WEBVTT 00:00:09.073 --> 00:00:11.160 Today, in the palm of your hand, 00:00:11.356 --> 00:00:14.226 you have access to a world of information. 00:00:15.055 --> 00:00:17.802 You can reach a multitude of new sources 00:00:18.318 --> 00:00:20.950 and exchange your views with a wide range of people 00:00:20.950 --> 00:00:22.186 all over the world. 00:00:23.146 --> 00:00:27.056 This new reality should allow us to share a wisdom, 00:00:27.401 --> 00:00:30.216 to communicate, to understand each other 00:00:30.593 --> 00:00:34.044 and to become more understanding of our differences, 00:00:34.051 --> 00:00:35.751 more tolerant of our differences. 00:00:36.582 --> 00:00:41.073 But 2016 seems to have replaced the information age 00:00:41.073 --> 00:00:43.204 with the post-truth era. 00:00:44.013 --> 00:00:46.494 With Brexit and the Trump election, 00:00:46.494 --> 00:00:48.458 we have found, we have discovered, 00:00:48.458 --> 00:00:52.315 that more communication doesn't mean more information. 00:00:54.262 --> 00:00:56.322 Let me show you what I mean. 00:00:58.937 --> 00:01:03.762 Here is a picture of the Trump inauguration ceremony in 2017, 00:01:04.338 --> 00:01:08.499 and the same picture of the Obama inauguration ceremony in 2009. 00:01:09.174 --> 00:01:11.751 The White House declared that the Trump ceremony 00:01:11.751 --> 00:01:13.911 had been the largest in history. 00:01:17.259 --> 00:01:18.851 Did you know 00:01:19.273 --> 00:01:22.295 that 28% of Trump supporters 00:01:22.295 --> 00:01:25.876 said they believed there were as many people, if not more, 00:01:25.892 --> 00:01:27.502 at the Trump ceremony. 00:01:27.882 --> 00:01:30.479 30% said they didn't know. They were not sure. 00:01:30.891 --> 00:01:33.961 And 41%, that is less than half, 00:01:34.467 --> 00:01:37.555 said that they disagreed with the White House statement. 00:01:38.636 --> 00:01:43.128 When you see these pictures, these views may seem crazy. 00:01:44.101 --> 00:01:47.496 So how is it that people can believe something so clearly untrue? 00:01:48.441 --> 00:01:49.471 But wait a minute, 00:01:49.471 --> 00:01:53.097 Are you sure that you would never believe something so clearly untrue? 00:01:54.143 --> 00:01:55.366 Think about it. 00:01:55.475 --> 00:01:57.974 These pictures are not proof. 00:01:58.274 --> 00:01:59.968 They could have been photoshopped. 00:02:00.421 --> 00:02:01.988 They could have been swapped. 00:02:02.721 --> 00:02:05.106 So when somebody raises these doubts to you, 00:02:05.315 --> 00:02:07.625 you will have to use your own judgment 00:02:07.625 --> 00:02:10.232 to weigh the evidence and make up your mind. 00:02:11.120 --> 00:02:13.776 So now suppose that you were a Trump supporter. 00:02:14.300 --> 00:02:15.745 Are you sure 00:02:15.745 --> 00:02:17.660 that you would not give any credence 00:02:17.660 --> 00:02:19.343 to somebody raising these doubts? 00:02:20.129 --> 00:02:22.270 Are you sure that you would never entertain 00:02:22.270 --> 00:02:25.130 that perhaps there were more people at the Trump ceremony, 00:02:25.130 --> 00:02:27.137 and that these pictures are not proof? 00:02:28.112 --> 00:02:29.992 Today, I want to put to you 00:02:29.992 --> 00:02:33.802 that the cause of the fake news success lies primarily with us. 00:02:34.345 --> 00:02:35.693 Fake news works 00:02:35.693 --> 00:02:37.607 because we are willing to believe it. 00:02:38.103 --> 00:02:41.163 And because we are willing to believe it, we lie to ourselves. 00:02:42.725 --> 00:02:45.209 If we want a sound public debate, 00:02:45.209 --> 00:02:48.934 we need to stop lying to ourselves when we engage with the news. 00:02:50.733 --> 00:02:53.905 Let's consider an ideal public debate, 00:02:54.155 --> 00:02:56.694 and think about it as a battle of ideas. 00:02:57.575 --> 00:02:59.965 All ideas are voiced and debated. 00:03:00.965 --> 00:03:04.863 A good idea is convincing, and it wins over less convincing ideas. 00:03:06.005 --> 00:03:08.076 The philosopher Karl Popper 00:03:08.076 --> 00:03:11.087 said that this process should lead public debate 00:03:11.488 --> 00:03:13.466 to select the best ideas. 00:03:13.980 --> 00:03:18.292 Unconvincing ideas disappear, and only the good ones survive. 00:03:19.087 --> 00:03:22.505 And science seems like a perfect example 00:03:22.528 --> 00:03:25.917 where public debate leads to selection of the best ideas. 00:03:27.265 --> 00:03:28.823 With this view in mind, 00:03:28.823 --> 00:03:32.654 the Internet should have a positive effect on public debate. 00:03:33.342 --> 00:03:37.342 On the Internet, ideas are free to be voiced and criticized. 00:03:37.836 --> 00:03:42.136 Good ideas should be able to convince more people and spread around, 00:03:42.604 --> 00:03:44.434 and bad ideas are abandoned. 00:03:45.288 --> 00:03:46.698 But when you look, 00:03:46.698 --> 00:03:50.169 that's not necessarily what is happening on the Internet at the moment. 00:03:50.553 --> 00:03:51.810 So why is that? 00:03:52.430 --> 00:03:58.184 Well, perhaps, this view of the public debate is a bit unrealistic. 00:03:59.206 --> 00:04:03.986 In 1949, Max Planck famously joked about this vision from Popper. 00:04:04.444 --> 00:04:08.827 Max Planck was a theoretical physicist who eventually won a Nobel Prize. 00:04:09.755 --> 00:04:10.972 He said, 00:04:10.972 --> 00:04:15.625 "A new scientific truth doesn't triumph because it convinces its opponents; 00:04:16.500 --> 00:04:19.588 rather, these opponents get old, 00:04:19.870 --> 00:04:21.364 and eventually they die, 00:04:21.364 --> 00:04:24.211 and they are replaced by a new generation of scientists." 00:04:24.849 --> 00:04:28.066 And what Max Planck was alluding to with irony 00:04:28.470 --> 00:04:32.900 was to the reality of debates with humans, us. 00:04:33.502 --> 00:04:37.522 Us humans, we are not designed as perfect rational thinkers 00:04:37.522 --> 00:04:39.746 only looking for the truth. 00:04:39.962 --> 00:04:44.063 The fact is that often, we are attached to our ideas. 00:04:45.470 --> 00:04:47.161 We can be attached to ideas 00:04:47.161 --> 00:04:49.599 because some ideas may be convenient for us - 00:04:49.858 --> 00:04:51.037 for interest. 00:04:51.949 --> 00:04:55.573 So going to the example of the scientists of Max Planck, 00:04:55.573 --> 00:04:57.513 these scientists may have become famous 00:04:57.513 --> 00:05:00.832 because of the ideas that they proposed in the past, 00:05:00.832 --> 00:05:02.514 and which are now old ideas. 00:05:03.094 --> 00:05:06.914 Abandoning these ideas would be losing part of the credit they got 00:05:06.914 --> 00:05:09.716 for proposing these ideas in the first place. 00:05:10.748 --> 00:05:12.315 But it's not just in science. 00:05:12.315 --> 00:05:13.680 If you think of politics, 00:05:13.680 --> 00:05:16.925 if a government proposes to extend social welfare, 00:05:17.853 --> 00:05:19.793 those who would receive social welfare 00:05:19.793 --> 00:05:22.499 have an interest to believe it's good for the country. 00:05:23.302 --> 00:05:25.907 And those who would have to pay for the social welfare 00:05:25.907 --> 00:05:28.574 have an interest to think it's bad for the country, 00:05:28.574 --> 00:05:30.515 it's a bad policy for the country. 00:05:31.739 --> 00:05:34.991 But we are not just attached to ideas for material interests; 00:05:34.991 --> 00:05:36.320 it's much more complex. 00:05:36.320 --> 00:05:39.196 Often, we can be emotionally attached to our ideas. 00:05:39.719 --> 00:05:41.951 They may be part of our identity. 00:05:42.375 --> 00:05:45.965 So if I'm a Christian conservative or a left-wing liberal, 00:05:46.585 --> 00:05:49.158 these ideas may be part of who I am. 00:05:49.812 --> 00:05:54.319 Abandoning these ideas could be losing part of my identity. 00:05:55.517 --> 00:05:59.001 As a consequence, we are attached to our ideas. 00:05:59.492 --> 00:06:02.413 So we're not neutral judges 00:06:02.660 --> 00:06:05.410 when we're considering the evidence for or against them. 00:06:06.306 --> 00:06:10.771 On the contrary, science and behavior 00:06:10.771 --> 00:06:14.148 show that we typically engage in self-deception, 00:06:14.420 --> 00:06:18.090 which means that we are building beliefs which are compatible 00:06:18.553 --> 00:06:21.397 with our interests and with our other beliefs. 00:06:22.110 --> 00:06:24.976 Self-deception is subtle, 00:06:24.976 --> 00:06:27.843 it takes place all the time in your everyday life. 00:06:27.843 --> 00:06:29.655 So I'm going to give you two ways 00:06:29.655 --> 00:06:32.215 in which self-deception can change what we believe in 00:06:32.215 --> 00:06:34.372 and produce convenient views for ourselves. 00:06:35.277 --> 00:06:37.212 First, when you receive some news, 00:06:37.999 --> 00:06:41.313 you have some flexibility in how you consider it. 00:06:41.996 --> 00:06:46.148 If it's positive news which is compatible with your beliefs, 00:06:46.148 --> 00:06:49.040 you can accept it as positive evidence. 00:06:49.804 --> 00:06:51.061 And if it's negative news, 00:06:51.061 --> 00:06:53.443 you can to the contrary choose to discount it 00:06:53.443 --> 00:06:55.740 and not choose to consider it. 00:06:55.798 --> 00:06:57.607 Let me tell you about a study. 00:06:58.336 --> 00:07:01.312 A group of people were asked about beliefs, 00:07:01.312 --> 00:07:04.024 political beliefs and non-political beliefs. 00:07:04.560 --> 00:07:06.612 For their political beliefs, they had to say 00:07:06.612 --> 00:07:10.684 whether they believed in statements such as "Abortion should be legal" - 00:07:10.684 --> 00:07:14.300 very loaded statements, typical of political statements. 00:07:14.584 --> 00:07:18.785 And non-political beliefs were statements such as 00:07:18.883 --> 00:07:22.173 "Second-hand smoking is dangerous to your health." 00:07:23.787 --> 00:07:25.282 So what happened is 00:07:25.282 --> 00:07:28.651 that these people were confronted with contradictions to these beliefs. 00:07:28.651 --> 00:07:31.054 What do you think people did? 00:07:31.054 --> 00:07:34.554 How did they react when they were confronted with these contradictions? 00:07:35.326 --> 00:07:40.146 Well, here's how people reacted with their non-political beliefs. 00:07:40.704 --> 00:07:45.015 So you have the strength of their beliefs before the contradiction and after it. 00:07:45.630 --> 00:07:47.883 So when faced with a series of contradictions, 00:07:47.883 --> 00:07:49.670 they updated their beliefs 00:07:49.670 --> 00:07:53.502 and the strength of their beliefs was lower after facing contradictions. 00:07:54.205 --> 00:07:55.915 But now look at what happened 00:07:55.915 --> 00:07:59.210 when they were faced with contradictions to their political beliefs. 00:07:59.602 --> 00:08:03.702 Here you can see that people resisted the contradiction much more 00:08:03.702 --> 00:08:06.640 and held to their political beliefs. 00:08:07.725 --> 00:08:11.568 That's one way we selectively interpret the news. 00:08:11.865 --> 00:08:13.128 But there is another way. 00:08:13.128 --> 00:08:16.575 We're not just receiving the news; we're looking out for it. 00:08:16.690 --> 00:08:19.467 We are selecting where we want to look for information. 00:08:19.658 --> 00:08:22.095 And typically, we look for confirming information. 00:08:22.592 --> 00:08:23.939 If you are a conservative, 00:08:23.939 --> 00:08:26.522 you are more likely to read a conservative newspaper, 00:08:26.615 --> 00:08:28.732 to watch a conservative news channel, 00:08:28.780 --> 00:08:31.810 and perhaps even to turn off the TV or the radio 00:08:31.810 --> 00:08:34.193 when a left-wing politician is being interviewed. 00:08:35.318 --> 00:08:39.318 Let me show you a hypothetical scenario. 00:08:39.718 --> 00:08:43.315 Let's say that you wake up in the morning and you open your newspaper, 00:08:43.783 --> 00:08:45.261 and in one scenario, 00:08:45.261 --> 00:08:47.423 you've got some news which is not good - 00:08:47.423 --> 00:08:49.240 it's a contradiction to your beliefs. 00:08:49.721 --> 00:08:53.016 Let's say that this news suggests that your favorite politician 00:08:53.016 --> 00:08:54.907 is involved in a political scandal. 00:08:56.739 --> 00:08:59.794 And consider the other situation, where to the contrary, 00:09:00.390 --> 00:09:05.299 the news in the newspaper is positive - it goes with your usual beliefs. 00:09:05.927 --> 00:09:09.586 Perhaps it's another politician, a politician you do not like, 00:09:10.048 --> 00:09:12.138 who is involved in the political scandal. 00:09:13.246 --> 00:09:15.440 Do you think, do you feel, 00:09:15.737 --> 00:09:19.051 that you'd react in the same way to these two situations? 00:09:19.894 --> 00:09:21.805 Well, research shows that you would not. 00:09:21.805 --> 00:09:26.081 Most likely, what happens is that if you find a contradiction, 00:09:26.333 --> 00:09:28.718 you tend to look for all the news sources. 00:09:28.900 --> 00:09:30.949 You give yourself a chance to find something 00:09:30.949 --> 00:09:32.979 which will contradict this negative news. 00:09:33.813 --> 00:09:35.140 Perhaps another newspaper, 00:09:35.140 --> 00:09:37.636 perhaps you will read the fine print in the newspaper 00:09:37.636 --> 00:09:42.023 to make sure that the title was really reflecting the information. 00:09:42.460 --> 00:09:44.810 On the contrary, if you have the positive news, 00:09:44.810 --> 00:09:46.545 you're more likely to stop there, 00:09:46.972 --> 00:09:50.369 you're more likely to be happy to consider that this piece of evidence 00:09:50.369 --> 00:09:53.122 is enough for you to make up your mind on this issue. 00:09:54.554 --> 00:09:59.353 So as much as we would like to think of ourselves as rational thinkers, 00:10:00.043 --> 00:10:04.043 it is a fact that this tendency to look for confirming news 00:10:04.043 --> 00:10:07.900 and to reject negative information is ingrained in us. 00:10:09.563 --> 00:10:11.308 So now before you panic 00:10:11.308 --> 00:10:16.371 and you think that our irrationality is making public debate impossible, 00:10:17.019 --> 00:10:18.759 you can relax. 00:10:19.393 --> 00:10:23.671 These bars have existed forever, way before social media. 00:10:24.330 --> 00:10:26.700 So what's happening with social media 00:10:26.715 --> 00:10:30.130 is that they are exacerbating some of the effects of these bars. 00:10:30.946 --> 00:10:33.775 Let me give you two ways in which they are doing so. 00:10:34.314 --> 00:10:37.485 First, on the Internet you have much more freedom 00:10:37.485 --> 00:10:39.869 to look for the information which is convenient 00:10:39.869 --> 00:10:41.618 to whatever beliefs you have. 00:10:42.616 --> 00:10:44.943 The Internet is like a giant supermarket. 00:10:45.764 --> 00:10:46.984 For any kind of idea, 00:10:46.984 --> 00:10:50.449 you'll be able to find arguments for and supporting this idea. 00:10:51.344 --> 00:10:54.322 Let's consider a crazy idea as an example. 00:10:54.447 --> 00:10:57.912 Let's consider that you believe that the Earth is flat. 00:10:58.891 --> 00:11:01.542 Well, 30 years ago, you would have been a bit alone 00:11:01.542 --> 00:11:05.388 and maybe struggling to find people to give you evidence for this. 00:11:05.529 --> 00:11:07.799 Today, you can just connect to the Internet, 00:11:07.799 --> 00:11:09.850 contact the Flat Earth Society, 00:11:09.850 --> 00:11:13.580 and this society is going to provide you with elements of evidence, 00:11:13.645 --> 00:11:15.844 arguments in favor of your belief. 00:11:17.809 --> 00:11:19.122 That's another way 00:11:19.122 --> 00:11:22.015 in which the Internet helps you engage in self-deception, 00:11:22.015 --> 00:11:23.861 that you can do it collectively. 00:11:24.422 --> 00:11:27.232 You now have a multitude of communities on the Internet 00:11:27.232 --> 00:11:30.402 that have created informational bubbles on their own. 00:11:31.412 --> 00:11:34.254 In these bubbles, people select information, 00:11:34.498 --> 00:11:36.691 interpret information, and repackage it 00:11:36.691 --> 00:11:39.525 in a way that is compatible with the community's views. 00:11:40.159 --> 00:11:42.784 When a new fact is discussed in this community, 00:11:42.784 --> 00:11:46.755 the images which are positive for the community are reinforced, 00:11:46.815 --> 00:11:49.732 and those which are not are dropped, 00:11:49.792 --> 00:11:51.688 and the nuances are lost. 00:11:52.724 --> 00:11:55.859 These communities build simple views 00:11:55.859 --> 00:11:58.561 compatible with the beliefs of the community. 00:11:59.416 --> 00:12:03.136 So the social media have not created a unified public space 00:12:03.160 --> 00:12:04.979 where ideas are debated; 00:12:04.999 --> 00:12:10.862 instead, social media have increased our ability to connect specifically 00:12:10.862 --> 00:12:14.424 with the people whose views mostly match our own. 00:12:15.606 --> 00:12:17.132 And whatever your views, 00:12:17.132 --> 00:12:19.940 you can find a community of like-minded people 00:12:20.147 --> 00:12:24.667 with whom you can share arguments supporting your existing beliefs 00:12:24.667 --> 00:12:26.210 and not challenging them. 00:12:27.903 --> 00:12:29.466 But what do you want? 00:12:30.466 --> 00:12:35.896 Do you want a unified public space where ideas are debated, discussed, 00:12:35.896 --> 00:12:37.880 and where maybe the best ideas can win, 00:12:37.880 --> 00:12:39.928 or a compartmented public space 00:12:40.215 --> 00:12:44.235 where different visions of the world can coexist unchallenged? 00:12:44.996 --> 00:12:49.939 Well, if we want to defend and support 00:12:50.075 --> 00:12:52.336 the existence of an open public space, 00:12:52.336 --> 00:12:55.801 we need to realize that the problem starts with us, 00:12:56.567 --> 00:12:58.634 with how we form opinions 00:12:58.634 --> 00:13:00.862 and how we share them on the social media. 00:13:01.579 --> 00:13:06.379 So perhaps, in the post-truth era we need some guidelines 00:13:06.379 --> 00:13:08.962 about how to interact on the social media. 00:13:09.862 --> 00:13:11.471 Here are three steps. 00:13:12.277 --> 00:13:13.784 Step 1: 00:13:14.448 --> 00:13:18.749 Avoid the narrow selection of information which closely match your views. 00:13:19.912 --> 00:13:21.502 Make sure that in your timeline 00:13:21.502 --> 00:13:24.123 you've got some news sources which challenge your view. 00:13:25.339 --> 00:13:28.522 Try to find people with whom you disagree 00:13:28.703 --> 00:13:30.783 and exchange with them. 00:13:31.230 --> 00:13:33.205 Listen to what they have to say. 00:13:34.026 --> 00:13:36.544 Try to appreciate the points that they may have. 00:13:37.556 --> 00:13:39.726 Give them a chance to change your mind. 00:13:42.182 --> 00:13:43.409 Point 2: 00:13:44.044 --> 00:13:45.293 Question your views. 00:13:46.162 --> 00:13:48.673 The more you'd like an idea to be true, 00:13:48.874 --> 00:13:52.664 the more you need to distrust the way you made up your mind about it. 00:13:53.386 --> 00:13:55.796 Are you sure that you considered 00:13:55.796 --> 00:13:58.778 all the best counterarguments to the views you have? 00:13:58.978 --> 00:14:02.457 that you've considered the possibility of weak points in your reasoning? 00:14:02.468 --> 00:14:04.212 Try to find them. 00:14:04.986 --> 00:14:07.134 Whenever you really want an idea to be true, 00:14:07.134 --> 00:14:09.494 you may remember that at some point in your life, 00:14:09.494 --> 00:14:12.092 we all liked to believe in Santa. 00:14:14.169 --> 00:14:16.660 And even though we really wanted Santa to be true, 00:14:17.503 --> 00:14:19.839 it didn't make it more real in the end. 00:14:20.156 --> 00:14:22.380 So the more you'd like an idea to be true, 00:14:22.380 --> 00:14:26.199 you need to be wondering, Is it too good to be true? 00:14:26.324 --> 00:14:29.010 Do I believe this because I want to believe it 00:14:29.010 --> 00:14:30.954 or because of the evidence? 00:14:31.499 --> 00:14:33.305 Could it be another Santa for me? 00:14:34.632 --> 00:14:36.008 Step 3: 00:14:36.008 --> 00:14:38.512 Avoid contributing to the distortion of facts. 00:14:39.173 --> 00:14:41.793 When you want to forward information on social media, 00:14:42.046 --> 00:14:44.116 make sure you've read it, you understand it, 00:14:44.271 --> 00:14:46.186 and avoid simplifying it in a way 00:14:46.186 --> 00:14:49.237 which is going to conform with the views of the community. 00:14:49.237 --> 00:14:51.768 Try not to contribute to an echo chamber effect 00:14:51.768 --> 00:14:54.596 within the community of views you are participating in. 00:14:55.681 --> 00:15:00.181 If you follow these guidelines, you are going to do yourself a favor: 00:15:01.362 --> 00:15:04.949 you're going to stop building a convenient alternative reality; 00:15:05.365 --> 00:15:09.057 you're going to avoid spreading half truths and distorted facts; 00:15:09.516 --> 00:15:15.231 and you will limit the self-enforcing groups of confirming exchanges, 00:15:15.573 --> 00:15:19.136 which are pushing people in different informational bubbles. 00:15:19.794 --> 00:15:22.914 You will help ideas to be questioned and challenged, 00:15:22.914 --> 00:15:26.576 and you will contribute to making the public space an open space 00:15:26.576 --> 00:15:28.429 where the best ideas can win. 00:15:29.406 --> 00:15:32.434 Will you allow yourself to change your views 00:15:32.863 --> 00:15:34.647 and to abandon old ones? 00:15:35.892 --> 00:15:37.867 Smart people change their mind. 00:15:38.305 --> 00:15:39.594 Choose to be one. 00:15:40.885 --> 00:15:43.198 (Applause)