How Your Brain Tricks You Into Believing Fake News

How Your Brain Tricks You Into Believing Fake News
Katy Steinmetz
Sitting in front of a computer not long ago, a tenured history professor
faced a challenge that billions of us do every day: deciding whether to
believe something on the Internet.
On his screen was an article published by a group called the American
College of Pediatricians that discussed how to handle bullying in
schools. Among the advice it offered: schools shouldn’t highlight
particular groups targeted by bullying because doing so might call
attention to “temporarily confused adolescents.”
Scanning the site, the professor took note of the “.org” web address
and a list of academic-looking citations. The site’s sober design, devoid
of flashy, autoplaying videos, lent it credibility, he thought. After five
minutes, he had found little reason to doubt the article. “I’m clearly
looking at an official site,” he said.
What the professor never realized as he focused on the page’s
superficial features is that the group in question is a socially
conservative splinter faction that broke in 2002 from the mainstream
American Academy of Pediatrics over the issue of adoption by same-sex
Steinmetz
2
couples. It has been accused of promoting antigay policies, and the
Southern Poverty Law Center designates it as a hate group.
Trust was the issue at hand. The bookish professor had been asked to
assess the article as part of an experiment run by Stanford University
psychologist Sam Wineburg. His team, known as the Stanford History
Education Group, has given scores of subjects such tasks in hopes of
answering two of the most vexing questions of the Internet age: Why
are even the smartest among us so bad at making judgments about
what to trust on the web? And how can we get better?
Wineburg’s team has found that Americans of all ages, from digitally
savvy tweens to high-IQ academics, fail to ask important questions
about content they encounter on a browser, adding to research on our
online gullibility. Other studies have shown that people retweet links
without clicking on them and rely too much on search engines. A 2016
Pew poll found that nearly a quarter of Americans said they had shared
a made-up news story. In his experiments, MIT cognitive scientist David
Rand has found that, on average, people are inclined to believe false
news at least 20% of the time. “We are all driving cars, but none of us
have licenses,” Wineburg says of consuming information online.
Our inability to parse truth from fiction on the Internet is, of course,
more than an academic matter. The scourge of “fake news” and its
many cousins–from clickbait to “deep fakes” (realistic-looking videos
Steinmetz
3
showing events that never happened)–have experts fearful for the
future of democracy. Politicians and technologists have warned that
meddlers are trying to manipulate elections around the globe by
spreading disinformation. That’s what Russian agents did in 2016,
according to U.S. intelligence agencies. And on July 31, Facebook
revealed that it had found evidence of a political-influence campaign on
the platform ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. The authors of one
now defunct page got thousands of people to express interest in
attending a made-up protest that apparently aimed to put white
nationalists and left-wingers on the same streets.
But the stakes are even bigger than elections. Our ability to vet
information matters every time a mother asks Google whether her child
should be vaccinated and every time a kid encounters a Holocaust
denial on Twitter. In India, false rumors about child kidnappings that
spread on WhatsApp have prompted mobs to beat innocent people to
death. “It’s the equivalent of a public-health crisis,” says Alan Miller,
founder of the nonpartisan News Literacy Project.
There is no quick fix, though tech companies are under increasing
pressure to come up with solutions. Facebook lost more than $120
billion in stock value in a single day in July as the company dealt with a
range of issues limiting its growth, including criticism about how
conspiracy theories spread on the platform. But engineers can’t teach
Steinmetz
4
machines to decide what is true or false in a world where humans often
don’t agree.
In a country founded on free speech, debates over who adjudicates
truth and lies online are contentious. Many welcomed the decision by
major tech companies in early August to remove content from florid
conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who has alleged that passenger-jet
contrails are damaging people’s brains and spread claims that families
of Sandy Hook massacre victims are actors in an elaborate hoax. But
others cried censorship. And even if law enforcement and intelligence
agencies could ferret out every bad actor with a keyboard, it seems
unwise to put the government in charge of scrubbing the Internet of
misleading statements.
What is clear, however, is that there is another responsible party. The
problem is not just malicious bots or chaos-loving trolls or Macedonian
teenagers pushing phony stories for profit. The problem is also us, the
susceptible readers. And experts like Wineburg believe that the better
we understand the way we think in the digital world, the better chance
we have to be part of the solution.
We don’t fall for false news just because we’re dumb. Often it’s a
matter of letting the wrong impulses take over. In an era when the
average American spends 24 hours each week online–when we’re
always juggling inboxes and feeds and alerts–it’s easy to feel like we
Steinmetz
5
don’t have time to read anything but headlines. We are social animals,
and the desire for likes can supersede a latent feeling that a story
seems dicey. Political convictions lead us to lazy thinking. But there’s an
even more fundamental impulse at play: our innate desire for an easy
answer.
Humans like to think of themselves as rational creatures, but much of
the time we are guided by emotional and irrational thinking.
Psychologists have shown this through the study of cognitive shortcuts
known as heuristics. It’s hard to imagine getting through so much as a
trip to the grocery store without these helpful time-savers. “You don’t
and can’t take the time and energy to examine and compare every
brand of yogurt,” says Wray Herbert, author of On Second Thought:
Outsmarting Your Mind’s Hard-Wired Habits. So we might instead rely
on what is known as the familiarity heuristic, our tendency to assume
that if something is familiar, it must be good and safe.
These habits of mind surely helped our ancestors survive. The problem
is that relying on them too much can also lead people astray,
particularly in an online environment. In one of his experiments, MIT’s
Rand illustrated the dark side of the fluency heuristic, our tendency to
believe things we’ve been exposed to in the past. The study presented
subjects with headlines–some false, some true–in a format identical to
what users see on Facebook. Rand found that simply being exposed to
Steinmetz
6
fake news (like an article that claimed President Trump was going to
bring back the draft) made people more likely to rate those stories as
accurate later on in the experiment. If you’ve seen something before,
“your brain subconsciously uses that as an indication that it’s true,”
Rand says.
This is a tendency that propagandists have been aware of forever. The
difference is that it has never been easier to get eyeballs on the
message, nor to get enemies of the message to help spread it. The
researchers who conducted the Pew poll noted that one reason people
knowingly share made-up news is to “call out” the stories as fake. That
might make a post popular among like-minded peers on social media,
but it can also help false claims sink into the collective consciousness.
Academics are only beginning to grasp all the ways our brains are
shaped by the Internet, a key reason that stopping the spread of
misinformation is so tricky. One attempt by Facebook shows how
introducing new signals into this busy domain can backfire. With hopes
of curtailing junk news, the company started attaching warnings to
posts that contained claims that fact-checkers had rated as false. But a
study found that this can make users more likely to believe any
unflagged post. Tessa Lyons-Laing, a product manager who works on
Facebook’s News Feed, says the company toyed with the idea of
alerting users to hoaxes that were traveling around the web each day
Steinmetz
7
before realizing that an “immunization approach” might be
counterproductive. “We’re really trying to understand the problem and
to be thoughtful about the research and therefore, in some cases, to
move slower,” she says.
Part of the issue is that people are still relying on outdated shortcuts,
the kind we were taught to use in a library. Take the professor in
Wineburg’s study. A list of citations means one thing when it appears in
a book that has been vetted by a publisher, a fact-checker and a
librarian. It means quite another on the Internet, where everyone has
access to a personal printing press. Newspapers used to physically
separate hard news and commentary, so our minds could easily grasp
what was what. But today two-thirds of Americans get news from social
media, where posts from publishers get the same packaging as birthday
greetings and rants. Content that warrants an emotional response is
mixed with things that require deeper consideration. “It all looks
identical,” says Harvard researcher Claire Wardle, “so our brain has to
work harder to make sense of those different types of information.”
Instead of working harder, we often try to outsource the job. Studies
have shown that people assume that the higher something appears in
Google search results, the more reliable it is. But Google’s algorithms
are surfacing content based on keywords, not truth. If you ask about
using apricot seeds to cure cancer, the tool will dutifully find pages
Steinmetz
8
asserting that they work. “A search engine is a search engine,” says
Richard Gingras, vice president of news at Google. “I don’t think anyone
really wants Google to be the arbiter of what is or is not acceptable
expression.”
That’s just one example of how we need to retrain our brains. We’re
also inclined to trust visuals, says Wardle. But some photos are
doctored, and other legitimate ones are put in false contexts. On
Twitter, people use the size of others’ followings as a proxy for
reliability, yet millions of followers have been paid for (and an
estimated 10% of “users” may be bots). In his studies, Wineburg found
that people of all ages were inclined to evaluate sources based on
features like the site’s URL and graphic design, things that are easy to
manipulate.
It makes sense that humans would glom on to just about anything
when they’re so worn out by the news. But when we resist snap
judgments, we are harder to fool. “You just have to stop and think,”
Rand says of the experiments he has run on the subject. “All of the data
we have collected suggests that’s the real problem. It’s not that people
are being super-biased and using their reasoning ability to trick
themselves into believing crazy stuff. It’s just that people aren’t
stopping. They’re rolling on.”
Steinmetz
9
That is, of course, the way social-media platforms have been designed.
The endless feeds and intermittent rewards are engineered to keep you
reading. And there are other environmental factors at play, like
people’s ability to easily seek out information that confirms their
beliefs. But Rand is not the only academic who believes that we can
take a big bite out of errors if we slow down.
Wineburg, an 18-year veteran of Stanford, works out of a small office in
the center of the palm-lined campus. His group’s specialty is developing
curricula that teachers across the nation use to train kids in critical
thinking. Now they’re trying to update those lessons for life in a digital
age. With the help of funding from Google, which has devoted $3
million to the digital-literacy project they are part of, the researchers
hope to deploy new rules of the road by next year, outlining techniques
that anyone can use to draw better conclusions on the web.
His group doesn’t just come up with smart ideas; it tests them. But as
they set out to develop these lessons, they struggled to find research
about best practices. “Where are the studies about what superstars do,
so that we might learn from them?” Wineburg recalls thinking, sitting in
the team’s office beneath a print of the Tabula Rogeriana, a medieval
map that pictures the world in a way we now see as upside-down.
Eventually, a cold email to an office in New York revealed a promising
model: professional fact-checkers.
Steinmetz
10
Fact-checkers, they found, didn’t fall prey to the same missteps as
other groups. When presented with the American College of
Pediatricians task, for example, they almost immediately left the site
and started opening new tabs to see what the wider web had to say
about the organization. Wineburg has dubbed this lateral reading: if a
person never leaves a site–as the professor failed to do–they are
essentially wearing blinders. Fact-checkers not only zipped to additional
sources, but also laid their references side by side, to better keep their
bearings.
In another test, the researchers asked subjects to assess the
website MinimumWage.com. In a few minutes’ time, 100% of factcheckers
figured out that the site is backed by a PR firm that also
represents the restaurant industry, a sector that generally opposes
raising hourly pay. Only 60% of historians and 40% of Stanford students
made the same discovery, often requiring a second prompt to find out
who was behind the site.
Another tactic fact-checkers used that others didn’t is what Wineburg
calls “click restraint.” They would scan a whole page of search results–
maybe even two–before choosing a path forward. “It’s the ability to
stand back and get a sense of the overall territory in which you’ve
landed,” he says, “rather than promiscuously clicking on the first thing.”
This is important, because people or organizations with an agenda can
Steinmetz
11
game search results by packing their sites with keywords, so that those
sites rise to the top and more objective assessments get buried.
The lessons they’ve developed include such techniques and teach kids
to always start with the same question: Who is behind the information?
Although it is still experimenting, a pilot that Wineburg’s team
conducted at a college in California this past spring showed that such
tiny behavioral changes can yield significant results. Another technique
he champions is simpler still: just read it.
One study found that 6 in 10 links get retweeted without users’ reading
anything besides someone else’s summation of it. Another found that
false stories travel six times as fast as true ones on Twitter, apparently
because lies do a better job of stimulating feelings of surprise and
disgust. But taking a beat can help us avoid knee-jerk reactions, so that
we don’t blindly add garbage to the vast flotillas already clogging up the
web. “What makes the false or hyperpartisan claims do really well is
they’re a bit outlandish,” Rand says. “That same thing that makes them
successful in spreading online is the same thing that, on reflection,
would make you realize it wasn’t true.”
Tech companies have a big role to play in stemming the tide of
misinformation, and they’re working on it. But they have also realized
that what Harvard’s Wardle calls our “information disorder” cannot be
solved by engineers alone. Algorithms are good at things like identifying
Steinmetz
12
fake accounts, and platforms are flagging millions of them every week.
Yet machines could only take Facebook so far in identifying the most
recent influence campaign.
One inauthentic page, titled “Resisters,” ginned up a counterprotest to
a “white civil rights” rally planned for August in Washington, D.C., and
got legitimate organizations to help promote it. More than 2,600
people expressed interest in going before Facebook revealed that the
page was part of a coordinated operation, disabled the event and
alerted users. The company has hired thousands of content reviewers
that have the sophistication to weed through tricky mixes of truth and
lies. But Facebook can’t employ enough humans to manually review the
billions of posts that are put up each day, across myriad countries and
languages.
Many misleading posts don’t violate tech companies’ terms of service.
Facebook, one of the firms that removed content from Jones, said the
decision did not relate to “false news” but prohibitions against rhetoric
such as “dehumanizing language.” Apple and Spotify cited rules against
hate speech, which is generally protected by the First Amendment.
“With free expression, you get the good and the bad, and you have to
accept both,” says Google’s Gingras. “And hopefully you have a society
that can distinguish between the two.”
Steinmetz
13
You also need a society that cares about that distinction. Schools make
sense as an answer, but it will take money and political will to get new
curricula into classrooms. Teachers must master new material and train
students to be skeptical without making them cynical. “Once you start
getting kids to question information,” says Stanford’s Sarah McGrew,
“they can fall into this attitude where nothing is reliable anymore.”
Advocates want to teach kids other defensive skills, like how to reversesearch
an image (to make sure a photo is really portraying what
someone says it is) and how to type a neutral query into the search bar.
But even if the perfect lessons are dispersed for free online, anyone
who has already graduated will need to opt in. They will have to take
initiative and also be willing to question their prejudices, to secondguess
information they might like to believe. And relying on openmindedness
to defeat tribal tendencies has not proved a winning
formula in past searches for truth.
That is why many advocates are suggesting that we reach for another
powerful tool: shame. Wardle says we need to make sharing
misinformation as shameful as drunk driving. Wineburg invokes the
environmental movement, saying we need to cultivate an awareness of
“digital pollution” on the Internet. “We have to get people to think that
they are littering,” Wineburg says, “by forwarding stuff that isn’t true.”
The idea is to make people see the aggregate effect of little actions,
Steinmetz
14
that one by one, ill-advised clicks contribute to the web’s being a toxic
place. Having a well-informed citizenry may be, in the big picture, as
important to survival as having clean air and water. “If we can’t come
together as a society around this issue,” Wineburg says, “it is our
doom.”
This appears in the August 20, 2018 issue of TIME.

Order any type of Service We Provide

We are the best assignment service that can satisfy student’s demands in different scientific fields. We perform tasks of any kind. Our specialists provide diverse custom assignment writing services to students from all over the world every day. You can contact us for assistance with:

• Essays of any type (application, scholarship, argumentative, personal, informative, persuasive, compare and contrast, narrative, analytical, cause and effect, critical, process, descriptive, expository essays);
• Homework,
• Assignments,
• Reviews of all types (for a book, an article, or a film),
• Reports,
• Annotated bibliography,
• Projects,
• Thesis,
• Term papers,
• Presentations,
• Lab works,
• Research papers,
• Speeches,
• Critical thinking,
• Capstone projects;
• Business plan;
• Coursework’s;
• Dissertations.

The list is far from complete!

Representatives of our student assignment service are connoisseurs of the peculiarities of presentation in regards to academics. Your college assignment will never turn out an untoward surprise! Whether you need research for high school, an undergraduate program, or a Master’s or Doctoral degree, you will get exactly what you are looking for to sound smart and well-informed.

If you are pressed for time, request our experts!

We are your academic saver. It is a perfect solution for people who need academic help but has no professionals nearby to provide it. Just redirect your home tasks to us and forget about any educational issues. With us, you will get 100% plagiarism-free content delivered on time by an experienced specialist in a particular field.

Main Advantages of Collaboration with Us

When you order professional assignments here, you will get:

Original custom papers. We value your academic reputation. Just as well, we value the years of thorough work on our reputation for reliability and never compromise the originality of delivered papers. We will never endanger both. Every custom assignment is written from zero – the only possible first stage of work on the order is research. We apply the latest plagiary checking tools on the final stage, so plagiarism has no chance to emerge in your college assignment writing.

Control over the order completion. To make the process of collaboration comfortable and efficient, we offer our clients to choose the writer themselves taking into account all the requirements and the budget. For you to save nerves, having entrusted your fateful task to some qualified “stranger”, we enable communication with the assigned writer in the process of order completion.

Affordable assistance. We are eager to contribute to the academic achievements of students in need of help with college assignments. We are eager to help you start investing in your career growth today. That is why our service is so affordable. We don’t charge to pay for the latest marketing tricks or advertisements – we choose the best experts in the labor market who write great custom papers in any area, level of complexity, and time frame. Our client’s grateful feedback is a top advertising trick.

On-time delivery. The quality of a paper is only valued when it is delivered within the determined time frame – you will get your custom assignment writing service in time and have a couple of days to revise it and ask for changes in case they are needed. And you will still have time to learn the material.

Protection. We value your trust and take all measures needed to keep your private and banking details safe. We offer only well-tested payment methods. Due to the system of encryption and protected servers, no third party can have access to your data.

Custom support 24/7. We do our best to make the process of collaboration comfortable for the customer. Our “write my assignment” help is always here for you to provide a solution to your problems, give you a prompt answer to any question, and offer clarification as to any issue related to the services. Feel free to contact us anytime!

If you feel that your dissatisfaction with student life is growing every day and you just feel exhausted, don’t hesitate to change the situation for the better today. Order your first assignment from reliable custom assignment services today to evaluate the advantages.

Having seen the difference once, you won’t want to go back to your previous lifestyle. You deserve to find fulfilment in other spheres of your life, have hobbies, spend time with close people but continue making progress. It is possible when you have a professional helper. Don’t put off your life for someday after graduation!

Order your paper now!