Verified by 
In a recent post on this blog, "Are We Getting Worse at Critical Thinking?" the interrogative title was answered in that we are neither getting worse at critical thinking nor are we losing our knowledge-base. In fact, we’re getting more and more opportunities to practice (and improve) our critical thinking as a result of our ever-increasing knowledge-base. However, given that many of these opportunities are often presented in online settings, there is the unfortunate reality that when we do make "mistakes" in thinking, it’s generally in a public domain for everyone to see. Of course, mistakes and failures can be more interesting (and sometimes entertaining) to apply focus; thus, it may seem to many that critical thinking is getting worse, even if it’s not.
In light of feedback I received on the post, one thing that may not have come across as detailed as I would have liked is the notion of "noisy" information. That is, though it’s not likely that we’re getting worse at critical thinking, it may be the case that it’s becoming more and more difficult to filter out such "noisy," peripheral information from the "good" stuff (i.e. relevant, accurate information), given the amount of information that’s created each and every day. In a way, this fact actually provides some evidence for our ever-growing knowledge-base. However, just because an individual knows a piece of information doesn’t actually mean that the information is correct – they may have simply stored erroneous information in their long-term memory without ever knowing it was incorrect. If we think about this erroneous information as "noisy" – all the misinformation and disinformation that’s created on a daily basis, alongside accurate information – then, the potential impact of this "noise" becomes clearer.
We’ve covered misinformation and disinformation in this blog quite a bit over the years, be it in the context of fake news (why we fall for it, how to spot it and how not to present it), conspiracy theories and intuitive judgment – and readers are generally pretty open to considering these topics and the discussions around them. However, I have noticed that people seem less inclined to dispense with using personal experience as evidence for accurate knowledge (as noted in a recent post), even if it is often likely to be misinformed. Simply, personal experiences are often emotion-evoking, are generally biased and are always based on a sample size of one – all reasons we should avoid it during critical thinking. However, these criticisms are also reasons why people so quickly flock to them. We are who we are because of our experiences. Arguably, experience is all we are – and that’s a powerful sentiment, one which is difficult for people to let go.
Perhaps this reluctance of dispensing with personal experience as credible evidence has been enhanced as a result of all the noisy information out there. For example, if I’ve just been presented six different, opposing propositions about a particular subject, what can I do? Obviously, given the focus of this blog, the simple answer is to critically think about it – if you genuinely care about what to conclude. However, if one doesn’t have the skills to think critically, isn’t disposed to think critically or doesn’t care enough about the topic to think critically, well… critical thinking isn’t likely to happen. So, then what’s the easiest way to determine what to believe? Gut-level, experience-based thinking is always the easiest way to make a decision, though certainly far from the best!
"Follow your truth."
Uggggggh. What nonsense. There is no such thing as your truth, only the truth — anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something, The concept of your truth is simply a biased perspective on how you see things, what you believe and what you think you know. Again, there is no reliability in a sample size of one. If you genuinely care about a topic, ditch your subjectivity, your feelings and your experience and search for objective evidence. Sure, it may be time-consuming, but that’s part of the reflective nature of judgment-making within critical thinking – sifting through the "noisy" information.
On the other hand, if you don’t really care about a topic enough to think critically about it, that’s fine too – I find myself not caring about a lot of topics – but when I lack the objective, evidence-based knowledge necessary to make decisions or draw conclusions, I make sure to stay quiet, keeping my subjective beliefs and opinions to myself when those who have thought critically about it are conversing.
Regular readers of this blog know that its primary goal has always been to engage people in critical thought and, to help achieve this goal, I’ve always encouraged readers to leave comments with questions, suggestions, perspectives and the like. Over the years, unfortunately, for every great comment that has been left, there was another comment that was either spam or just inappropriate. Some of the latter types of comments were quite easy to delete and some not so easy – see "Critically Thinking About Trolls and Hitchens’ Razor." Nevertheless, it would be quite reasonable to consider such comments as "noisy" information.
I use discussion of the comments as an example here because, as I was half-way through completing this piece, I was notified by the editorial team that as of the end of this month, comments would no longer be hosted on this blog. At first, I was annoyed considering the aforementioned goal of this blog – which, I admit, was a gut-level, intuition-based reaction on my part. However, as I took time to think about it, the rationale, the implications and the alternatives, I saw that it’s actually a pretty good idea. If you really want to leave a comment, you’re still able to do so – just on social media, such as my Twitter page.
However, if you just want to comment with spam or something inappropriate, it may not be worth the effort to have to travel to another page to do so; thus, rendering such activities less likely. I understand PsychologyToday’s sentiments as well – it’s difficult to manage comments for spam and individuals who look to take advantage of the platform to post inappropriate messages or spread negativity. No one wants to see that, least of all the readers. Essentially, this is one step towards decreasing noisy information.
Simply, noisy information is everywhere – so much so that it has even made it difficult for people to engage in discourse about critical thinking on this blog! Of course, the sources of this nonsense won’t care; but for the people who do care about the enhancement of critical thinking, let us learn from this. As always, I welcome your feedback and thoughts, albeit it now on a separate platform – follow me on Twitter @CogitoErgoDwyer and let me know what you think.
