We live in infodemic times. Misinformation, “fake” news, financial scams and hate speech are examples of harmful online content infecting millions. Broadly categorised as information disorder disease propagated through social media. Many are infected, some recovered and sadly many literally died. The World Economic Forum rated “massive digital misinformation” as a main threat to civilised society. The World Health Organisation: “we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic [that] spreads faster and more easily than this [COVID-19] virus.”
Infodemics occur when populations are bombarded with excess information about an issue or problem that obscures solutions, disrespects facts and clouds the truth. Gullible consumers of content are the victims in this information war, the only weapons in the counter offensive are facts aligned with logical and critical thinking (analytical thinking). The Economist magazine described cyberspace as “the world’s most lawless battlefield.”
Populations could be segmented into “educated” and “uneducated”. The ability to think clearly and critically, to look for facts (or establish the facts) and think for oneself in logical transparent steps: these are the defining traits of the genuinely educated. The memorisation of information and obtaining a certificate confirming that achievement do not make a person truly educated. Thinking critically, logically, with respect for and a bias for facts, an understanding for example of the difference between correlation and causation. This is not just the domain of lawyers, philosophers or news analysts on television.
In my online content research analysis work and interventions to help consumers of internet content, I use a system of online content classification that broadly (with sub-categories) divides content in cyberspace in two categories: 1. Analytical content; 2. Non-Analytical (ordinary) content. All analytical content in cyberspace has passed through the filter of critical and logical thinking. Claims, hypothesis or speculations made in analytical content are supported with some form of credible evidence. Non-analytical content does not provide credible evidence to support claims and does not display critical or logical thinking, this is unverified content. Most non-analytical content is generally harmless when the content does not make important claims.
In a 2015 paper, Simon Cullen of Princeton University and his co-authors concluded that “the ability to analyse arguments is critical for high-level reasoning, yet previous research suggests that standard university education provides only modest improvements in students’ analytical-reasoning abilities.” David Epstein’s book released last year, “Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialised World” reveals some fascinating information. Epstein describes a study of students from departments as different as the English department is from the Neuroscience department of a top American university. Students were given 20 questions that tested conceptual/analytical thinking ability applicable in the real world. Results showed students with high great point average (GPA) in academics did not necessarily perform well: there was no correlation between GPA and broad conceptual/analytical thinking.
The conclusion: “…traits that earn good grades at the university do not include critical ability of any broad significance.” Most students confuse value judgements for scientific conclusions. In one particular question testing students’ ability to separate correlation from evidence of causation, the students performed poorly. Epstein notes, “almost none of the students in any major [academic subject] showed a consistent understanding of how to apply methods of evaluating truth learned in their own discipline to other areas.”
During interviews of candidates for analyst positions in prestigious consultancy firms, a typical test would contain a statement and a question with answer options. For example: the statement “the USA has 150,000 COVID related deaths and the UK has 50,000 COVID related deaths,” which of the following is a logical conclusion from the preceding statement? Answer options could include (a) a person is more likely to die from COVID in the US than in the UK (b) the UK has the pandemic in control better than the USA (c) the USA has a greater population than the UK (d) the USA carries out more COVID tests than the UK.
Thinking analytically reveals none of the conclusions (answers a,b,c or d) can be logically drawn from the statement preceding. All answers from (a) to (d) are facts that can be confirmed when more information is provided. However, only two conclusions can be drawn: (1) Both the USA and UK populations have thousands of COVID related deaths (2) the USA has more deaths from covid than the UK: the absolute number of deaths is greater in the USA. No other conclusion can be supported solely by the preceding statement. To conclude, for example, that the situation with COVID in the USA is worse than in the UK, we need to move from absolute numbers to relative numbers: number of deaths per entire population or deaths per million population. This is analytical thinking.
Omoregie is an independent research analyst and a fellow of the Institute of Management Consultants.
