I feel confident writing about ignorance. It's one of the subjects of which I am most aware…
What do we do when we lack context? Some of us double down. Others seek enlightenment.
We were once much better at finding answers within our own thinking. The ancients were able to orate and write without consulting databases. Philosophy, the earliest of the humanities, was accomplished void of historical records and written analyses.
But I don't want to dwell on that particular loss...
When we lack context today we ask Google. "Who won the Cold War? What makes up an ecological disaster? Who should be the next president?" Searches like these nourish our quest for knowledge, but the journey of understanding requires far greater care than a technology like Google can provide.
Humans and algorithms don't mix.
“...the closer an environment is to being genuinely good for humans, the worse it is for technology, and vice versa.”
Writer Andy Crouch explains that highways are phenomenal technology for cars but a terrible innovation for bipeds like you and I. Similarly, algorithms create pathways and procedures within which data fits nicely. Algorithmically generated information loves to populate in as many "Recommendation" inboxes and feeds as possible. This would be great if we too were machines, or even machine-like.
The mix is muddled by factors in human nature that psychology postulated and sociology proved, namely our lack of discernment.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to accept information that aligns with held beliefs. This, coupled with our inability to discern truth after being spoon-fed soft-serve ice cream for 50 years of television in the Entertainment Age, leads us to inhabit that environment made ideal for machines but worse for humans with dangerous implications.
Algorithms then are a weapon, like any technology in nefarious hands.
This is most self-evident when we state the circular argument that 1) algorithms control the kinds of things we see, and 2) we see only the things that algorithms control. On this journey of contextualization, we humans desire one thing.
So let's rephrase our line of question from asking about context to inquiring of meaning...
What do we do when we seek meaning?
As I've stated, increasingly (and this should scare us) when we seek to uncover purpose and meaning to life, we use a search engine. It's reductionist thinking to say all a search encapsulates is information. Algorithms surf data streams. They compile and extend offerings on a silver-screened platter. A dictionary doesn't just catalogue a language, it eventually defines the language itself. So too does an algorithm map connections on the web to become, not just a collective model for how we think, but how we think.
If our world is made up of deceptive detours within the platforms from which we receive meaning, we need better discernment.
We need firm understanding of truths so our latitude of acceptance isn't pushed too far to an extreme. We need insight into what mistruths look like within a culture of triviality and attention-seeking. We need our judgement of new information to not be distorted by confirmation and conformation, but enhanced by sound logic and restless questions.
Most of all, we need to teach younger generations, who will be far more inundated in this digital water in their lifetime's, the practices of reasoning and discernment. We must integrate the purpose of truth-seeking into our curriculums. Capitalism and the marketability of technical skills has far too greatly permeated the pedagogy and end of education.
Teach students the skills to get a job, yes. But don't neglect to teach them how to find meaning, refinement, and resolutions within the workforce they are beholden to…
The most atomic habit (vitally powerful, but tiny) we can adopt is to ignore an algorithm's recommendation. Take back your choice and exercise judgement to seek answers. Be an artist by always seeking without absolutely finding.
