When we encounter new information, we may have an emotional response. If we feel strongly, this is a sign to slow down our thinking about what we are seeing. The underlying appeals of the information we see as well as our own cognitive biases influence our beliefs.
Epistemic, existential, and social needs or appeals influence our beliefs. Epistemic needs include a need to know and understand and a tendency to look for patterns. Existential appeals can rely on our desire for simple explanations to lessen anxiety and increase feelings of control. Social needs include a sense of belonging and alignment with a group. These needs are not inherently positive or negative but recognizing the underlying appeals of a message can help us analyze the message.
Confirmation bias—we are more likely to believe new information that aligns with what we already believe.
Proportionality bias—we may assume that major events have major causes.
Attribution bias—we may assume that we know the reason or motivation behind events.
The first move is the simplest. STOP reminds you of two things. Ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is. Ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is.
Now, you don’t have to do a Pulitzer prize-winning investigation into a source before you engage with it. But if you’re reading a piece on economics by a Nobel prize-winning economist, you should know that before you read it. Conversely, if you’re watching a video on the many benefits of milk consumption that was put out by the dairy industry, you want to know that as well.
Sometimes you don’t care about the particular article or video that reaches you. You care about the claim the article is making. You want to know if it is true or false. You want to know if it represents a consensus viewpoint, or if it is the subject of much disagreement.
Much of what we find on the internet has been stripped of context. Maybe there’s a video of a fight between two people with Person A as the aggressor. But what happened before that? What was clipped out of the video and what stayed in? Maybe there’s a picture that seems real but the caption could be misleading. Maybe a claim is made about a new medical treatment based on a research finding — but you’re not certain if the cited research paper really said that.
There’s a theme that runs through all of these moves: they are about reconstructing the necessary context to read, view, or listen to digital content effectively.
One piece of context is who the speaker or publisher is. What’s their expertise? What’s their agenda? What’s their record of fairness or accuracy? So we investigate the source. Just as when you hear a rumor you want to know who the source is before reacting, when you encounter something on the web you need the same sort of context.By scanning for other coverage you can see what the expert consensus is on a claim, learn the history around it, and ultimately land on a better source.
To learn about SIFT in more detail, check out https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/
