Misinformation Report - The Challenge of Encouraging Disengagement

Misinformation might be viewed as a rewriting of history. As the famous saying goes “history is written by the victors”, this is not always the case. History is, however, commonly written from a biased perspective. At times that biased perspective is not an accidental result of the flaws of humanity, but rather designed to misinform in order to align with a particular agenda. 

Throughout the 20th century, in tandem with the evolution of news-media, the practice of misinformation by design has become more  common, in authoritarian regimes and liberal democracies alike. In authoritarian regimes, departments of professional propagandists were established to promote a centralized political agenda. In liberal democracies on the other hand professional political operatives, communications departments, lobbyists and professional spin-doctors have had a similar role, albeit with a diversified and less centralized agenda. 

It is the lack of a centralized agenda, rather than the creation of narratives itself that distinguish liberal democracies from authoritarian regimes in this regard. The plurality of agendas offered in liberal democracies is designed to ensure that individual citizens themselves can make up their own minds about political agendas and historic events on the basis of evidence presented and the strength of arguments, rather than on the basis of a uniform and enforced narrative. 

The ability of the population in liberal democracies to discern truth from fiction, or information from misinformation depends both on access, and on the capacity of the individual to discern between the two. It is thus our view that liberal democracies also have a responsibility to educate the population, and in particular to teach critical thinking and the historical context of misinformation and propaganda. 

In our analysis of the state of misinformation as of January 14th 2021, the pitfalls of a plurality of narratives in combination with a population without the ability to discern information from misinformation becomes apparent. 

Part of the issue we see today is the reaction to information calling off far-right protests and advising against the participation in protests at state Capitols and at the US Capitol Building in DC in relation to the inauguration. We referenced this in our previous analysis.

After years of intentional misinformation spread by individuals perceived to be authority figures, and designed to appeal to specific demographics already entrenched in movements prone to conspiratorial thinking, these posters and narratives unfortunately become triggers for certain communities. 

Some of the posters and narratives may be voicing genuine concerns. Some may be designed and disseminated as what could be described as “counter narratives” in attempts to limit the turnout at planned far-right rallies. The origins of these posters, and the intent behind them is at this point unknown to us. The response to these do however vary. Some read the posters and narrative, including statements from the President calling for peace and non-violence as an underhand encouragement. Other reactions range from suspicion to outrage, which may further fuel the fire of right wing extremists and further radicalize terrorists.

At this point counter narrative efforts or efforts to through the dissemination of certain narratives may prevent radicalization or harmful action may seem futile. In line with our pre-existing work in counter-narratives within the field of countering and preventing radicalization into violent extremism, we do however commonly advise thoughtful, strategic responses to extremist narratives.

The cognitive sciences teaches us that the human brain reacts to a direct verbal attack on a belief or worldview, even if factual and well reasoned, in a similar manner to how it would react if we were to come into physical danger. 

In studies on the cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals in the US, it was found that the limbic system associated with functions for self preservation and preservation of the species is larger in physical size, and more prominent in conservatives. This has potentially had an impact on how the far right have reacted to narratives, such as narratives that are experienced as direct attacks and thus trigger self preservation mechanisms. 

The trick with counter-narratives and efforts to counter misinformation is thus not to attack it head on, but rather to create comfort with alternative narratives. The best strategy for doing this is by doing what we call planting seeds of doubts. By socratic inquiry and strategic exposure to ideas and experiences that are contrary to deeply held worldviews and beliefs, steps can be made on the trajectory of leaving extremist beliefs and mindsets to the point of rehabilitation into mainstream society.

This process is however a slow and tedious one. To do this at scale requires immense strategic efforts in line with our six recommendations for a peaceful future for america. At a moment where more troops are deployed to DC than for any inauguration in history, in the immediate aftermath of the violent attack on the US Capitol and with the imminent threat of violent protests around the country, slow and tedious processes do however understandably fall short of providing a satisfying and timely result. At this moment we are sympathetic to the message these posters and narratives seek to convey to those who violently seek to seize power from the democratically and lawfully elected President Elect Joe Biden: stand down, do not attend, do not go to the rallies or participate in future demonstrations.