To be or not to be?

Though this question was asked by Hamlet in the context of life and death, I am asking this question in the context of accepting or rejecting information that is coming in. In this age of information deluge, a key challenge for all working professionals is to decide how much weight we should give to the new information; whether we should accept it even to change our set beliefs or reject it. Our cognitive infrastructure relies a lot on its past experience including the beliefs it harbors, and finds it easier to accept the new information if it is in sync with what it already knows. Psychologists call this as 'motivated reasoning'.

Having more information does not help, as the musician Brian Eno observed: "The great promise of the internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." Accepting an information that is accurate but not in line with our existing belief is the biggest hurdle to get over, and often the single most contributor for our blind-spots.

There are parallels from electrical world where we have observed and solved for when a system creates resistance to incoming signal. In electrical terms, impedance refers to the force resisting the flow of current; but it can be used to denote any resistance by a system against accepting energy. In electrical devices, it is managed through impedance matching - a practice of designing or adjusting the input or output impedance. We can also devise a similar approach - both for the external sources (input impedance) and our own thinking (output impedance) for managing the resistance to new information.

For the incoming new information, evaluate the source to address input impedance. Social Media is just a platform and in itself is not a source. Unless the source is reputable one, consider it just an opinion. Always distinguish between facts, opinions and beliefs. By assigning weights - higher weight for fact, lower for opinion and even lower for beliefs - we can adjust the impedance matcher for external source.

If you find yourself emotionally reacting, take a step back as it is often a manipulation - a technique called emotional conjugation. Words have two types of meaning - one factual and other emotional. 'Undocumented immigrants' and 'illegal aliens' both refer to the same group of people, but the emotional reaction to those words are very different. If you can't find 'facts' but only emotional reaction to what you already believe, then take a pause and adjust the weight for the source.

To address the thinking itself - i.e., to address output impedance - there are couple of techniques. Psychologist Tom Gilovich (Cornell University) describes that our minds are guided by two different questions, depending on whether the information is consistent or inconsistent with our beliefs: "Can I believe this?" OR "Must I believe this?" We can adjust our impedance matcher simply by reversing these questions. For example, when you are confronted with an information that matches your belief ask this question: 'Must I believe this?' The higher bar will help you to consciously guard against confirmation bias. Same is true for an information that is inconsistent with your belief; ask a lower bar question 'Can I believe this?' Asking such a question will help to adjust for the 'motivated reasoning'.

Recognize that there will be some inherent uncertainty. Victoria Stodden, Associate Professor, University of Southern California, suggests that we adapt the statistical modelling approach. Statistical modelling has two components: [1] data or measurements drawn from the world we observe, and [2] the underlying processes generating those data. In modelling, the use of the Greek letter epsilon explicitly recognizes that uncertainty is intrinsic to our world and it appears in the mathematical description of those underlying processes and represents the inherent randomness with which the data are generated. By asking ourself 'what is the epsilon here?' (hint: it is never zero) we can temper our reaction to the new information, particularly the vulnerable emotional reactions.

Finally, develop a sense of fallibilism: Dr. Oliver Scott Curry, Oxford University observes that fallibilism - the notion that we may not be right - doesn't mean we must be entirely wrong. On the contrary, it tells us that our methods for distinguishing better ideas from worse ideas work, and urges us to use them to quantify our uncertainty and resolve it. It also works for distinguishing better information from worse information. Developing a healthy impedance matcher both for input and output will help to improve our ability to consume quality information.