FALLIBLE FOX

Considering Your Thinking as You Gather Information (Metacognition Part 4)

​

In previous sections, we looked at some cognitive foundations for reflecting on our own thinking, which is key to our capacity to think critically. We considered the importance of reflecting on what we do and do not understand about topics at issue, some of the differences between automatic and controlled thought, and select ways our minds are set up to preserve preexisting and/or preferred beliefs.

 

In what follows, we'll move application to the forefront, giving consideration to the context of processing a piece of digital media, in which reflection on our own thinking—including some of the cognitive barriers we've been exploring—will serve us well.

​

This section will call back to some of the ideas from the first three parts of the Metacognition module, breaking things down into three stages of media consumption: perusing and selecting media; delving into a particular piece (e.g., the actual reading, watching, or listening); and post-consumption period (what happens after you read, watch, or hear). We'll use the context of processing an online article. Note, however, that you might just as easily substitute a alternate medium, such as auditory (e.g., podcasts) or visual (e.g., imagery, video) ones.

​​

Stage 1: Perusing and selecting media

 

We encounter tons of headlines or titles and short summaries as we scroll through social media, the news, Youtube, podcast applications, etc. Most of us do much more headline skimming than article reading, using titles and short descriptions to inform us about the world or to make cursory decisions about whether we’re going to open links and invest further time.

 

Mostly, we choose not to read particular articles, perhaps because we’re just not interested in the topic, because we have other ways we'd rather spend our time, or because there's just plain too much content available to us. That's clearly justifiable—there's way too much information out there for one person to consume, and much of it isn't particularly good, interesting, or useful anyway!

 

Sometimes, however, we decide not to click through and read on for more concerning reasons. Maybe, we have an interest in the subject but decline to read because we think our understanding is already accurate and complete enough. Occasionally that might be reasonable, such as if we've already read about a news story and don't need more information. But often, I think, there's more to learn (recall the Metacognition Part 1 – The Limits of Your Understanding). In particular, if it's a good, reliable source and a topic we care a lot about or will affect important decisions about our health and well-being, it might be worth pausing to consider continuing to educate ourselves on the subject. 

 

At other times, we might decide to put content aside because we don’t agree with the apparent moral or political substance of the article—we might find the take to be offensive, contradictory to our beliefs (see Metacognition Part 3), or coming from a publication or author we dislike (look ahead to People & Context Module for more on this point). From a critical thinking standpoint, these sorts of reasons for deciding not to read something may not always be reasonable. If, for example, we ignore information because we don't want to experience discomfort of disagreement, we could miss out on opportunities to broaden our perspective and question our potentially errant views.

 

This is where it becomes important to give at least some consideration to our mind's tendency to work against reason by guarding against views that seem to run up against our own (see Metacognition Part 3). Consider that many of the cognitive barriers at play are operating unconsciously which means you don't necessarily have access to them (Metacognition Part 2), and don't forget to adopt a stance of intellectual humility (Metacognition Part 1). Ideas that contradict our own will almost certainly offer at least some insight or help us tighten and/or widen our perspective.

 

By contrast, you might decide to click a link and read on because the article appears likely to support your prior beliefs. Again, from a critical thinking standpoint, that's probably not such a good reason to read on. Similarly, if you value your membership in a particular social group, you might tend to consume content that's ideologically aligned with your group norms and for which the "right" information, attitudes, and opinions might gain you social approval (or protect you from disapproval). Note that it's a good idea to revisit Metacognition Part 3 if these seem like unrealistic motivations for spending time with particular media. You may harbour these kinds of motivations without conscious awareness.

 

In any case, we miss out on a lot by gravitating only or predominantly to information that confirms our preexisting views and the norms of our valued social groups.

 

In general, consider this: what's really turning you away from reading, watching, or listening to something? Is it really a good reason to move on? On the other hand, what's really motivating you to read, watch, or listen? Do you have good reasons for spending your time with the content? Start off by thinking about what you currently believe, whether there are things you want to believe more than others, and whether there are external pressures influencing your beliefs on the subject matter or actions related to the subject matter.

​

At the same time, be realistic—consider that we don't usually have time for deep metacognitive reflection. Remember, metacognition often requires deliberate and effortful "Type 2" mental processing—this is even more the case for those who are newer to integrating metacognitive approaches (see Metacognition Part 2). As such, it's a good idea to consider when you would benefit most from such reflection and when you might relax your efforts. 

 

Fuller metacognitive consideration is important, for example, when you're gathering foundational information for serious decisions about your health and well-being and that of your family members (e.g., vaccinations; career decisions). It is also important when doing a project for a course or doing research for work.

 

By contrast, when you're merely enjoying your evening and exploring casual interests (e.g., NBA basketball, music), doing this deep reflection could sometimes be useful, enjoyable, or good practice, but it's not quite as important. Furthermore, sometimes—when you're at a concert, playing a well-learned piece of music, or reading mainly for pleasure—thinking about your own thinking might actually hinder enjoyment and performance.

 

Decisions about when to reflect on your thinking are complicated. Determining when and where it's valuable will ultimately be up to you.

 

Stage 2: As you read

 

Congratulations—you've found something to read! But uh oh. Now it's time to really get our critical thinking going.

​

​

As you read, keep confirmation bias in mind (see Part 3 of Metacognition module). You may find you’re spending more time mentally attacking some arguments and going easy on others. Research suggests that we spend more time critiquing views that conflict with our own views compared to those that align with what we already believe. All else being equal, it may be better to place equal weight on assessing  arguments for and against a position. Of course, there are lots of exceptions to this —for example, when the science is firmly establish (see scientific facts in Metacognition Part 1), such as regarding the shape of the earth (not flat!), contrarians rightfully deserve greater critique. Putting aside what you want to be true demands practice and we can never be certain we’re critiquing arguments in an unbiased way. But when the subject is important, we should usually try.

 

As you read, pay attention to your emotions, where they're coming from, and how they might be directing your behaviour. You can ask, for example, whether some argument or claim is making you angry. Ask yourself why this might be. Were you ready to be angry before you even started reading, perhaps due to your prior feelings about the author or publication? Did you become angry because of the author's conclusions? Is your anger or frustration a result of your view that the author is engaging in sloppy reasoning? Identifying the origins of our emotions can help us to grasp whether those emotions are telling us something useful (or, alternatively, are leading us astray) and to channel them appropriately.

 

It's also important to pay attention to what our feelings may be motivating us to do. Sometimes strong feelings arise because of a moral conflict—for instance, an author may have written something in the current piece or in previous work that you perceive as offensive or harmful. In the short term, you might therefore tend to read the offending author's argument uncharitably. For instance, you might view the their writing as arising from malicious intent when it could just as easily stem from other, more innocuous motives (for more on this idea, read my blog post on Hanlon's Razor). It's generally good to pay attention to where our anger and outrage—and other emotions—are coming from and any possible behavioural consequences, such that we can make better decisions about how to process media and act on it. 

​

Speaking of which...

​​

Stage 3: After you read

 

Did you just read an article that made you feel good? Ask why it made you feel good—for instance, you might think it confirmed some central or cherished belief you hold. Alternatively, did you just see something that made you angry or morally disgusted? These are feelings we are often driven to act on and, unfortunately (in many cases), social media enables us to respond immediately. For example, you might feel compelled to share a post that made you feel good about your worldview. By contrast, you might be driven to express disapproval of an offending post or author.

 

We should ask questions about the broader consequences of our potential social media responses. You might receive a good feeling from an article because it confirmed some ideology, or you might have been shocked or outraged at some news, but we need to do a better job of asking whether that's a good reason to share the source with friends or followers. What if the source you're sharing is based on shoddy research? What if it's false information (see this article for an interesting look at how we can inadvertently spread false info)? 

​

An emotion like moral outrage can motivate us to take corrective action, such as seeking punishment for people we perceive as having done wrong. The problem is that outrage can cloud our capacity to think clearly and make us want to act without much thought about the broader consequences of our actions in a complex social world. It can be difficult to think before we act when we're experiencing intense emotions, but pondering the consequences before immediate action is often worthwhile because outrage can certainly be channelled toward corrective actions with the potential for positive effects (see Part 5 of Metacognition module for some strategies you might use to slow things down and think about whether your responses to media are truly doing what you'd like them to do).

 

Ask about your goals for sharing and discussing media—are you trying to help others or might you simply be trying to signal something about yourself? We also can ask whether a particular reaction might influence others in ways that can leave them relatively better or worse off (e.g., participation in the propagation of the false belief that childhood vaccines causes autism is likely to do nothing but leave others worse off). You motives might be commendable, but the action itself could be extremely wrongheaded and even dangerous if you have beliefs about important topics that do not reflect reality.

 

Here are some other things to consider as you finish reading (or watching or listening to something online):

 

• What are you going to take with you after the read? What’s the gist of the article? Should you update your prior beliefs based on this piece? Should you go read more on the topic?

 

• Finish reading with openmindedness and skepticism (see Metacognition Part 5). Be open to new ideas that are based on good evidence, but try reasonably poking holes in the views the author puts forth. In any case, it's generally not a good idea to make big decisions based on a single short article.

 

• Ask whether you should disseminate the finding to others (e.g., tweet, discuss). To whom? It's also a good idea to reflect on precisely why you want to share something. For example, consider whether you're motivated to give other people information for their benefit or, alternatively, whether you’re trying to signal something about yourself, such as your virtues or identity (“Look how much I care about this issue!” "Look how moral I am!"). Using social media to signal something about ourselves isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be if we're throwing others' well-being under the bus (e.g., doxing people or sharing false stories just because they align with our views).

​

The next section of the metacognition module will introduce you to some specific tools that can be applied as you process digital media and more broadly as correctives for some of our fallible mental processes.