Chapter 1: The Impact of Inferences on Misinformation

Consider this math puzzle: You walk into a bedroom. There are 34 individuals present. You eliminate 30. How many individuals remain in the bedroom? Before you scroll down for the answer, jot down your immediate thoughts.

Photo by Antoine Dautry on Unsplash What crossed your mind? Did you question the morality of discussing such violence in a bedroom? Or perhaps you were impressed by a space that accommodates 34 people? Or, did you instinctively attempt to solve the math problem, given the preceding cue? If I had framed it as a riddle aimed at evaluating your critical thinking, would you have approached it differently? Reassess the “puzzle”: You walk into a bedroom. There are 34 individuals present. You eliminate 30. How many individuals remain in the bedroom? Firstly, the opening sentence does not specify that the bedroom belongs to you. The next statement mentions 34 individuals, but it doesn’t clarify that these individuals are situated in the bedroom. You assumed that entering a bedroom implies those individuals are also inside. Now, onto the act of elimination. The statement mentions killing 30, but it doesn’t clarify that you eliminated 30 people, nor does it indicate that these 30 were in the bedroom. It’s plausible you could have eliminated 30 insects on your path to the bedroom. Given the earlier mention of “individuals,” you likely inferred that these were people, but that’s not necessarily accurate. Thus, if you are a human, the accurate answer to the question is “1.”

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash Studies indicate that instead of engaging in critical reading, we often skim content, especially when viewing it on screens. We glance at headlines, form assumptions about the article's content, and may even share it before fully digesting it. This approach is unwise, as marketers often craft enticing headlines designed to draw us in.

We glance at headlines, form assumptions about the article's content, and may even share it before fully digesting it. Should we decide to click on the article, we often skim through it, searching for relevant details. If something provokes an emotional reaction, we may quickly react without thoughtful consideration. Did we misinterpret the article? Are we engaging in a game of telephone, where our inaccurate interpretation gets disseminated? In our fast-paced digital environment, information bombards us incessantly. We rely on heuristics, or cognitive shortcuts, to navigate this information swiftly. Occasionally, what we encounter provokes an emotional reaction, which might lead us to respond impulsively, bypassing our rational thought processes. Such swift reactions can foster incorrect inferences. Are we engaging in a game of telephone, where our inaccurate interpretation spreads? With the rise of misinformation and disinformation, it’s crucial for everyone to read with discernment. We often accept certain individuals as “experts” without scrutinizing their sources. Additionally, some may obscure facts with vague phrases like “many people are saying…” How many constitutes “many?” This is how we fall prey to deception — when we skim too quickly without truly analyzing the content. Not every tweet or post will remind us: “Approach this with a critical perspective.” Yet, if the information at hand is significant enough to provoke a reaction, take the time to read it thoroughly before responding.

Chapter 2: The Role of Emotional Responses in Misinformation

The first video, "How AI-generated content affects the spread of disinformation?" delves into the relationship between artificial intelligence and the propagation of false information, showcasing how technology can manipulate our perceptions.

The second video, "Why we are so susceptible to misinformation," explores the psychological factors that make us vulnerable to false information, providing insights into our cognitive biases and emotional triggers.