{"id":1032,"date":"2020-10-19T10:00:20","date_gmt":"2020-10-19T09:00:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1032"},"modified":"2020-10-19T08:45:04","modified_gmt":"2020-10-19T07:45:04","slug":"online-illusions-of-understanding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/online-illusions-of-understanding\/","title":{"rendered":"Online illusions of understanding"},"content":{"rendered":"

An online intellectual paradise?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The internet and social media provide us with plenty of opportunities to educate ourselves, to learn new things, and to deepen our understanding. A world of knowledge at your fingertips, as the slogan goes. This might seem like an intellectual paradise. And in many ways, it is. Judicious use of the internet will typically get you more high-quality information than you can process, on almost any topic, no matter how outlandish or specialized.<\/p>\n

But all is not well in paradise. The internet is brimming with fake news, conspiracy theories, and other forms of misinformation. Misinformation can moreover easily be boosted to prominence through echo chambers and algorithms that determine what appears in our timelines, feeds, or recommendations.<\/p>\n

This is bad enough, but I want to draw attention to a further way in which the internet and social media, and in particular the ways in which online information is presented, ordered, connected, and made accessible, can easily generate illusions <\/em>of knowledge and understanding rather than real insight.<\/p>\n

Outsourced meta-cognition<\/strong><\/p>\n

Good inquiry, which is to say inquiry that leads to knowledge and understanding, involves a number of meta-cognitive tasks. These tasks that don\u2019t contribute directly to finding answers, but steer the process of finding answers in the right direction. First of all, one needs to ask good questions. This is often far from trivial, especially when it comes to complex scientific, philosophical, and social issues. Next, one needs to identify suitable strategies for answering one\u2019s questions; to assess the quality of the input, information, and evidence one encounters during a process of inquiry; and, finally, to make sound judgments about when to stop inquiring.<\/p>\n

The key reason why online inquiry is prone to generate illusions of knowing and understanding is that it\u2019s easy \u2013 sometimes inevitable \u2013 to outsource aspects of the meta-cognitive tasks mentioned before to internet technology. Since most internet platforms aren\u2019t designed to facilitate good inquiry, they can easily steer it in the wrong directions, even without our realizing it. Let\u2019s consider each task in turn.<\/p>\n

Questioning questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Try typing in \u2018Why are professors\u2019 in Google search. Chances are you\u2019ll see things like \u2018lazy\u2019, \u2018overpaid\u2019, and \u2018weird\u2019 among the autocomplete suggestions. If we leave the task of asking good questions partly to Google\u2019s autocomplete, we will easily ask poorly phrased questions. This isn\u2019t because Google is inherently biased against professors (or anyone else, for that matter). It\u2019s just that its autocomplete feature reflects the most commonly entered questions back to us, including any biases they may have or mistaken presuppositions they include.<\/p>\n

Internet search also does little to correct questions with false presuppositions or misleading framing. If you type in \u2018earth 6000 years old\u2019, the first couple of hits include as many creationist websites as websites with sound scientific information. Similarly, entering \u2018black on white crime\u2019 throws up various white supremacist and racist sources promoting the idea that this category makes up a huge chunk of the total crime statistics, whereas it\u2019s really a comparatively low number.<\/p>\n

Monopolizing strategies for inquiry<\/strong><\/p>\n

The internet economy has generated near-monopolies in various domains. One or a few companies or platforms are the default option, with little or no serious alternatives. Google dominates search, Facebook and Twitter are the main text-based social media platforms, YouTube is the go-to option for video, we buy our books (or almost anything, really) on Amazon, we use Tripadvisor or Booking.com for travel, etc.<\/p>\n

The result is that our choice of strategies for inquiry is narrowed, unless we actively avoid the default options and put a lot of effort into seeking out alternative sources. This would not be a problem if the default sources mostly offered reliable information. But that is clearly not the case. How Google orders its search results is strongly influenced by commercial interests, popularity of websites, and several other things that have nothing to do with reliability and trustworthiness. It\u2019s relatively easy for internet-savvy actors to manipulate YouTube\u2019s or Amazon\u2019s recommendations. And social media platforms let engagement, likes, or thumbs up determine what we see on them. Unless we pro-actively monitor for these distorting effects and correct for them on the basis of our own prior knowledge about what sources are trustworthy, none of this is particularly conducive to finding good information or producing genuine understanding.<\/p>\n

Truth by popular vote?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The information that inquiry digs up must be checked for quality: is it reliable, trustworthy, unbiased, and fair? There are plenty of ways to do this: trace the sources, find independent verification, consult the underlying data yourself if you can, seek out expert judgment or advice, find certified institutions, and so on. But most of these things require prior knowledge and intellectual skills on the part of the inquirer.<\/p>\n

The problem is that if we just go by how information is presented and ordered online, we are easily duped. We noted before how the order of search results is a poor reflection of the truthfulness of information. Similarly for what Facebook\u2019s, YouTube\u2019s, and Twitter\u2019s algorithms put on top of your feed or recommendations. That is optimized for maximal engagement, popularity, and commercial value, but not reliability.<\/p>\n

The general picture is that online inquiry runs the risk of letting popularity and commercial interests stand proxy for what is reliable and true. But truth isn\u2019t decided by popular vote or buying power, so we should not let these features be the judge of the quality of our information.<\/p>\n

Never-ending inquiry<\/strong><\/p>\n

When should one stop inquiring when there are millions of further search results, never-ending recommendations, and endless scrolls? It\u2019s hard to say. This is by design: much of the internet and certainly social media platforms are supposed to keep people engaged and hence offer no indications for when an inquiry is successfully completed. There are always more links to click or Twitter-threads to chase.<\/p>\n

This conundrum is exacerbated by the ubiquity of misinformation. Even when you find reliable information quickly and should stop inquiring, you may notice a suggestive piece misinformation, leaving you wondering whether you ought to dig deeper. Even worse: once you decide to start digging, you might get drawn into a rabbit hole of questionable sources or outright conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n

As a result, you may spend a lot of time trying to answer your questions. Once you\u2019ve read various websites, watched YouTube videos, and combed through branching discussion threads on Twitter or Reddit, you\u2019ll probably feel like you\u2019ve done your research. But nothing about the online environment by itself makes it highly likely that your inquiry was in fact completed successfully \u2013 you may as well have been consuming lots or poor-quality information that just happened to be popular and promoted by search and recommender systems. In other words, you can easily end up with an illusion<\/em> of knowledge and understanding.<\/p>\n

Paradise regained?<\/strong><\/p>\n

None of this should be taken to imply that online inquiry is hopeless. It is no part of my argument to claim that the internet necessarily<\/em> leads to illusions of knowledge and understanding. Whether it does so depends on design choices, business decisions, and government policies. This means the knowledge-potential of the internet can be improved. This is not an easy job. It needs the concerted efforts of computer scientists, psychologists, communication scientists, and philosophers, in addition to better business incentives, policies, and law-making.<\/p>\n

And even as it is, the internet remains an unparalleled source of knowledge and understanding, but \u2013 and this is the crucial point \u2013 as long as you know where and how to look<\/em>. Online inquiry requires well-honed cognitive skills and intellectual virtues. Meta-cognition should not be outsourced entirely to the online environment. Good inquiry requires hard work, and this is as true online as it was offline.<\/p>\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

(This post is based on my essay \u201cAlgorithm-Based Illusions of Understanding\u201d, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective<\/em>\u00a08 (10): 53\u201364.\u00a0https:\/\/wp.me\/p1Bfg0-4ws<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An online intellectual paradise? The internet and social media provide us with plenty of opportunities to educate ourselves, to learn new things, and to deepen our understanding. A world of […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1036,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"\"Online illusions of understanding\" a post by Jeroen de Ridder on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[65,141,181,261,86,247,44],"custom_author":[262],"class_list":["post-1032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-fake-news","tag-inquiry","tag-internet","tag-knowledge","tag-questions","tag-social-epistemology","tag-social-media","custom_author-de-ridder-jeroen"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-gE","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":357,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/can-exposure-to-fake-news-damage-our-intellectual-character\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":0},"title":"Can Exposure to \u201cFake News\u201d Damage Our Intellectual Character?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 15, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"There is no denying the current widespread interest in the phenomenon of \u201cfake news\u201d. Reflection on the quality of recent political debates has fuelled concerns about the use of inaccurate and misleading stories and statistics. In response, politicians have begun proposing legislation to combat the spread of misleading information, while\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/01\/hoax-2097365_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2267,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/intellectual-virtues-online-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":1},"title":"Intellectual Virtues Online \u2013 Part 1","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 12, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"For the second year in a row, the World Economic Forum has ranked misinformation and disinformation among the top global risks. And few places provide more opportunities for spreading misinformation and disinformation than the Internet. From conspiracy theories about stolen elections, to biased search results[1], deepfakes of politicians and LLM\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/pexels-marcelo-moreira-988124-2225771-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/pexels-marcelo-moreira-988124-2225771-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/pexels-marcelo-moreira-988124-2225771-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/pexels-marcelo-moreira-988124-2225771-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/pexels-marcelo-moreira-988124-2225771-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/pexels-marcelo-moreira-988124-2225771-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":900,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/being-an-intellectually-dependable-person\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":2},"title":"Being an Intellectually Dependable Person","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"We are often at the mercy of others when we are trying to figure things out. The same is true when we are seeking to gain deeper understanding or to improve our skills for gaining knowledge.\u00a0 Others can share their perspectives with us. They can point us toward relevant evidence.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/26163029653_94251f8c68_c.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/26163029653_94251f8c68_c.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/26163029653_94251f8c68_c.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/05\/26163029653_94251f8c68_c.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":2274,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/intellectual-virtues-online-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":3},"title":"Intellectual Virtues Online \u2013 Part 2","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In my last entry, I praised the advantages of intellectual virtues in an online environment. This time, I briefly consider why too much of a focus on intellectual virtues might not be the best solution for the problematic aspects of the Internet after all. I discuss two issues, though they\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/service-pnp-det-4a20000-4a25000-4a25600-4a25686v.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/service-pnp-det-4a20000-4a25000-4a25600-4a25686v.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/service-pnp-det-4a20000-4a25000-4a25600-4a25686v.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2025\/05\/service-pnp-det-4a20000-4a25000-4a25600-4a25686v.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-vices-of-truthlessness\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":4},"title":"The Vices of Truthlessness","author":"Charlie Crerar","date":"August 28, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"From \u2018post-truth\u2019, to \u2018fake news\u2019, to \u2018alternative facts\u2019, truthlessness is everywhere at the moment. These phenomena present us with a huge array of questions. How do we separate fact from fiction? How can we tell which sources of information are credible? Is there even such a thing as objective truth?\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "In the News"","block_context":{"text":"In the News","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/in-the-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/08\/truth-2069846_960_720.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1481,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/is-being-resilient-an-unfair-burden\/","url_meta":{"origin":1032,"position":5},"title":"Is being resilient an unfair burden?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Navigating the world of public debate can be a difficult task. There are many hurdles to overcome in the process of finding out about and sharing one\u2019s views on social and political issues. There is the long and difficult task of sorting through the mass of available information in search\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/dan-meyers-hluOJZjLVXc-unsplash-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/dan-meyers-hluOJZjLVXc-unsplash-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/dan-meyers-hluOJZjLVXc-unsplash-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/dan-meyers-hluOJZjLVXc-unsplash-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/dan-meyers-hluOJZjLVXc-unsplash-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/dan-meyers-hluOJZjLVXc-unsplash-2.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/10\/internet.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1032"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1032\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1038,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1032\/revisions\/1038"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1036"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1032"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}