
Information Avoidance: How People Select Their Own Reality - richardboegli
http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2017/march/information-avoidance.html
======
pzone
I see no choice but to live like this. The objective truth about how I stack
up relative to others, what I amount to in the world, the things I have missed
out on and all of the times I've failed others... it is too oppressive to
think about. Better keep my blinders on and run forward in my own lane.

~~~
chillacy
Hmm yes, the article didn't even mention it but avoiding (and I might add
manipulating) information seems to be a critical part of developing healthy
self confidence. Studies on Learned Helplessness show that the difference
between an optimist and pessimist (who often has to battle depression and self
doubt) is largely how they perceive themselves based on the information they
let in as well as how they frame that information.

------
meej
Calvin Mooers pointed this out in 1959, and his observation is known to
information scientists as Mooers' Law. He was speaking mostly in the context
of information retrieval, but he also described how it's true in a more
general sense:

"Having information is painful and troublesome. We all have experienced this.
If you have information, you must first read it, which is not always easy. You
must then try to understand it. To do this, you may have to think about it.
The information may require you to make decisions about it or other
information. The decisions may require action in the way of a troublesome
program of work, or trips or painful interviews. Understanding the information
may show that your work was wrong, or that your boss was wrong, or may show
that your work was needless. Having information, you must be careful not to
lose it. If nothing else, information piles up on your desk—unread. It is a
nuisance to have it come to you. It is uncomfortable to have to do anything
about it. Finally, if you do try to use the information properly, you may be
accused of puttering instead of working. Then in the end, the incorporation of
the information into the work you do may often not be noticed or appreciated.
Work saved is seldom recognized. Work done—even in duplication—is well paid
and rewarded."

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bult.37/full](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bult.37/full)

i am a bit surprised and disappointed that this new paper makes no mention of
Mooers at all.

------
garysieling
One of the great things about the internet is that you can choose to listen to
people you might never meet or get along with, and update your views
accordingly without the psychological pain described in the article.

A lot of libraries have archives of oral histories, which are a really great
window into other people's lives, especially as a correction for assuming you
know what someone else is thinking.

[https://www.findlectures.com/?p=1&type1=Historical%20Speech&...](https://www.findlectures.com/?p=1&type1=Historical%20Speech&talk_type_l2_Historical_Speech=-Oral%20histories,Filmed%20Interviews,Oral%20Histories,Filmed%20interviews,Ethnography,Personal%20narratives)

It seems like there ought to be a good way to categorize these topically,
although I'm not sure what that should be.

~~~
M_Grey
I found this to be true as well. I started off as an extremely rigid thinker,
and it's my contact with people holding diverse views on and offline that have
changed that. I'm still highly skeptical, occasionally bordering on pessimism,
but I'm a much more flexible thinker. I don't seek to judge as much as I just
try to understand perspectives.

I really doubt that could have happened, at least in any reasonable amount of
time, without the internet.

------
wu-ikkyu
>"Bombarding people with information that challenges their cherished beliefs —
the usual strategy that people employ in attempts at persuasion - is more
likely to engender defensive avoidance than receptive processing.

^The great fallacy of the stereotypical Facebook/television political flame
war/shout fest. The result is almost always detrimental to both sides'
understanding of eachother.

~~~
rarec
Rarely are you trying to convince the other person, in a public forum you're
more arguing for the sake of those listening than trying to convince the
person you're talking to.

------
nathan_f77
I feel this pressure whenever I come up with a new startup idea. I hate doing
lots of research, only to find that my idea has already been done. Most
recently, I wasn't very happy with a portable router that I had bought, so I
started brainstorming ideas for a new travel router that would be extremely
easy to use and to set up. My idea was that your new wifi password would
seamlessly sync to the router, and you could set it up from streamlined OSX
toolbar or mobile application. But then I found the ASUS WL-330NUL, which
already does everything I was imagining. And I also realized that I could
never compete with hardware like that. I was just going to build a prototype
with a Raspberry Pi and a few wifi adapters.

On a related topic: I hold very liberal views, and I've recently tried to
expose myself to more conservative opinions. So far I've just subscribed to
/r/Conservative on Reddit, and I've read a few articles on Breitbart and other
conservative sites. I also read through some of the comments, which was very
frightening. That is not a place for intellectual discussion. I have relatives
who often send me articles from [http://creation.com](http://creation.com), so
there's another source of information that I try to avoid..

Also, a few days ago I was on a flight, and the person next to me was telling
me about his flat earth beliefs, and a wide variety of other conspiracy
theories. He mentioned how Breivik was just a scapegoat, because the
government had ordered the killing of those children. And also 9/11 was an
inside job, Stalin was a hero, and how The Hunchback of Notre Dame takes place
in Saigon, Vietnam. (I believe he came to that conclusion after visiting the
Notre-Dame cathedral in Saigon.) It was an interesting 3 hours. At one point
he was telling me how the sun is only 50 kilometers wide, and it moves around
on giant cables. Also, there are no satellites in space. They are all
underground, and that's how GPS works. Also that's why GPS sometimes has
problems, because Google's Maps are all wrong. I tried to really understand
all of his views, but I can't say they were very compelling. It's strange,
because he was a very well-read person, and seemed quite smart, apart from
these insane views.

~~~
MaxfordAndSons
Oh the irony of riding an airplane as a flat earth believer. Kyrie Irving (a
famous American basketball player) was in the news recently for being a flat
earth believer, and it blew my mind because here's a guy who must take at
least 100 if not 200 flights in a year. And it occurred to me that holding
those beliefs is tantamount to accusing all pilots and other aviation
professionals of being gatekeepers of a massive conspiracy - if the earth
isn't round, something about the "public" model of flight is the most wide
spread fabrication in human history, and the pilots must be in on it or else
planes would be crashing left and right.

~~~
treebeard901
For some reason earlier this morning, I started thinking about this out of the
blue. My hope is that he is just trolling but who knows these days. If I ever
meet a flat earther, I just want to ask "Have you ever seen a full moon? and
if so, how do you explain it?"

------
cmehdy
Trying to be as open as possible and ready to debate is exhausting, and often
leaves one tired and misunderstood. I can see how the 'big picture' reward
isn't worth the day-to-day depression and anxiety. I still have yet to figure
out the most efficient balance between more information and more inner
stability.

~~~
csydas
I agree, though would add that it's not even so much about the exhaustion as
it is that being 100% open all the time can also lead to intentionally
misleading data being processed.

For example, I would assume most people have been the third party in a
situation where two friends are in an argument and want someone to rule on it.
Maybe it's just my friends that are that petty, but I end up in this position
a lot. As they present it, often I just don't have enough information to make
an informed decision; the tidbits they present me are quite obviously the well
fought over talking points they devised and I have neither the background nor
the education to intelligently comment on the argument most of the time.
Relying on my gut sometimes is necessary (issues of emotion, what should
person A do, etc), but it's not always the best option.

We can't be 100% ready and educated for every single issue. In fact,
constantly changing the issue and bringing up others is a rather devious
debate tactic, and also an informal fallacy. It's deceptive, and it can give
the illusion that a position is stronger than it really is simply because it
was prepared sooner and has more information immediately available than the
opposition is able to bring up at that time. It seems strong at first glance,
but it doesn't always hold up under scrutiny, but with constantly shifting
topics and arguments, it's not possible to give such proper scrutiny.

Avoidance isn't just about self-preservation, it's about being able to
rationally interpret the information you are presented. It's why I often find
debates online so difficult because the discussion can change so rapidly that
it's not possible to give claims reasonable treatment. It's also sometimes why
I find it fascinating, because the rapid flow of information is also very
addictive.

------
pella
"Semmelweis reflex

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semmelweis_reflex)

 _" The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-
like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts
established norms, beliefs or paradigms."_

===

Bonus: "Look at yourself objectively" (by Aaron Swartz )

[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis](http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis)

------
tunesmith
I think I dislike about papers like this, or at least how people _refer_ to
papers like this, is that it's easily phrased as a universal truth. As in,
applying to 100% of the people 100% of the time. Which is clearly ridiculous,
or else no one would ever change their minds from conflicting evidence at all.

~~~
chillacy
> If we want to reduce political polarization, we have to find ways not only
> to expose people to conflicting information, but to increase people's
> receptivity to information that challenges what they believe and want to
> believe.

I believe the Greeks had discussed methods of persuasion to a great extent (as
in logos, pathos, ethos) but also when to use which, and the study seems to
affirm that shouting crazy hyperbolic slogans to get people emotionally
charged is a better strategy for your existing fans than someone on the fence:
to convince someone to jump sides, you're better off empathizing with them,
bringing up objections slowly, etc.

------
processing
We're drowning in information. What do we need - More Ad targeting?

"The researchers believe understanding when, why and how people avoid
information can help governments, firms and organizations reach their
audiences effectively without drowning them in unwanted messages".

Proposal to rename the Paper?

How we can help you with your message targeting.

------
sushobhan
Sometimes people/institution even become aggressive when they get information
that is completely opposite of what they believe, Galileo was convicted of
heresy because he believed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which was
just opposite of what Catholic Church believe. Though this kind of rigidity
hinders our progress but there is another side of the coin. This is the sole
reason that keeps us happy in everyday life. If we take into consideration
each and every information's then our life will become a hell for sure. We
can't take veggies and fruits, mostly toxic due to the preservative used;
can't use car/bus as its harmful to the environment, can't even eat a burger
or coke, leads to obesity. I think it's better to have the gift of avoidance
though rigidness should be avoided.

~~~
douche
I'm not sure Galileo was convicted so much for what he believed as for being
kind of a dick about it.

This is one of those silly myths that we for some reason perpetuate, like the
old chestnut about people laughing at Columbus because they thought the world
was flat.

------
richardboegli
Link to the paper:
[https://www.aeaweb.org/atypon.php?doi=10.1257/jel.20151245](https://www.aeaweb.org/atypon.php?doi=10.1257/jel.20151245)

------
norea-armozel
I think some information is often a mixture of truths and lies which is why I
tend to filter out all the major left/right media outlets on my Google News
feed. I'm just not interested in playing fact checker for every newspaper
because they have some left/right crusader journalist that's willing to die on
a hill for a particular current political talking point. If those folks are
going to mix lies with the truth then I'm going to take the risk of being an
ignorant jerk that says "I don't know, I'll have to read up on it" than be led
down a blind alley of someone's ideology masquerading as "the truth."
Essentially, the most correct position in the majority of cases to be
conscientiously ignorant and open to discussion when it's applicable to your
life. Beyond that, be as dumb as the rest of humanity to the ins and outs of
any issue if it's not interesting or fun to you.

Edit: also, I think this doesn't apply to matters that are of immediate
relevance and consequence. So I do think someone like POTUS or a US Senator
should stay informed if possible.

------
shamaku
One would likely go mad not avoiding the ton of BS/propaganda put out daily by
the mainstream media circus. Not sure the point of the study, if not to aid
said circus to target people more efficiently. One would think there are more
noble research to be done, other than to invent more crafty clickbait titles,
or disguise your content with some psychological wizardry to evoke emotion,
etc...

------
heynowletsgo
Ignorance is bliss. Nothing new. The more extreme edge is the protective power
of delusion.

------
yanilkr
The same thing happened in digital advertising. People developed "Banner
Blindness" and mostly do not notice the presence of ads in your page. It's
almost like people are very intelligent and you cannot fool them for a long
time.

------
MaxfordAndSons
Heh, the HN alt-right contingent is curiously mostly absent from these
comments, especially given how many of them have recently discovered their
passion for hard-line epistemological skepticism. It's as if they're avoiding
the information in this article...

------
cwiggs
This article is interesting. Does anyone know of any studies/evidence/etc that
shows how to get around this issue? Are there certain tactics that help people
feel more comfortable with information even when it could have an adverse
effect on themselves?

------
mrdna
Algorithmic curation of content will only continue to lessen the difficulty of
active information avoidance & exacerbate the problem over time.

------
thr3290
Try to bring facts into discussion about gender gaps, suicide rates,
circumcision, criminality, immigration, religion....

Everyone has their own religion, including authors of this article:

> _Despite the consequences, information avoidance isn 't always a mistake or
> a reflection of a lazy mind._

> _" People do it for a reason," ... "Those who do not take a genetic test can
> enjoy their life until their illness can't be ignored_

Genetic tests can only prove predisposition for illness, something like 20%
higher chance compared to other people. Bad test is not a death sentence.

