Bias and the Web

According to the website http:www.neohumanism.org, bias is a “prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense for having a predilection to one particular view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or non-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.” Can this definition be trusted? After all, found in its URL is .org, seemingly trustworthy. The only way to be sure is to compare or cross reference the definition. Another definition comes from an article published in the New Century Handbook, “Examples of Biased Writing,” which according to Linda Gorman, bias is “a subtle a lack of neutrality you have towards a topic. It can come in many forms, including a bias toward sexual orientation, gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or religion.” (”Examples of Biased Writing.” ABLongman.com. 2005. http://wps.ablongman.com/long_hult_nch.html). Since both definitions seem to be from a reliable source, a consistent definition for the term has been determined. However, the definition exercise could have been quite lengthy if not for the internet and its vast capabilities.

Still, the immense capability of the internet also creates a real problem, the propagation of personal and institutional bias. We all know that anyone can post anything, almost anywhere at any time. So wherein is the problem? The quandary is not that many choose to use the web as their soapbox, diary, business, etc. Nor is the real concern the fact that the web has no rules or oversight, which means no content regulation. If regulation did exist, who would regulate the internet? Who would choose the regulators? What problems would regulation bring to a society that has free speech as one of its core beliefs? The web offers the ultimate vehicle for free speech; as a result, bias is rampant and inevitable. Individuals, agencies, government officials, educators, politicians, and “wannabes” in every form all post their opinions and the rationalizations can be quite convincing. Bias is inherent in all of us. There is no escape from bias, misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda as long as the web offers a practically effortless way for personal opinions to be delivered to a mass audience, instantaneously. The problem of bias and the web stems from people’s willingness to believe something, just because the source seems credible.

As individuals, we represent the sum of our influences and experiences whether genetic (nurture) or social (environment). Not to start a debate on nature v. nurture, nevertheless, we all bring fixed attitudes and expectations based on our individual and collective history. Since we all possess many biases as a result of our particular experiences, overcoming “tunnel-vision” thinking requires thinking differently. While there is no way to completely eliminate personal bias, tools and resources exist to expand the ability to think critically. The key is developing an awareness of the bias baggage we carry; knowing the predisposition of humans to see what we expect can lead to understand the need to think critically, asses our own bias, questions ourselves and others, and not accept an idea at “face value” but instead develop the tools to avoid the blindness of our own comfortable rut. Resources found as a result of the “bias” assignment includes:

1. Techniques for Evaluating websites: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate
2. Determining web links: http://www.alexa.com/
3. How to avoid bias in your writing (from Guidelines for Removing Racial/Ethnic Biases in Writing.” http://www.apastyle.org/race.html

Overall, “All information, whether in print or by byte, needs to be evaluated by readers for authority, appropriateness, and other personal criteria for value. If you find information that is "too good to be true", it probably is. Never use information that you cannot verify. Establishing and learning criteria to filter information you find on the Internet is a good beginning for becoming a critical consumer of information in all forms. ‘Cast a cold eye’ (as Yeats wrote) on everything you read. Question it. Look for other sources that can authenticate or corroborate what you find.” (http://www.searchengineshowdown.com/). Question always, learn what sources can be trusted, never become too complacent, and communicate with others you trust. If you can’t find the author or the reason for the message, then the message is questionable.

Perspectives

In Flight
Reflecting upon my NSO experience, conflicting impressions emerge simultaneously. NSO was both confusing and enlightening, intimidating and empowering, exhausting and energizing. Not knowing what to expect from the session (no preconceived attitudes existed), my thoughts upon arrival simply centered on embracing the whole experience. Oh what an experience emerged: new faces, new friends, new ideas, and new skills at a pace that caused my brain to blur. Critical thinking exercises led to scholarly debate, and examined through the lens of psychology, the ensuing discussion, critique, and information dissemination was a bit “mind-numbing.” Still, the enduring imprint of NSO is the blossoming understanding of all that I really don’t know. Teaching the same classes and topics for the past ten years created a comforting cocoon from which I have begun to emerge. So, the journey of educational enlightenment begins. My PhD dream is in flight. And while the destination is miles and miles away, beginning my personal odyssey thrills my soul and terrifies my brain. Nevertheless, my inner adventuress screams “all systems go.”

The heart of NSO, Media Boot Camp, was thankfully distilled into three manageable sections. My “takeaways” of the three topics follow.

Dr. Karen Dill: Gate keeping and concepts of self in media
In our information driven society, gatekeepers are essential for the average media consumer to filter and comprehend just some of the thousands of messages which bombard the psyche on a daily basis. Media Gatekeeping, then, is a process which filters the ideas and information, and further includes the selection of topics provided to the “masses.” Still, it is essential consumers remember that broadcast and print media is a tool to keep us informed, not a thinking machine.

Although Kurt Lewin’s Gatekeeping theory originally referred to mothers and meal selection, (http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht/doc.), the idea that media gatekeepers set the agenda of what information consumer’s see, hear, and understand rings true. Information is a commodity and today’s consumer seems obsessive in their need to not just “know” but “know” right now. At best, traditional media gatekeepers, such as television, radio, and print only offer a small “slice” of daily events that occur worldwide. Most people watch television news so they can receive just such an overview on notable events. No harm here. Problems occur when people accept only one version as truth. Dr. Gil questioned our thoughts on the statement that “media doesn’t tell us what to think, but what topic to think about.” Media gatekeepers, or social censors as some label, may select and edit but they don’t fabricate the messages. Further questions emerge: are we fed what other’s think, or do we watch select programs to hear only what we believe to validate our own thinking? Media agenda setters can facilitate my tendency toward passiveness as an informational consumer; it is my responsibility to look beyond traditional media delivery forums and learn more, since a vast amount of information at my disposal takes just a few keystrokes. No one forces me to watch the news, read specific magazines, listen to the radio, or tell me how I should interpret specific information. Sure, media gatekeepers may limit broadcasts to a few specific topics, but their job is not to tell me everything I need to know. As a responsible media consumer, my job is to apply my own filters to all I hear, see, and learn. I have no one to blame but myself if I allow negative messages to influence me negatively.

Dr. Jean-Pierre Isbouts: The Persuasive Role of Music
The idea that media use motives include diversion, information, and development of a personal identity certainly applies to music as media. Because music has the power to touch our soul, it represents a much more persuasive tool than any “talking head.” Music stimulates our emotions, and in most cases, subdues reason. Melodies can move us to tears, when we don’t really have a tangible reason to cry. Music is multidimensional, relying on various effects to convey a message, of which lyrics are a small part. Dr. Isbouts’ presentation certainly reminded me of the important role music has played in my life; every important milestone has been accompanied by music, including the start of my personal PhD program. Memories equal music; songs trigger life moments transporting me to another time and place. To this day I won’t listen to the song that was playing on the radio the day I learned my brother had been diagnosed with CML.

The persuasive appeal of music is its universal influence. Music as language needs little interpretation as we make it our own. It speaks to us on a subconscious level; sometimes we become so immersed in the “story” we lose sight that the music is the message. Media without music is like a PBJ sandwich without the jelly-it’s just wrong. Music is the mental road signs that propel plots, heightens our emotive responses, and foreshadows scary scenes so I know when to close my eyes and cover my ears. A message is not just what is said, but how the message is conveyed. Music bridges what we see with what we feel. The emotional parallels we draw between event, song, and feeling allows music its persuasive impact on our lives.

Jason Ohler: How Plugged In Are You? The tEcosystem
Since an essential component of media psychology is to understand the
psychological impact media has on humans, then we must also understand our current and emerging technological environment. Our world is inundated with technology, like it or not. Society is utterly dependent on computers, cell phones, and the internet; our daily lives are so entangled with the tEcosystem that when the technology fails, we panic. Withdrawal begins; the world literally stops when computer access is unavailable. Thus, a “psychological lens” will help in the understanding of not only how media impacts us, but why, so coping mechanisms can be implemented as necessary. Individual and societal addiction to technology requires emerging media psychologists to recognize both the power of technology to connect, and likewise, to identify the means by which media disconnects human beings.

Staying connected or “plugged in” offers many benefits and equal burdens. My cell phone offers instant connectivity (as long as I have a signal) to friends, family, and businesses. The GPS feature can also “track” my location in case of emergency. Facebook allows a medium for “friends” to communicate exponentially. The internet conveys limitless information on almost any topic. New media technology offers instant communication gratification, but at what price? I find it difficult to “unplug” and am often infowhelmed. Yet, I also can’t seem to stay current with new communication tools as they emerge. So as plugged in as I am, I still have more to learn. Time, I just need more time. Although the pace of information exchange has intensified, the time it takes to absorb the information has not. Herein lies an informational dilemma—just how can our brains process and internalize so much information? The only way is to act as our own gatekeeper. With so many connectivity tools at my disposal, my sense of belonging to a community is secure; still, at times escape is paramount.

3/2/1
Three things I learned at NSO:
1. The ways in which media psychology can be defined
2. I have the ability to create an autobiographical media piece, share it with others, and survive the embarrassment
3. Psychologists are weird (I suspected, but since an expert told me, I know now it’s true)

Two things I will tell colleagues, friends, and family:
1. Fielding offers a tremendously positive support system to help smooth the progress of my PhD journey
2. Phase of the moon may or may not impact television viewing habits

One change I will make (actually already in progress):
1. Challenge myself to think more deeply and examine evidence more thoroughly, making my PhD journey more meaningful

Urban Legends-Did you hear what I heard?

The assignment for this week prompted some serious critical thinking, which I surmise was the whole purpose! Since the topic of legends, myths, hoaxes, etc. has been percolating in my brain, a trip to Union 76 gas station sparked (pun intended) my blog topic. Posted on the gas pump was the warning to turn off cell phones as use near the pumps could spark an explosion. This particular urban myth began in 1999, has been disproved by the petrochemical industry, been featured on the The Discovery Channel show "Mythbusters" etc. - yet the sign remains. Why does this persist, when science so obviously has labeled the "facts" as "myth"? Here are my observations and musings.

Legends, myths, old wives tales, fables, parables - call them what you wish - have existed, and will continue, as long as humans crave an understanding of the world we inhabit. We have an insatiable need to know, especially living in an era of such easily obtainable information. As rational beings, we thrive on communication and understanding information about ourselves and our place in the world; a justification of sorts for our continued existence. There has to be some reason we are here, after all. What we can't explain, we attempt to explain, even if the facts aren't exactly right.

Most legends are disguised as lessons. Some we have heard since we were young, such as “don't make an ugly face or your face will freeze” or “keep your hand inside the car or your arm will fall off,” etc. Myths, in large part, are attempts to control behavior for the protection of the individual, but more so for the protection of society itself. After spending quite a bit of time on the Internet researching and exploring various legends, I came across a "hoax quiz" (http:''urbanlegends.about.com/2009/08/26/can-you-spot-the-real-from-the-fake.htm). I was intrigued and even though I considered myself a “hoax buster” expert, I was soon humbled. The photo above comes from the sight, so I have to ask, do you think it is real or fake? Hopefully learning is a life-long endeavor; maybe legends are meant to continue exercising our minds. Although we are rational beings, we make so many important decisions based on our emotions. Legends work on the same principle- we create an emotional connection with others which then helps us feel less alone and more confident in ourselves and our beliefs.

In some ways, truth is relative or contextual. If perception is reality, then I seek that which supports my belief system. While facts be proven and theories tested, what happen when science fails to explain the answer? If enough evidence doesn't exist then does the theory become myth. Legends emerge when answers are needed and facts don’t exist. My thoughts here do not represent a justification for perpetuating falsehoods. Instead, I am, simply theorizing on why legends, et al exist and seem to self perpetuate. The more emotional the subject, the more people speculate. Technology has provided the means for speculations to be instantaneously conveyed around the world.

So the moral of this blog? Use your brain, apply the rules of the baloney detection kit, and in case of a legend emergency, incorporate the adage if it sounds too good to be true . . . .(you know the rest).

Thinking about thinking

Thinking about thinking, well it just seems strange, especially since I have been told by teachers, friends, family members, etc. my whole life that I "think too much" or just "over-analyze something to death." Can one really think too much or over analyze? Maybe, but thinking critically requires thinking constructively and forms the core of how I live my life.

As an educator, my profession revolves around pushing, challenging, and developing the minds of students in my classes. As an avid reader, the same principles are applied to my own professional development. Thus, I am embedded in the process of critical thinking at every turn. And now, pursuing a PhD, I am further challenged to critically discuss critical thinking. The PhD program will help satisfy my craving to continually learn and no one will accuse me of "over thinking."

Yet, critical thinking involves a lot of work, which so many are hesitant to incorporate into the everyday lives. Why? Well, why should the "masses" learn to think for themselves when so much information is readily available from the Internet or is "spoon fed" to them from other media sources. Websites such as Wikipedia, disguised as an unbiased and educational forum, fulfills a need for quick and easily digestible information. People think what they are told to think, many believing that I read it in the newspaper" or "I heard it on television so "it" must be true. I am not advocating banning media avenues. However, with using technology comes a responsibility to develop an understanding of its flaws as well as advantages.

To think critically one must be willing to sacrifice our own ideas (which takes courage to change), truly listen to the ideas of others (not a passive act), and admitting we don't know everything (and that our opinions can be flawed). This is not impossible, but critical thinking needs to be taught, beginning at a very young age. I'm so grateful that my parents constantly challenged my thinking and encouraged open dialogue while I was young!
(Images courtesy of http://images.google.com)