Improve your fact-checking with one simple change

Barring specific exceptions, such as laboratories, most people currently do their research on the internet. It has quickly surpassed the library as the accepted repository of human knowledge.

A lot of information is indeed available online, but not all of it is fact-checked. And much of it is contradictory.

Luckily, making sure you’ve found the correct information for your purposes is a skill you can learn.

The search engine isn’t the?problem

The primary issue with internet research is that search engine algorithms are programmed to return results based on the keywords entered in the search box.

This is not technically a flaw. It is ideal for answers to basic questions, or for supporting evidence. It’s not usually a problem that a search engine only gives you supporting evidence.

If you are, however, trying to debunk a theory, your chosen keywords will not give you what you want.

When you type a phrase into a search engine, the search engine uses those words to bring your results. Its job is to return results containing the keywords you’ve entered. Some search engines also use synonyms or “related terms,” but none use antonyms.

The average person would find that useless.

People know this. It’s why they use the search engine that consistently gives them their preferred results. A search engine that is unhelpful is a search engine that is unused.

There is an adage about computers that applies here: They don’t do what you want; they only do what you tell them to.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance

This is an electronic form of confirmation bias, the situation where any information we come across seems to support our existing conclusions. In short, we pay attention to only the information we agree with.

Following people on social media you agree with only worsens the situation. Eventually, you are stuck in a recursive loop of agreement and have to go far out of your circle to find a dissenting opinion.

Which is not something you’re likely to do, because any reliable information that goes against our beliefs stresses us out with cognitive dissonance. We have trouble reconciling how both can be right. This is the primary reason that it never works to argue with a person with deeply held beliefs.

Our beliefs are also part of our identity, how we define ourselves. Whether you define yourself by your politics, your interests, your religion, your heritage, or whatever else you feel is central to your being, you don’t want anything messing with “who you are.” Any different information is automatically labeled “wrong.”

And yet, sometimes we want to learn the other side of an argument. Especially if, say, you’re writing an article and want to be evenhanded on the topic. Then your Google-fu skills are truly tested.

“So, what’s this one easy?change?”

Stay with me, now.

Say you read one of the many shared articles about the decrease of the human attention span. Last I heard, it had gone from 12 seconds down to 8 seconds — reportedly less than that of a goldfish.

You find this intriguing. You want to know more about it, so you google it.

But maybe you’re not so sure about this theory. Maybe it sounds way off. (If people have an eight-second attention span, how do we binge-watch, read, or even drive?)

Up pop hundreds of articles supporting the idea, mostly blaming the internet.

New media

They say the internet makes us all forgetful because, with all the ready information, we don’t need to remember.

But people have been complaining about new media for as long as there have been new media — even since writing was the new medium.

In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates tells a story about the Egyptian god Theuth and one of the country’s kings. Theuth invents the alphabet and the concept of writing.

He promotes it to the king, saying it will “make the people of Egypt wiser and improve their memories.”

The king disagrees, believing that writing will, in fact, “implant forgetfulness in their souls.” They won’t have to exercise their memory muscles because they will “rely on that which is written.”

So, the idea that technological advancements will make us all idiots is well over 2,000 years old and shows no signs of slowing.

Every time a new way of spreading information crops up, people say the same thing, from print to movies to radio to TV to the internet — to whatever comes next.

In his classic Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman posits that each medium can only present a certain level of idea. As each new medium becomes easier to navigate, deeper thinking is shunted aside in favor of shallower takes.

This idea has been continued recently by Nicholas Carr — first in his article for The Atlantic, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” then in his excellent book The Shallows.

Depth, not?length

But these writers are focused on depth of thought — not length of attention span.

The only people who seem really concerned about length of our attention spans are marketers, whose livelihood depends on people’s attention.

Writer Rachel Ainsworth offers some insight into the easy acceptance of the specious attention-span statistic: “The falling attention span sounds intuitively correct. And the comparison with the lowly goldfish makes for an attention-grabbing and memorable statistic.”

Here are some reasons I think it works:

• It’s a simple story — The internet made us dumber than fish.
• It has basic, easy-to-understand numbers — 12 seconds vs. 8 seconds.
• It’s visual — Was your goldfish anything but a vibrant orange?
• It’s emotional — Sparks nostalgia in those who had goldfish as children.
• It comes completely packaged with everything you’ve heard about how harmful the internet is.

All of which combine to make it likely to be remembered — and shared.

Intellectual archaeology

To investigate this theory further, go to your preferred search engine for deeper research. But if you search for attention span eight seconds, you will only get articles supporting that idea.

You may see articles addressing it negatively, but searching for those words will only give you those words back. Perhaps there will be some attempting to debunk it, but what you do not get is solid information to the contrary.

If your attention span isn’t eight seconds, how long is it? If you want different information, you have to change the specifics of the search.

Simply put, use different words. Deliberately try to find contrary information.

Think while you?search

For example, instead of seconds, type in minutes or hours instead. (After all, you’re able to settle in to read a long magazine article, or even a book when time allows.)

Use words that are related but different.

Use opposites, or completely unrelated words.

Don’t be satisfied with a single source. This is vital because many writers are satisfied with a single source, especially if it supports their hypothesis.

Even a persuasive headline can lead to believing a fallacy.

That’s worse than confirmation bias. That’s potentially spreading misinformation.

Unfortunately, one source is also enough for most readers. We have to make the effort to read carefully and question anything presented as absolute fact.

The important thing is to be selective. Take the journey.

Check your sources. And check their sources. Don't stop until you find the primary source of any statement. If you can't find the primary source, don't use it.

You might end up somewhere you didn’t expect. And that’s the best way to truly expand your knowledge.

All that knowledge is just waiting to be absorbed.