How to handle information in times like this
As we entered the last few days before voting on Wednesday December 7, one of the greatest challenges that confronted us as Ghanaians was be what to do with what we heard, saw or read. If any of us never heard, or read or understood critical thinking, this was an opportunity for us to gain some insight into it and apply it judiciously.
Advertisement
This is because the application of critical thinking in the days before, and after the election could help greatly, the preservation of the peace in our country.
Without applying critical thinking to information that comes to our notice, we stand the danger of believing and acting on falsehood.
Critical thinking means “reasonable, reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do.” It involves analysing what we hear as to whether it is true, has sound logic and is rational, with the understanding that we can be fooled and may be wrong.
We must always ask “Is what I am hearing or reading true? What is the evidence that it is true? Why should I trust the one telling me or the one who wrote what I am reading? What would be the consequence if this turns out to be false?” Critical thinking also has to do with deciding what to do with the information. We always need to remember to make that decision anytime we hear a story. Whether we would believe, reject, investigate, and verify it or whether we would keep it to ourselves or transmit it.
Weaknesses
Psychological research has unearthed some characteristics of human beings which constitute a weakness. Knowledge about these is important when it comes to what to do with information. The first is the theory of gullibility of humans, which says that people have difficulty disbelieving anything unless they are given something else to believe or except for the reasons that they have already believed something which contradicts the first thing. The second theory is belief perseverance which refers to the tendency of people to hold on to their existing beliefs even when there is evidence or knowledge that what they believe is false.
This theory also proposes that even when given contradicting evidence about the existing belief, people have the tendency to rather have the existing belief strengthened. When combined, these mean that unless someone already holds a contradictory belief about an issue or has contrary knowledge on something, they normally would believe whatever they are told about that thing; and once they believe it, it would be hard for them to discard that belief; even if the evidence contradicts their belief.
What makes all this worse is the fact that our beliefs induce within us certain emotional states like anger, resentment, frustration, fear, etc. which have the power to push us to transmit what we have heard or to take other actions we deem justifiable or appropriate. For example, if someone you know is harbouring a stuffed ballot box in their house, you may believe it and depending on whether he is an opponent or otherwise you are likely to take a certain action. If it happens to be an opponent you are likely to get angry if you believe the information, and then inform others who would also believe, and together you will attack that individual. The end result would be chaos. Let us, therefore, not be quick to believe lest our emotions be aroused.
Believing information
Another weakness that we humans have is our tendency to believe information simply because it fits in with our (wrongly or rightly) preconceived ideas about the personality, entity or people involved. The fact that you do not like this political party or candidate does not mean that every negative thing you hear about them is true, and the fact that you like them must also not make you refute every negative thing you hear about them as untrue. If you hear that people are saying your mother is a witch, you will of course not believe it because you believe it is false and you would not go telling others that your mother is a witch. Assuming that it was an aunt of yours you did not like about whom you heard being said was a witch, you would immediately believe it and transmit the information at any opportunity. This way of thinking and behaving can fuel misunderstanding and conflict in times like these.
Critical thinking demands that we all do well to subject every story we hear to analysis because there is a possibility some of the negative things we hear about the people and parties we love are actually true while some of the things we hear about our perceived opponents are actually true.
Import of sharing information
These should open our eyes to certain realities. Firstly, in times like these, we must remember that whatever news we convey to a person or a group of people, we create a problem for our hearers or readers, because they have to decide whether or not to believe what they are hearing; and then secondly, they have to figure out what to do with that information. Thirdly, they have to decide how to react to the people or person mentioned in the story subsequently.
All this constitutes a disturbance within the psyche of these people. Even if we witnessed something at first-hand, we should remember that things are not always what they seem to be. The fact that we witnessed something does not mean our interpretation of it is accurate. Transmitting reputation-destructive or conflict-generating information which you did not even witness but which you heard from another is not acceptable, because your source may also have heard it from someone else or may have misinterpreted what they witnessed.
Most importantly, maturity decides which information we keep to our chest and which we transmit. It is not every truth that needs to be told.
Again, we all need to question the basis for transmitting information with potential to harm the reputation of entities or individuals, especially without verifying. In this election period we will get all information in loads, especially on social media platforms. Let us all make it a point to ask, “Why should I believe what I am reading or hearing? Why should I convey it? How is it going to help the people I am conveying it to?” We all would need to guard against using the sharing of negative information simply as a means of deepening our relationship with those we are transmitting to or to present ourselves as those who possess all the ‘important’ or latest information. Finally, let us all curb our appetite for information in these times because it just may save this nation from needless conflict.
