Introduction:
Hollow Knowledge
​
D o you understand what's going on in the world?
​
Such a question is becoming increasingly important, given the buzzwords that have dominated our media in the past year, such as "fake news," "alternative facts," or, the apocalyptic associations of a "post-truth world."
​
With the lingering threat of falling prey to misinformation, individuals are eager to fill their head with headlines and news in an effort to distinguish truth from fiction. But how are we expected to make such distinctions when the Internet--with its immediacy, scope, and personalization tactics--seems to have it in for us?​
​
This thinking highlights the questions that have been increasingly pointed toward a number of actors in our "fake news" environment. We ask social media networks why they don't do more to protect their users from stumbling upon misinformation. We demand our journalists be more objective and nuanced in their reporting while still releasing news at lightning speeds. We wonder why cable news stations package their information as narratives, or why credible experts continue to be exposed for their spread of misinformation to elevate their own personal gain?
​
These are all important questions; ones that should continued to be asked. But such blame--as blame frequently does--points a finger at any face in sight other than our own. And in the case of public misinformation, the problem may be more personal than we think.
​
The truth is, we can be informed without having any real understanding of what is actually going on.
​
Being informed without having understanding is to have, as mentioned above, is to have hollow knowledge. In other words, you may have awareness that an issue is making headlines, or recognize the main actors' names as they appear in breaking news pieces. You may even be able to describe the main points of current topics. But, while that knowledge may exist in the context of current events, does it extend to a larger context?
​
You may understand, for example, that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai proposed to roll back Obama-era regulations pertaining to net neutrality. With that in mind, can you describe what net neutrality is? Do you know what the FCC does, and how a single action may fit into its broader history?
​
This is the difference between being informed and having understanding.
Consider the two definitions below. *​
​
​
Being
Informed
(in-fawrmd)
​
To have information of a phenomenon, particularly knowledge absent of interpretation, significance, or context that may shape any subsequent judgment.
​
​
(see also: awareness)
Having
Understanding
(uhn-der-stan-ding)
The ability to understand a phenomenon, to readily consider the greater context of an issue, including awareness of objective facts and acknowledgment of its various interpretations.
​
(see also: comprehension)
* These definitions are working statements, articulated for the sole purpose of this project.
Continue to
With Abundant Information,
We Lack Understanding
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
The Pool of Understanding: An Analogy
​
How can make leap from being informed to having understanding? Well, that's a big, abstract question, so it may be easiest to consider an analogy.
Because everyone loves a good analogy.
Imagine understanding as a swimming pool. "The Pool of Understanding," if you will. The pool is surrounded by fencing on all sides, as is common with swimming pools. The gate to the pool, however, has two locks. The first lock opens access to the second lock, and the second lock opens access to the pool itself (I doubt the specificity of this illustrated lock system is commonplace, but stay with me). In other words, the second and final lock cannot be accessed without a key to the first lock.
​
Luckily, there are two keys, one for each lock!
​
The first key to The Pool of Understanding is that of awareness, namely awareness of multiple perspectives of an issue. The Key of Awareness is available to those who are acknowledge that there are more approaches to an issue than their own. That is, one cannot achieve understanding of an issue with information pertaining to only one side of the issue (such a state would be defined as being informed, as discussed earlier). ​
​
The second key to The Pool of Understanding is acceptance of multiple perspectives of an issue. To acquire understanding, an individual not only need to be aware of multiple perspectives, but further needs to acknowledge the fact that such perspectives have repercussions, and should not be brushed off. As such, acceptance is the crucial, final step to understanding, in that it acknowledges a perspective's presence and potential impact.
​
Acceptance represents one step past awareness, and therefore requires that the awareness precede it.
​
These two keys aren't easy to come by, however. Their acquisition requires time, dedication, and understanding, leaving very few in possession of both keys. Even more, our current news landscape may be making it harder to get the keys, distracting us in a digital world of abundant information, thus making it harder to achieve both awareness and subsequent acceptance.
​
​
​
Check(ing) Our Understanding
​
How can we better position ourselves to achieve such an understanding? One approach may lie in the double meaning of the verb, "check."
Because everyone loves a good play on words.
​
First, we need to check our understanding, by examining the quality and accuracy of our own comprehension.
​
Sure, everyone should do more to understand the news. The Internet provides an extensive database of information and facts, available to anyone with the ability to log online. But, there are only so many hours in the day. All of us have lives to live that exist outside of the blue-lit screens of our computers and smartphones; we cannot be expected to approach each news headline with full contextual knowledge.
The addition of extensive contextual knowledge is not the way to achieve full understanding, however. As it turns out, our current information environment may be setting us up to only achieve basic awareness, rather than full understanding. We may be tricked into perceiving our basic information as full understanding--never realizing that we are, in fact, less informed than we believe.
​
Second, we need to identify the circumstances in our news environment that are checking our understanding, that is, restraining the process of our own comprehension.
​
Without such acknowledgement, overconfidence in our own understanding can leave us susceptible to misinformation. With full understanding of an issue, after all, it is much easier to distinguish fact from fiction.
​
So, what tricks us into the perception that we have a more nuanced understanding than we actually do? It turns out our current information consumption habits may reveal such causes of our lack of understanding, and our subsequent vulnerability to misinformation.
​
​
T his project will:
​
-
Make a case for our lack of understanding
-
Analyze this case in the context of our own media habits, including
-
How we get our news
-
What we choose to read
-
-
Consider our capacity to better understand the news, and propose action to become smarter consumers of information
​
​
​
​
​
​
​