Election & Information
Introduction
During the speaker session on Sep.27, COVID-19 and the Election, Prof. Wilson from the Institute of Government & Public Affairs introduced how this pandemic can impact the 2020 election. First, he pointed out several concerns over mail voting: 1) the heavy reliance on USPS, the idea that it has been operating on loss due to competition and may not have enough capacity in handling the increased demand; 2) unfamiliarity with the process, the idea that people may make errors (missing signatures, missing deadlines, etc.), which may compromise the number of actual votes; 3) administrative errors, the idea that there are inconsistencies existed in different jurisdictions and people are also dealing with new sets of rules, both of which may create problems on how the votes are counted; 4) Fraud, this point is less concerning compared with the first three (as there is unlikely a massive one), but remote voting will make it easier for more fraud to happen. The second influence that the pandemic has over the election is on the current incumbent. While the Trump administration initially would have placed the emphasis on the economy, it now needs to shift gears to other perspectives as well——the pandemic had created a downturn in the overall economy, and that the disease still indicates great uncertainties in the future. It is also pointed out, however, that it is still unclear at this time how people would hold the Trump administration accountable for these points. The third point discussed in the lecture is the concern over information reliability in a politicalized country. While we cannot avoid the misused social media, Prof. Wilson had expressed a rather optimistic view. On one hand people are starting to become more skeptical in examining information, and on the other hand the boost in social media had made it easier to get information——that it is easier for people to find verification or counter-evidence of the given information.
Turning into the other sources, the followings are brief summaries of each reading. 1) Where the Pandemic Is Only Getting Worse calls attention to the worsened situation in low-to-medium income countries, detailing their difficulties in controlling the pandemic (specifically regarding the lack of trying and inefficiency in lockdowns, the population density, and lack of public health resources). 2) The Pandemic, Southern Urbanisms and Collective Life makes an argument that “collective life [can be] an analytic that keeps the focus on the ways in which the urban majority is trying to survive and cope within structures of inequality that now bear both the new imprint of COVID-19 while equally holding the continuities of older forms of distancing and exclusion.” 3) Bolsonaro’s politics of death, Covid-19 and racial inequality in Brazil points to the negative consequences of the government’s effort in downplaying the virus. 4) Covid-19: the rise of a global collective intelligence? indicates that the pandemic had pushed for an interdisciplinary examination of the virus in searching for solutions. This, in turn, boosted the utilization of collective intelligence (group performance on collective tasks) and the trend for spontaneous resource exchanges. 5) The Pandemic is a Portal offers that the pandemic provides a chance for people to rethink about “normality” and consequently creates a portal through which humans “break with the past”.
Reflection
To me, the one thing that seems to have been mentioned in all these discussions is the emphasis on information——the potential problems caused by lack of information (think about the concerns over mail voting), the risk of misinformation, and as well as the need for collective information, etc.
As I mentioned elsewhere, in dealing with the pandemic, various institutions will have responsibilities to make their messages both understandable and accessible to the public. To start with, I have a personal experience with the understandability of information. Before our spring break last semester, I was on CDC’s and FDA’s websites, trying to read their household cleaning guidelines. One particular question I tried to look up is “should I get ordinary soap or antibacterial soap.” I spent almost five minutes on this single question trying to detangle their research results and jargon. Yes they are keeping their writings as accurate as possible, but at the same time it may have also caused difficulties for laypeople like me to understand their message (btw, ordinary soap is good enough as long as you follow the correct hand-washing method). So making information clear to the general public is definitely one of the obligations of institutions. Another critical responsibility of the institutions during this time is to make their information accessible to the public. The groups that are most vulnerable to the virus——namely the elder and younger generations, as well as those who have financial difficulties——are also the ones that have the least resources or channels to get the information needed. Despite the advancements in technologies, there is still the need for institutions and organizations to expand their communication channels so that their message can be properly delivered to the public.
On the other hand, aside from institutional responsibilities, it is also essential for us, the recipients, to have a logical interpretation of the given information. I have discussed in my last open-ed about the idea of chimerical beliefs. In short, it is basically the idea that a false impression can be formed when there is a contradiction between a person’s projection and the reality and this contradiction cannot be explained by this person’s own knowledge. Antisemitism can be a historical example, and the belief that the pandemic is a conspiracy and that the pandemic is used by some individuals to control the world can be examples of chimerical beliefs at this time. I also mentioned that especially during this pandemic, where the society as a whole is collectively facing a sense of unstableness, individuals might feel the impulse to unintentionally form chimerical beliefs. As such, the aforementioned points regarding institutional responsibility, by combating potential misinformation, may play an important role in helping people to avoid false or chimerical beliefs. Additionally, given that we cannot eliminate misinformation, it is important to note that we also have individual responsibilities in forming a logical analysis of the given information. As mentioned in my summary, Prof. Wilson kindly pointed out in his lecture that gaining more information can assist people to form an unbiased judgement. I fully agree with this point——that we should not turn a blind eye toward new information, and getting both sides of the story can certainly help reduce potential bias.
All in all, the emphasis of information, especially that of public health during this time, should be two-folded: institutions and organizations have the responsibility to make their messages understandable and accessible for the public, and the general public has the obligations to accept new information continually and use their logic (and not intuition) to form a rational judgement.
Comments & Responses
Comment #1
By Roman Friedman
Hello Doris,
I really like how you draw the theme of "information" from these various sources. This seems in direct continuity with the conversation of your previous op-ed, which is great. So, from last week you once again single out the importance of "clarity" and "accessibility" on the part of the information-provider (e.g. CDC). On the part of the receiver, you single out the importance of "logical interpretation" and once again connect it to the chimerical beliefs of your last post. And this is where I think you have an interesting connection to your first paragraph here. What happens if people no longer believe in the neutrality of information? Or they no longer follow the same rigor of logical analysis as others in their community? That is, if one group thinks that they are being "logical" but another group disagrees? How might you go about presenting your message to them?
I think this question might be particularly interesting given what Dr. Wilson cited above and what you have quoted. He stated with some optimism that people are becoming increasingly skeptical. On the one hand, this can be a good thing, since it means that people are less prone to misinformation of the sort that was prominent in the last election. On the other hand, can this also be a negative? That people have become so skeptical that they refuse to believe all information, including good information? Or worse, that they become skeptical of certain institutional sources of information, such as the CDC, entirely? I think these questions tie in with your discussion of chimerical beliefs previously, in particular of my last post in that op-ed. But it strikes me that given everything you have said, "clarity," "logic," and "accessibility," has to also navigate through a very variegated human psychology? What are your thoughts? How might you communicate your message given all of that? Does that mean you have to communicate to a very narrow group of people? Or is accessibly mass-messaging still possible?
-Roman
Response #1
Hello—
Thank you for the reply, it is very inspiring!
First I want to clarify that a chimerical belief does not interfere with one’s logic, or sanity. The emphasis might reside on if the logic follows a pattern representing the natural course (that if it is right or wrong), but not the existence of logic. My good old example of antisemitism can be an example here. Yes the beliefs that “Jews are devils” and that “Jews performed ritual murders” are chimerical beliefs. But I think no one will say that those who hold these beliefs (basically the entire Christian community in the middle age) are all illogical or insane. The very existence of their logic had lead to the chimerical. It was complicated, but there had been a fully established chain of logic on why Jews are connected specifically to devils, and why other non-Christian communities (e.g. Muslims) are not in need of ritual murders. Take another example mentioned in my last op-ed, that I’m a good person but I got fired so I start to think that my boss hates me: all other things aside, this chain of thinking by itself is logical.
So I don’t think one can ever disagree with another person for being “logical”, they can only disagree with the correctness of the logic. Chimerical beliefs are not the result of lack of logic——in contrast it can only be formed with the assistance of logic (but bad ones). With that being said, instead of cultivating a logic, one can only shape the course of the logic. How to shape the course of logic, then, would involve the communication of information. I just posted another response to the last open-ed on this idea, hopefully it can make things clearer. But my basic point is that to eliminate a chimerical belief, the best way to provide the fundamental cause (i.e. the correct information). And the cause by its very nature is factual and is a preexisting condition.
I can use an example to illustrate this point. Here is a real-life logic chain someone proposed about the pandemic: News tells me that there is Covid but I don’t see anyone dead—> 1) Covid is a flu—>we have more car accident deaths every year (this interview happened earlier in the year when this number was true) and why didn't they got attention—> 2) someone is trying to exaggerate the “flu”—> who has the motivation and ability to impose the exaggeration—> 3) the government and the rich people. Here are three chimerical beliefs built on top of each other, but they all fall under a specific chain logic. To disprove them, the information that can be provided can be: a) the operation of probability (1/41 of the population is positive), and it is not abnormal to not see anyone dead; b) car accidents are not contagious but Covid is; and c) exaggerating Covid is of no benefit to any entity.
With all the points above, I don't think population size of the recipient is the primary concern of the delivery of information. The emphasis should be placed on how information can be probably provided to each element of the logic chain. I think the “human psychology” part you mentioned echos mainly on the notion of logic, but information does not “navigate through” the logic, it shapes the logic. The very existence of logical thinking can preclude people from intentionally distort information provided; and at the same time a clear and accessible piece of information can help to ensure the correctness of the logic.
Thanks!
Doris
Comment #2
By Zackary Landers
Hello Doris,
I enjoyed reading your thoughts in this week's op-ed. What's more, I think we have the same community partner for our final project, so feel free to message me on here if you want to bounce ideas around on that.
I think that it is really interesting that you highlighted the idea of chimerical beliefs. How people perceive the world around them is really critical to the way that events that impact the global population unfold. If for whatever reason (historical, cultural, political, etc.) some members of society are creating false realities around the pandemic and the public health guidelines in place, I am deeply interested in learning about the root causes of these chimerical beliefs. Hopefully, I can touch on this in my project!
I can totally relate to what you are saying about feeling a bit lost in the messaging of the pandemic, even if the bodies putting the information out have the best of intentions. Since the pandemic began, it has sort of felt like drinking from a firehose sometimes. Do you think that better engagement and concise, digestible information, at the local level would make this less of a problem? I do, but the issue with COVID-19 is that we learn so much each day, that one day's best practices are in the dustbin the next.
Response #2
Hi Zackary,
Thanks for your response! I like your analogy of “drinking from a firehose”, I guess that really spells out what most of us feels at this time. And I just wrote down a more detailed response to Roman’s post regarding the same question you proposed here. If you are not in the mood of reading it through, I basically said that information is used to shape the course of one’s logic, and would help to prevent chimerical beliefs from the very beginning.
Also, I’m glad that you are interested in my mentioning of chimerical beliefs and how it can relate to the delivery of information. I’d say that we can probably include this as part of our project with CUPHD, just to see how they have responded during this pandemic. Hope to talk to you soon :)