The Psychology of Fact Checking
The Scientific American just published an opinion piece claiming that "fact checkers aim to get closer to the truth, but their biases can shroud the very truth they seek." The article points out the main problem with the way fact checking is performed on social media platforms.
Laboratory studies reveal that, when shown a video of a group of protesters, people see either a peaceful protest or an unruly mob blocking pedestrian access, depending on their sociopolitical beliefs. The world outside the lab shows similar biased perception: For example, 68 percent of Republicans consider the videotaped demonstrations in Portland, Ore., Kenosha, Wisc., and New York City to be riots, versus only 30 percent of Democrats, according to a Fox News poll released in September. Journalists and fact-checkers are human beings subject to the same psychological biases as everyone else—and their analyses of what constitute “facts” is affected by their own political and ideological values, resulting in what psychologists term selective perception.
The authors go on to cite multiple examples where liberal and conservatives might come to completely different conclusions using the exact same data before offering a solution called “adversarial fact-checking.”
Research underscores that fact-checkers’ personal biases influence both their choice of which statements to analyze and their determination of accuracy. Let diverse fact-checkers work as members of an adversarial team, much like two sides in arbitration. Fact-checkers are human beings who live in the real world, rather than in a sociopolitical monastery. Let’s abandon the pretense of objectivity and design a system of adversarial fact-checking that places the evidence for competing claims front and center.It's a great read and their solution is very interesting, certainly worth checking out.
