in ESPNCricInfo. In recent years India have had a few high-profile losses in knockout matches of world ODI events - the 2015 World Cup semi-final to Australia, the Champions Trophy final in 2017 to Pakistan, and the 2019 World Cup semi-final to New Zealand. These losses have created the impression in the minds of some fans that the Indian ODI side, good as it is especially during the league stages of these tournaments, "doesn't come good when it matters". The claim is that there is some "mental" shortcoming, some shortage of "bottle". These claims are untestable (and therefore, unfalsifiable) because they speculate about the psychological make-up of strangers, based on a cursory view of the players in question on TV, and therefore amount to mind-reading.

Kartikeya Date analyzed the numbers instead. An ODI match consists of up to 600 equally competitively significant events known as legal deliveries. The outcome of each delivery influences the result; and the result depends on the accumulated outcomes of these deliveries. Teams want to reach a result as quickly as possible and do, as is evident from the fact that in ODIs in the current century, the average successful chasing team has won with 55 balls to spare; 87% of ODI chases are completed with at least an over to spare. The average successful target-setting team wins by 74 runs on average. The norm in ODIs is not that games build up to a thrilling end game. It is that teams contest every ball and want to get ahead as much as they can, as early as they can. So, to pinpoint that India lost on pivotal moments is “attention” grabbing, but not evidence based. Infact, data shows India won as many % of “must-win” matches in ODI tournaments, as “can-lose” matches. Or conversely, India lost as many % of “can-lose” matches, as “must-win” matches! Hence, the so called “mental” issues are either there in every match they play, or in no match! So, either we can choose to critically think about this observation which is not substantiated by data, or we can choose to critically ignore such attention-grabbing headlines.

A 2019 analysis of Twitter hashtags, Google queries, or Reddit comments found that across the past decade, the rate at which the popularity of items rises and drops has accelerated. In 2013, for example, a hashtag on Twitter was popular on average for 17.5 hrs, while in 2016, its popularity faded away after 11.9 hrs. Now it is less than 8 hrs. More competition leads to shorter collective attention intervals, which lead to ever fiercer competition for our attention - a vicious circle. By now we know that the web is an informational paradise and a hellscape at the same time. A boundless wealth of high-quality information is available at our fingertips right next to a ceaseless torrent of low-quality, distracting, false and manipulative information. To regain control, we need cognitive strategies that help us reclaim at least some autonomy and shield us from the excesses, traps, and information disorders of today’s attention economy. Which is what “critical ignoring” will help us to do. In their research paper "Critical Ignoring as a Core Competence for Digital Citizens" - a philosopher, two cognitive scientists and an education scientist, argue that as much as we need critical thinking, we also need critical ignoring. So, what is “Critical Ignoring”?

It is the ability to choose what to ignore and where to invest one’s limited attentional capacities. Critical ignoring is more than just not paying attention - it’s about practicing mindful and healthy habits in the face of information overabundance. It must be a core competence for all citizens in the digital word, without which we will drown in a sea of information that is, at best, distracting and, at worst, misleading and harmful. The platforms that control search were conceived in profit making. Their business model auctions off our most precious and limited cognitive resource: attention. These platforms work overtime to hijack our attention by purveying information that arouses curiosity, outrage, or anger. The more our eyeballs remain glued to the screen, the more ads they can show us, and the greater profits accrue to their shareholders.

The ability to think critically is immensely important. But is it enough in a world of information overabundance and gushing sources of disinformation? The answer is “No” for at least two reasons. First, the digital world contains more information than the world’s libraries combined. Much of it comes from unvetted sources and lacks reliable indicators of trustworthiness. Critically thinking through all information and sources we come across would utterly paralyze us because we would never have time to actually read the valuable information we painstakingly identify. Second, investing critical thinking in sources that should have been ignored in the first place means that attention merchants and malicious actors have been gifted what they wanted, our attention. So, what tools do we have at our disposal beyond critical thinking?

First, in the digital world, self-nudging aims to empower people to be citizen “choice architects” by designing their informational environments in ways that work best for them and that constrain their activities in beneficial ways. We can, for instance, remove distracting and irresistible notifications. We may set specific times in which messages can be received, thereby creating pockets of time for concentrated work or socializing. Second, lateral reading is a strategy that enables people to emulate how professional fact checkers establish the credibility of online information. It involves opening new browser tabs to search for information about the organisation or individual behind a site before diving into its contents. Only after consulting the open web do skilled searchers gauge whether expending attention is worth it. Lateral reading thus uses the power of the web to check the web. Finally, the do-not-feed-the-trolls heuristic targets online trolls and other malicious users who harass, cyberbully, or use other antisocial tactics. Trolls thrive on attention, and deliberate spreaders of dangerous disinformation often resort to trolling tactics. The heuristic advises against directly responding to trolling. Resist debating or retaliating. Of course, this strategy of critical ignoring is only a first line of defense. It should be complemented by blocking and reporting trolls and by transparent platform content moderation policies including debunking.

The philosopher Michael Lynch had noted that the internet “is both the world’s best fact-checker and the world’s best bias confirmer - often at the same time.” Navigating it successfully requires new competencies that should be taught in schools and universities and even in professional spaces. Without the competence to choose what to ignore and where to invest one’s limited attention, we allow others to seize control of our eyes, minds, and time. Appreciation for the importance of critically ignoring is not new but has become even more crucial in the digital world. As the philosopher and psychologist William James astutely observed at the beginning of the 20th century: “The art of being wise is the art of knowing what to ignore.” On this note, I wish you and your family and friends a very Happy Holi. May the festival of colors brighten your life with happiness, health, and success. I also take the opportunity to thank and appreciate all the wonderful women around the World and in our lives on International Women’s Day. Let us together be fair, strong, and kind to make this world an inclusive and equitable place for all.