Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine
Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine
Researchers found that people searching misinformation online risk falling into “data voids” that increase belief in conspiracies.
Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine::Researchers found that people searching misinformation online risk falling into “data voids” that increase belief in conspiracies.
I see a lot of hate against the concept of doing one's own research on the internet and it really bothers me. The problem is not doing one's own research. The scientists that wrote this paper also did their own research. All scientists (should) do their own research. That's inherent to science and that's part of what got humanity this far. The problem is that some people lack the capabilities to properly assess information sources and draw correct conclusions from them. So these people end up with incorrect beliefs. Of course they could just "trust the experts" instead, but how are they supposed to know which experts to trust if they're not good at assessing sources of information? Finding those experts is in itself a task that requires you to do your own research.
TL;DR: I think this hate on "doing your own research" is unjustified. People believing nonsense is a problem that is inescapable and inherent to humanity.
Doing your own research being good/bad depends entirely on one's ability to scrutinize reliable sources. When I "do my own research" it looks like this.
When my brother "does his own research" he presents horrendously false information from terribly bias and debunked sources. He's the primary family member which influenced my writing that piece on radicalism.
If someone is unable to comprehend/recognize valid from invalid/biased sources/information, "doing their own research" is very dangerous in fueling further extreme/conspiratorial beliefs.
QAnon and covid/anti-masking are great examples in which people "doing their own research" resulted in a lot of unnecessary suffering and stupidity.
People should learn how to effectively scrutinize sources before they attempt to "research" something themselves. "Doing your own research" can be productive or unproductive, and it depends entirely on the individual.
So as I see it, there are two actual problems that cause the general perception of doing your own research being bad (which is an astonishingly anti intellectual position / cultural meme).
-
Popular search engines are hot garbage as they are highly incentivized in numerous ways to promote spectacular nonsense of all kinds which at this point are basically just 'genres of content'.
-
An astounding number of people seemingly have no ability to do critical thinking, nor do they know what proper research entails. Basically, this is because education in general is on the decline: Public education no longer has (and in many areas never did) the funding or mindset to teach people /how to think/, and with ever more expensive secondary education from ever lower quality colleges, less people understand /how to do proper research/.
Finally, I will point out the insufferable fury I have toward boomers, the generation that told me as a child that wikipedia could not be used as a source, not even wikipedia's sources as a valid source because the internet is full of nonsense... and then the vast majority of them aged and wisened to believe anything some delusional crackpot posts on a racist facebook meme group, or wacky new age cult / mlm / support group.
-
In college I took a journalism 101 course as an elective, and we spent at least a couple classes on checking if sources were valid.
For one of the assignments the teacher gave us a list of websites and we had to determine which were legit, and why we thought so.
This kind of thing could easily be taught more broadly and earlier.
Though I imagine the right wing would be upset because they rely on a lot of falsehoods.
If someone is unable to comprehend/recognize valid from invalid/biased sources/information, "doing their own research" is very dangerous in fueling further extreme/conspiratorial beliefs.
People should learn how to effectively scrutinize sources before they attempt to "research" something themselves.
Okay, but how do I recognise valid from invalid, bias from unbiased?
Take that sketchy blog you linked me to, it's just some thing some guy wrote. Can that be trusted? Must I spend significant free time to do in-depth research on all of his references to ascertain if he's valid and unbiased? How will I know if the sources are valid and unbiased? Will I have to do in-depth research on all of their references too? When does it end?
At some point you just have to trust someone, you can't unravel the complete truths of anything to their very core. Most of us don't even have the free time to unravel things more than a little bit.
I see the point you're making and don't entirely disagree, critical thinking is something that's taught and learned, and it's what makes the difference here. But this idea that we can ever actually know that what we're reading is reliable or unbiased? I don't buy it.
I think it's impossible to actually know if a source is reliable without directly confirming its assertions with your own eyeballs.
And, I think it's impossible to actually know if a source is endeavouring to actually be unbiased, or if they have an agenda or plan, without literally reading the minds of those involved to ascertain their motives and potential schemes.
At the end of the day, people who place their bets on one side of the fence or the other when it comes to who to trust aren't so different. Critical thinking and the ability to ask questions constantly and never take anything you hear as truth just on the face of things is what's most important, I think. That way, you're at least a little more prepared to spot lies when they crop up.
I guess that's my point, haha.
Unfortunately after coming to this realisation I don't know who to trust any more :-( Obviously I can't trust the media, they're owned by the rich ruling class and even when they report truths, they do so via a thick veil of bias that makes it difficult to know if I'm getting all the facts, or if I'm missing out on huge important chunks of information entirely.
Take all the reporting on our recent UK strikes, all the reporting was there, but it was all about how disruptive and terrible the strikes were for everyone else, painting a picture of selfish, greedy workers making things worse for everyone else because they only care about themselves. The whole article would barely if at all mention in any depth why they're striking, why they felt they had no other choice, how this is a symptom of a larger problem with late stage capitalism, etc.
The media is owned by the rich, obviously they're going to paint the picture they want. And that news source I'm talking about isn't even privately owned, it's our tax funded government news organisation.
The government itself is also owned by the rich, our PM is just a few million short of being a literal billionaire, he's a business capitalist. They can't be trusted either. They all have their own agendas and reasons to skew facts and trick people.
Take Brexit as a well known example of both private interests AND the government itself tricking millions of people with lies and deception and exploitation to make an absolutely terrible decision that damaged this country irreparably. Everything people saw on TV, websites, social media, newspapers, radio, leaflets, etc, was chock full of disinformation, emotional trickery, etc.
Even the people saying Brexit was a bad idea had their own agendas and clear bias, and while I side with them, can I truly, honestly say that what they said is unbias and definitely reliable with no hidden ulterior motives? Alas, no.
So where do I get my reliable, unbias information even if I have my critical thinking hat on? I've come to the conclusion that I can't believe anything, not fully, unless I see it with my own eyes. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that comes to me through other channels is twisted along the way by bias and agendas.
I'm not happy about it, it makes me very sad :-( But yeah, that's kinda where I'm at these days.
Weird that you would showcase a vacuous article as an example of "research".
Have a bit too high of an opinion of yourself don't you?
Edit: Your UAP article is hilarious. You have a BS in bs, I mean psychology, and yet you are voicing an opinion on how QM totally corroborates with the data. You don't even know how radar and infrared sensors work (and their inherent and potential flaws), and completely fail to consider that displacement of air at the velocity claimed would heat it several thousand degrees, not "quantum cooling". The only way this wouldn't happen would be if the object somehow didn't interact with matter while simultaneously emitting electromagnetic radiation, or it was sensor errors.
You're a complete fraud.
And our knowledge is not unlimited, new theories have to be done in a constant evolving way. The sheer arrogance of medical doctors towards rare diseases and the resulting ignorance to acknowledge their existence with treatment refusal is what leads people out not only to alternative, but specifically questionable medicine as well.
The "don't do your own research" - crowd believes more into misprints than a self-researched identical copy of the original document. They place incredibly high authority into printed information as if it was done by higher beings immune to mistakes. Including misunderstanding the concept many definitions in social sciences like law are inherently socially constructed and therefore unable to be the end to everything.
Sending everyone off to Google is a terrible discussion culture and should be moderated away. Many of my searches end in a self referential loop.
I hear you. Didn’t really know there was such a pushback.
Just to add to what you’ve said, specifically about how scientists also do their own research … scientists do a lot more than “their own research” (which in this case is reading the literature out there of others’ findings and thoughts).
These include:
- perform their own experiments to test their own ideas and prove them correct.
- attend conferences of many scientists where ideas and findings are presented to everyone and open to comment/critique from everyone
- communicate their thoughts or findings only once it has passed quality checks from reviewers and editors
- have their whole career motivation based on getting published (through the above checks), discovering the actual truth and convincing the world of that truth.
- generally treat all findings and thoughts with scepticism but with a view for finding the flaw and using that to disprove the finding or prove something new and better.
- culturally value (to a fault) being intelligent, insightful and understanding as much as possible including an opponent’s findings and arguments.
Ie, science is very much about the stuff other than “doing your own research/reading” and that stuff, which is all dedicated to getting to the truth of matters, is arguably what makes good science go.
"Do your own research" is a phrase with a lot of baggage. It means more than doing your own research.
It's a phrase that has been used online in debates over every kind of conspiracy theory, religious idea, or political stance and carries with it the unsaid presumption that alternative sources are the key to learning the "actual truth." It's a loaded phrase that acts as a calling card for people who are overly confident that they have the right answer but can't articulate how they arrived at it.
I roll my eyes whenever I read or hear someone say "do your own research" because I know the debate ends there and there's no convincing them otherwise.
Thank you for commenting. I am also bothered by this and defended "doing your own research" many times over the last few years. There are many possible pitfalls when you go seeking information but I believe you should not criticize a person for trying.
Fund your libraries, and use them. Librarians (the ones with Masters degrees) are trained to teach you that. Contact the State organizations that oversee that certification to make sure it doesn't go away in the name of lowering salary costs (i.e., your taxes).
Of course they could just “trust the experts” instead, but how are they supposed to know which experts to trust if they’re not good at assessing sources of information?
Effort would (IMO) be better spent on showing them how to figure out whether a secondary source is trustworthy than having them try to dissect scientific papers or other primary research materials with an extremely limited understanding of how to do so.
Most laypeople do not have the skills or desire to become good interpreters of scientific, law, technical, or other jargon-laden documents. Some people do not have the mental capacity required to even read raw Clinton staffer email leaks without coming up with shit like Pizzagate.
Outside of tech circles pretty much nobody seems to have noticed how bad google search has become over the least years - unfortunately there's no single search engine that's "general purpose good", like google used to be.
It's somewhat ironic that nowadays using metasearch engines often makes sense again - for those too young to remember, that was the default way of searching in the mid to late 90s, until google came along with consistently good search results.
Just yesterday I was stuck in a game and decided to look up some guides. The results were basically Steam discussions and websites ripping off the answers posted there verbatim into articles.
The worst thing is that this was still one of the better search results, because at least it wasn't full of the usual AI-generated drivel.
I used Google back then and started using Kagi recently. The results I get remind me of how Google used to be.
The only downside is it's a paid service, but it's worth it for me personally
I've heard people talk about it on radio in a non tech show so I think people do realise it...
I assume the problem with kagi is the price, which is hard to swallow as we have get used to free products?
When google put their censoring in overdrive, I believe around 2016, I was out. I changed to duckduckgo, but then they also started to censor, so now i'm using Qwant. Been using it for a while. It's pretty decent.
DogPile
Yes. Let me Google that for you is no longer enough, a combination of search engine enshittification, state disinformation efforts by Russia and China, propaganda efforts by plutocrats, The Heritage Foundation and religious ministries and the removal of critical thinking trainig from public education in the US. Also mass politicization where the shoes worn by a candy mascot is grounds for outrage.
It seems to have lead to an era of the deep dive podcast where hosts cite sources. But its our responsibility to confirm those sourses when able.
Curious, but was there ever a time when critical thinking was taught in US public schools above and beyond what is being taught in public schools now?
US public schools are getting underfunded, of course, but curricula themselves have probably improved over time?
I honestly don't really even know how to begin researching this particular line of inquiry, and I have a background in social science research.
It's a complex answer, I think.
Yes, some curricula has definitely improved. And yes, there has been a concerted influence by disingenuous agents. And there has been a departure of skilled educators due to pay and treatment, allowing significantly less skilled, able or genuine teachers to enter the field.
So, while you could say "X is better", that can mean very little if there is no one to teach it (willingly). So, to answer your first question: yes.
The biggest issue is that true information is behind paywalls while the lies are handed out for free.
Americans have an almost Pavlovian response to news at this point, where they fundamentally can not trust a source of information until that source suggests the reader begin taking erection medication.
Nahhhhh, I researched this... You think it's just a coincidence that this is also what the liberal media would want us to think?!?
Bro i researched your comment and guess what? FALSE.
I've researched this by watching literally dozens of minutes of videos on YouTube. Real hardcore stuff with some things that most sheeple probably wouldn't be ready to accept, but it directly contradicts the main stream media narrative, so you know it's true. Also, basically all the claims were widely discredited and it's pretty obvious that so much energy wouldn't have been put into disproving something that was actually untrue, unless someone was trying to hide something from us.
Dude, I'm literally not allowed to tell you how many black op raids I've led. Watch out, I've got the super record for super crazy wild military killer super guys,
As mod of conspiracy_theories, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's bullshit
If you listened to the mainstream media, the last few years you'd think the economy was booming. If you did your own research and listen to experts like Adam Taggart or Wealthion, fractures in the housing market were apparent for almost a year before the mainstream media started reporting that
We grew up being told we fight for freedom when really we fight for a fascist apartheid ethnostate in the middle east
We grew up being told Weed was worse than alcohol
We grew up being told if you didn't go to college, you couldn't get a job, while cost of tuition and textbooks outpaced inflation
The media doesn't exist to inform people. Whether your left or right wing I think that's something everyone can agree on. From a political science standpoint, the media exists to create an agenda. Often times, that includes misinforming people.
Can doing your own research get you into some conspiracy theories? Sure. The problem with that is everyone's conspiring, even the mainstream media
I agree (and I think the article agrees in part too) with much of what you're saying. But the issue with your comment is this;
If you did your own research and listen to experts like Adam Taggart or Wealthion
You're assuming doing your own research will lead to the correct and educated experts (Adam Taggart or Wealthion in this example). The study this article is based on really is just saying "do your own research" is leaving it up to your search engine. And everyone uses Google. Google isn't designed to show you research, it's designed to show you what you want to know.
Google didn't lead me to those channels, but still the point stands, trust is eventually delegated to individuals and that is always a security flaw.
All I meant was, the same is still true with the mainstream media
As mod of conspiracy_theories, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s bullshit
Ok, so it's bullshit.
Can doing your own research get you into some conspiracy theories? Sure.
So, I guess it's not bullshit? Alright then.
LOL
It's not a contradiction if I elaborate on what's bullshit. The framing of that article associates people who do their own research as conspiracy theorists. I was pointing out (and gave plenty of evidence) that listening to the mainstream media to form your decisions would be just as deluding as accepting any other conspiracy theory as true.
This is not to say the article itself is necessarily wrong , but if the alternative to doing your own research is trusting the mainstream media, then either way you're digesting a false narrative.
Actually, if all you did was trust CNN or Fox news, I would probably think that person was less credible than a conspiracy theorist, but of course they would depend on which conspiracies
Also, the people "doing their own research" often aren't intelligent enough to know what is real versus what is made-up garbage, and are gullible enough to believe whatever they happen to read.
Whatever they read that reaffirms their biases, especially.
So "doin research" = "throwing away anything contradicting to your views". Makes sense ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title makes no sense. Researchers did "their own research". Experts and non experts do "their own research". Simply there are people who knows how to do it and to draw meaningful conclusions from sources and data, and people who don't.
It's a reference to an attitude that is prevalent in conspiracy fantasy circles. It's a deflection of ownership of ideas to lend them more credibility, it's not actually about researching anything. There is no discussion about research conclusions or facts. there is discussion, but it's the exact opposite of research, it looks like, what questions give the right answers and how to connect the conclusions to the data. What they mean by saying 'research' isn't what it actually means. Conspiracy fantasy wants you to stumble upon coincidences to lure you into their worldview.
good point.
and not only drawing meaningful conclusions but also validating the data is correct in the first place.
Kind of a bummer that they’re talking about the phrase “do your own research” and misinformation, but didn’t include the paper specifically about the phrase “do your own research”.
Doing your own research isn't the problem, it's how you go about it that is, some will just believe whatever bs static gets put infont of them without understanding the data, how it was collected, etc. and some will blatantly cherry pick to feed their own bias.
Yeah, it's not an inherently bad thing.
A big part of the problem is that people run to journals without understanding their purpose; publication is just the first step in peer review.
And then when people do a ctrl+f to search for a "gotcha," they also eliminate all of the nuance and caveats that really explain the potential finding.
And some just define "research" as clicking the next video in the recommendation list, a list carefully crafted by an algorithm to keep people engaged by feeding more of the same.
when someone sees an article online about an “engineered famine” due to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, and conducts an unsophisticated search based on those keywords, they may find articles that reaffirm their bias.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Confirmation bias is real.
Google's IPO literally ruined the entire society. Don't be evil!™
That's what they want you to believe. I did my own research and it turns out you are wrong. Checkmate atheist /s
SEO and Ai have been very heavy influincers in the degradation of journalistic integrity and reporting facts *while dumbing things down for clicks.
It led directly to a more radicalized and less informed public.
The vast majority of people think that the first answer on Google is still correct. That simply isn't true anymore because people started to game the system and Google let them do it to gain a shitloat of ad money.
It's disgusting that they don't have the morals to rein things in.
I remember a time when "doing their own research" was just "read"... Yes I read, please stop shaming me for it..
It's because the education system is utterly outdated across the world. No digital literacy, media literacy, or health literacy in the curriculum but lots of things you'll never need and forget to never be useful again within a few months. Studies should investigate things relating to this subject.
It's also because of the quality of search engine results but both are directly linked, people need to learn how to use search engines etc.
It's really ironic. When I was growing up our curriculum taught us how to be tech literate and we were stressed on the importance of reliable sources. In high school we discussed the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, and examined how bias could play a role within them.
I think this is a better way to explain the issue. Millennials were taught how to handle information and critically examine it. The boomers who taught us weren't, and they've fallen into the deep spiral.
While conventional wisdom holds that researching the veracity of fake news would reduce belief in misinformation, a study published on Wednesday in Nature has found that using online search engines to vet conspiracies can actually increase the chance that someone will believe it. The researchers point to a known problem in search called "data voids." Sometimes, there's not a lot of high-quality information to counter misleading headlines or surrounding fringe theories. So, when someone sees an article online about an “engineered famine” due to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, and conducts an unsophisticated search based on those keywords, they may find articles that reaffirm their bias.
This is interesting and something I hadn't really thought about before. The Internet's conspiracy circles are becoming a giant, weapons-grade "gish gallop". The difference is that nobody is even arguing with the original conspiracy theorist so nobody even gets a chance to counter any of the arguments until they've become mainstream enough for those wishing to counter to be made aware of them.
A lot of those data voids are the result of the academic publishing industry too.
There's another thing I hadn't thought much about, but did see a bit during COVID lockdowns. People would stumble upon some paper published by whomever that was on a seemingly reputable domain, and without knowing anything about the subject claim that it proved things it didn't and then reference those papers as proof.
Then they'd post on their own blog(s) run up some SEO, and boom, you got the beginning of a rabbit hole.
Excellent point.
so instead we only trust the knowledge clerics?
What could go wrong with that?
Yes.
Was this written by the actual soyjak?
I blame social media more than Google. Looking at you, Elon.
Twitter users choose to stay there.
"I have no choice, I have no other options" lol I can hear it in my sleep
The modern day "do your own research means find whatever supports your confirmation bias". However, I feel like there's a lot of discouragement against a healthy skepticism as well, which is... not healthy either.
For every opinion that exists there's someone on social media who will dedicate paragraphs to telling you why that opinion is stupid and you're a bad person for having it.
Don't do your own research, just believe in the Current Thing™. Just trust the Scientists™, they are smarter than you.
This entirely depends on how limited your perspective is. A limited perspective leads to more negative actions and an open perspective leads to more affirmative actions. 'Organized Groups', who influence others to think like them and believe what they believe, are results of negation.
I've seen this myself - so you could say this article confirms my bias. People who otherwise appear to be reasonable and intelligent - they are falling for what seem obviously untrue. But after doing research, and seeing the same ideas regurgitated in many places, it gives credence to the original idea.
This happens over and over again and I think people exacerbate the problem by then engaging in dialogue with other users, where they argue and become entrenched. Now their ego is tied to this position and changing course based on new information means admitting something they'd rather not . .
You are absolutely right about repetition being key in how people are radicalized. It spreads through a social contagion effect, in which one is repeatedly exposed to extremism and this is reinforced by members of the in-group.
You can see the citations for this claim in the beginning of this article I published after doing my own research (hahaha).
I have ads turned off and don't benefit from my blog. Just started it to have information ready to counter misinformation I come across online.
So…stop using Google?
You can always find your own truth if you search deep enough
People aren't taught how to do actual research anymore and it's sad.
Anymore? Were they ever taught?
My research is watching Youtube videos of people who did the research. That counts, right?
Secondary sources are sources.
"Do your own researchs bro"
And we know understand why they all say it
As time goes on, Google further prioritizes results from far right think tanks, as they are paying for better visibility. Unless you are specifically searching through Google Scholar, trusting the first results of any given search has increasingly become a coin flip.