Information Culture

We live in an age where information is available to the common person in ways and in amounts never before imaginable. And unfortunately, we also live in an age where our gluttony for information has outshined our critical-thought capacities, and has resulted in the dimming of distinctions between “information” and “knowledge”.

In attempts to undo the patriarchal era of the recent past, where “father knows best” and “doctor knows best” were the prevailing mantras, we have swung the pendulum so far to the opposite, that we now live with the belief that each individual can learn and do anything, if only we had sufficient information.

Despite our love affair with data and facts, our respect and esteem for in-depth study and expertise of a topic seems to have diminished greatly. This is a paradox that I find quite bizarre. That knowledge and information is our ultimate goal, but that experts are often viewed with distrust and skepticism.

As an example, let’s look at a type of individual whom I like to call “Dr. Cyberspace”. This is the fellow who net researches various health topics online, and then feels empowered to “teach” his/her physician about their “illness” and about what medications might be appropriate for him/her.

Now, perhaps I sound like a fuddy-duddy conservative patriarchal physician. Let me explain myself before I get barrages of hate-mail about this: I do believe that knowledge and empowerment of all people in all walks of life is important, and in particular I think it is important for people to be informed about choices in their healthcare. However, I do not think that we all have the necessary tools to turn all types of information into knowledge. And I make this distinction between information and knowledge, because information is a collection of facts, whereas knowledge requires the integration of valid information, critical appraisal of that information, an appreciation of the contextual nature of the facts, and a deeper understanding on how these facts fit within broader systems.

I think that most people reading this would agree that I cannot read a book (or worse yet, a web posting) about the components of effective transportation systems, and then seek to be a consultant or an advisor to the TTC. Nor could I read a book about auto-mechanics, and then proceed to advise on the design of an electric vehicle.

So why then do people feel that they can read a book on herbal medicine and start to treat themselves (rather than seeking the advice of a trained Naturopath), or that they can read a website on neurotransmitters, and proceed to tell their physician which anti-depressant they would like to be on? What is it about this that makes people feel that their hour of online “research” on questionable websites somehow trumps years of post-secondary education?

Is there something inherent in the historical hegemony of the medical system that breeds particular distrust? Is there something about large legitimized institutions that makes people feel as though they have limited agency, and therefore causes them to choose a path where they have full agency (despite the sometimes ridiculous and harmful nature of their chosen path)?

If this is the cause, then why is this same distrust not extended by the mainstream population towards other large institutions - such as large mega-corporations? Why does no-one feel a lack of agency when they shop at Wal-Mart? Why is a corporate message that promises “holistic health if you take our nutritional supplements” viewed with more legitimacy than a similar message from the scientific community?

Corporate messaging is clear – it is black and white, and simple to decipher (not to mention branded and developed after years of market research!). Scientific messaging on the other hand, takes a bit more effort to understand – it is couched in uncertainties and probabilities, which often leave one’s mind spinning and feeling overwhelmed. Surely the simplicity of corporate messaging is one major key to its ability to seduce people to its message, often without any deeper reflection or critical appraisal.

Perhaps it is because we live in a culture where we are able to open a few cans and proclaim that we “cooked” a delicious meal. Where results come easily without much effort, and where our every need can easily be met through modern conveniences. Perhaps we see wisdom and knowledge too, as something which ought not to take pains and struggle to develop, but rather to be yet another commodity that we can procure through accessible means.

Or perhaps it is our emphasis on the equality of all individuals that makes us think that we would all be equally competent in any field if only we had the information. Is it possible that it is no longer politically correct to state that we all have different talents, different strengths, and different weaknesses? Would it be blasphemous to state that all minds do not work equally, and that a mind that has not be trained in critical appraisal might have less of an ability to comprehend complex concepts than another?

As we enter this new era of information saturation, as we move through our public space which has been taken over by corporate messaging, and as we struggle to make sense of the mass of political and private propaganda that surrounds us daily, perhaps we should find some means to equip ourselves with the necessary tools of critical analysis before trying to absorb all of this information. Perhaps its time we redefined the “three R’s” as: Reasoning, Reflecting, and Really thinking critically about things.