Getting verification is a good way of determining whether the information you receive is of quality or not.

By going through a process of verification and progressively getting closer to the information’s ultimate point, we can verify what we believe to be true or not to a point of self-satisfaction.

“I think all good reporting is the same thing - the best attainable version of the truth[1].”

- Carl Bernstein

To get the best attainable version of truth as an individual can be an enormous undertaking.

Especially if the topic we are researching is complex, deep, or broad, it can exponentially increase the difficulty of attaining any level of understanding- let alone “the best attainable version of the truth” (Even if the topic that we are learning about has just one of those three elements.).

That’s where heuristics come in handy- to take the load off of us so that we can be as effective as possible when researching information given the constraints of time, effort, and common resources.

 

So what is a heuristic?

In a nutshell, a heuristic method[2] is a method that can provide a relatively efficient way to find a solution to a difficult problem.

These methods are ones that have not been optimized or scientifically proven as the most effective way to achieve results, but are like shortcuts to the end results we are looking to achieve.

Heuristics are often applied when there are no clear best techniques available given the time available to get the job at hand done.

Heuristic methods help “ease the cognitive load of making a decision”.  And that’s exactly what we are bringing to you guys today in this post. We will show you Storm’s specific theories of finding ‘Verification’ as a foundational tool in our search arsenals to ‘triangulate truth’.

At Stormthread, we want to help people resolve their complex searches faster and more satisfyingly, all while sidestepping the pitfalls of information overload and misinformation.

                                                                                                                                                           

A high-level overview of Stormthread’s information gathering approach

When waking up in the morning one of the first things we typically do (along with putting on the absolutely necessary morning pot of coffee) is to take a quick look through the news.

Problem: it can be unwise to take that information as fact or the full truth, even if news sources are generally to be trusted.

To get a picture that is more reliable and accurate, one should ideally do some further digging to at least confirm some of the basic:

-          Evidence

-          Facts [from the evidence]

-          Logical Premises

-          And Arguments [That are built from the Logical Premises]

Acronym: EFLA

One has to seek Verification on these components to confirm the veracity of the information one is receiving.

 

Do we have to keep verifying information from sources we typically trust?

Trusted sources of information are sources where we have been consistently able to positively verify their work in the past.

Over time as trust is built, one doesn’t have to keep intensively verifying their work in detail.

But, that also doesn’t mean that we can relax in confirming evidence, facts, the logic presented and arguments (EFLA) about information we care about.

(Ideally one’s radar for these topics is always on and functioning at some level in the background as we are absorbing information we receive. For trusted sources, we don’t always need to have full BS radar[3] mode on).

If the stakes are high (meaning the information we are absorbing or looking for is covering a very impactful topic to us or our communities) then we should go and check on the evidence being presented.

Having a switched on ‘BS’ radar also requires doing the following tasks when critically analyzing the information we are absorbing:

        I.            Monitoring and checking on inconsistencies found between trusted sources on any topic.

      II.            Monitoring differences in reporting details from information sources that are not known to be as reliable as one’s own valued and vetted sources of information.

Why should we do this?

This can be a time-consuming and seemingly counter-intuitive approach doesn’t it? Why should I waste my precious time on verifying trusted sources of information any how? Shouldn’t I be checking on sources of information that I don’t trust so I am more able to spot bad information?

- All valid and good questions. And to some extent checking in on unreliable sources frequently can be helpful.

But checking in on our trusted sources frequently is of absolute importance. This is because this is where most of the information we rely on to assess our world and make decisions comes from.

Furthermore, by checking in on our most used sources of data and critiquing the information that is being to delivered to us from our trusted sources is an excellent way to help offset the echo-chamber effects[4] and institutional biases and agendas[5]that are common in today’s information ecosystems.

This is to help give us the opportunity (if it exists) to determine if we are potentially in an information echo-chamber or if we are being exposed to biased points of view, which can only be determined after inspecting other perspectives. Looking into these opposing views, evidences, facts, premises, and arguments can then help us independently make our assessments with greater confidence.

We’ll call this concept wide-band information stream monitoring.

Wide-band information stream monitoring

Just because one source is less trust worthy than another (or your trusted sources) doesn’t necessarily mean that they always report in-correct, or un-trust worthy information. It is good to vet and critically analyze their work in more consistent ways, as mentioned previously above.

I know this is a controversial point. And therefore let me explain my logic upfront so that you see the intent of my point. Firstly, we all have to use our independent judgement when critically inspecting information. If you’re uncomfortable or informed by the provider that their information is no good; don’t waste your time if you can be sure about their lack of trust worthy information.

But - if a source of information has a patchy record, yet some information is good, in your view, then these are the kind of data sources where I would apply the expanded search concepts of Wide-band monitoring too. Use your discretion. Try to break out of specific bubbles periodically to assess reasonable or even sporadically trust worthy news sources that could provide new information and arguments that could provide value.

Secondly, we can monitor the wider band of all information traffic and the inconsistencies between evidence and fact provision that each news source is providing.

 This doesn’t mean you reading everything, but checking in on specific topics that you think are of enough importance to spend your limited time verifying.

This is important because casting a wide-net for critical topics can show us unique data that might not get through our normal sources of information.

By expanding our search we diversify risk of potentially not getting information that gives us enough context or even accurate evidence, facts, or arguments (not getting this can be totally unintentional on our news sources part. [Sometimes though this can be intentional], and it’s why getting verification is critical to seeing your world as clearly as possible.).

By keeping an eye out for these inconsistencies between the different source of information we can reduce the risk might of getting partial context or inaccurate information when we are learning about the wider world around us.  

 

Asking the right questions

That is where monitoring the sourcing of evidence is critical, where did these sources come from? How were these facts gathered? Can we see the raw evidence? What premise is being put forth to make this or that claim?

These are some of the main questions we should be looking to answer as we conduct our verification efforts.

Getting verification by asking these questions and following the thread of information closer and closer to their origination points are Stormthread’s basis for developing a cleaner and more accurate information diet.

Our goal as individuals and as a community is to ensure that we are absorbing information of quality when doing any searching or researching.

What is quality information? - What is truth?  

To absorb and internalize ‘quality information’, we need to first find it. To find quality information, we need to define what we mean by ‘quality information’ at Stormthread.

Quality information is exemplified by the following characteristics:

-          It Is Accurate

-          It Is Timely

-          It Is valuable[6]

-          It Is appropriately Contextualized

-          It Is Compressed[7]

 

High Quality information

Furthermore, high quality information also has these additional components:

-          Matches the approximate literacy of the intended audience while sacrificing as little descriptive value as possible[8].

-          Brings together significant quantities of source material that would have taken the reader(s)/consumers more time to gather and read than it takes to absorb the information itself.

-          Educational – The information is presented in a way that people can get insight into complex and deep topics.[9]

-          Interesting – topics of importance can be boring or dull: think of tax policy for instance- key to the workings of our governments and helps shape the fairness or unfairness of a lot of the economic components of our lives. However when was the last time any of us read up on our government’s tax policy? Therefore making these topics more interesting is critical to informing and educating all people[10]. (Especially given how low our collective attention spans are and how over-entertained & distracted we are in our modern, digital society.)

-          Highlights and explains raw / foundational evidence correctly.

-          Reflects what is actually going on as closely as possible.

-          Honest about what can and cannot be known about the situation given the information available.

(Imagine a world in which the majority of the information we are absorbing falls into the quality and high quality categories.  That’s our dream at Stormthread[11].)

 

What exactly is truth?

How can we determine what is honest or truthful given the information we are absorbing?

To first find out what is truthful, we need to find out what exactly is truth.

Is truth subjective or is it possible to get to a place where there is objective truth?

 

The deep and complex questions that we ask about the nature of truth is an all-time conundrum, which requires a mind equal to the intellectual challenges that defining truth can bring.

For this task Stormthread will call upon the wisdom and works of William James to address this topic further.

 

Who is William James?

Wikipedia has the following blurb on William James:

“Philosopher and psychologist William James was the best known and most influential American thinker of his time.”[12]

(“Most influential American thinker of his time” - That’s a good start)

When explaining James’s work, the Library of America says, “His writing is clear, energetic, and unpretentious, and is marked by the devotion to literary excellence he shared with his brother, Henry James. In these works William James champions the value of individual experience with an eloquence and enthusiasm…[13]

(“clear, energetic, and unpretentious” – Truth can be a confusing topic, so clarity and non-pretention is also good.) 

William James is a fascinating and deeply insightful thinker[14]. He wrote extensively on the topic of truth, and so it is only natural, for us to dig into James’s Book: ‘The Meaning of Truth’.

 

 The Meaning of Truth

The library of America describes The Meaning of Truth (1909) as: “a polemical collection of essays asserting that ideas are made true not by inherent qualities but by events. James delights in intellectual combat, stating his positions with vigor while remaining open to opposing ideas.”[15]

The following quoted passages of text come from this book, where we have lifted the most relevant quotes for this post.

The quoted sections largely speak for themselves, so we have not edited their writing, spelling or capitalization. The only exceptions are where we added highlighting to emphasize certain ideas James presents that are particularly relevant to the ideas and discussions in this blog post.

 

 

“True ideas are those that we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify. False Ideas are those that we cannot”.[16]

“The truth of an idea is not a stagnant property inherent in it. Truth happens to an idea. It becomes true, is made true by its events. Its verity is in fact an event, a process, the process namely of verifying itself. Its veriFICATION. Its validity is the process of its validATION.”[17]

“To agree in the widest sense with a reality can only mean to be guided either straight up to it or into its surroundings, or to be put into such working touch with it as to handle either it or something connected with it better than if we disagreed.

Better either intellectually or practically… Any idea that helps us to deal, whether practically or intellectually, with either the reality or its belongings, that doesn’t entangle our progress in frustrations, that FITS, in fact, and adapts our life to the reality’s whole setting, will agree sufficiently to meet that requirement. It will be true of that reality.”

[- The Meaning of Truth by William James, Page 5, Preface]

“But ‘VERIFIABILITY,’ I add, ‘is as good as verification. For one truth-process completed, there are a million in our lives that function in [the] state of nascency. They lead us towards direct verification; lead us into the surroundings of the object they envisage; and then, if everything runs on harmoniously, we are so sure that verification is possible that we omit it, and are usually justified by all that happens.”

[- The Meaning of Truth by William James, Page 6, footnote 1]

 

What’s interesting about this explanation of truth is that we all experience this in our lives in practical ways. Where we have at any point of time, a “million [objects or ideas] in our lives that function in [the] state of nascency.” Or in other words there are a million things in our mind that are true but not actually fully verified.

How many ideas do we hold to be true, but only know indirectly to be true? It is likely the majority of the information we think that we ‘know’ to be ‘true’ exists in this state of trusting in something without ever having fully verified it for ourselves.

 Most of what we hold to be true are truths that have never been fully investigated.

 

How do you know that the tigers of India exist? (Follow the Thread…)

When James refers to tigers, he is using tigers as a metaphor for an object that he presumes most people have never seen personally. Because of this, it begs the natural question- how do you know that the tigers of India exist? –James then expertly uses this concept to explain his views on truth and how we determine truth.

 

James goes on to explain his conception of truth:

 “That in representative knowledge[18] there is no special inner mystery, but only an outer chain of physical or mental intermediaries connecting thought and thing.” TO KNOW AN OBJECT IS HERE TO LEAD TO IT THROUGH A CONTEXT WHICH THE WORLD SUPPLIES.”

[- The Meaning of Truth by William James, Page 28]

 

 

 “These is no ‘presence in absence’ here, and no ‘pointing’[19], but rather an allround embracing of the paper by the thought; and it is clear that the knowing cannot now be explained exactly as it was when the tigers were its object. Dotted all through our experience are states of immediate acquaintance just like this.

Somewhere our belief always rest on ultimate data like the whiteness, smoothness, or squareness of this paper.”

 [ - The Meaning of Truth by William, Page 28]

 

James in this quote discusses what happens when we find an object or idea of “immediate or intuitive acquaintance” (literally an object that we can confirm in our immediacy) James uses an example of the white text before our very eyes [the paper in his book]. We can expand James’s point to include raw evidence presented with enough transparency from trusted sources.

James says now that the “thought stuff” and the “thing-stuff” are indistinguishable, the object and the idea of the object being thought about are one in the same when inspected up close in our minds.

 

Wrapping a bow on how we apply James’s conceptualization of truth for this post on verification - we come to a central conclusion from these ideas.

In the end, after going through your own process of verification and validation, the ultimate decision of determining what is true and what isn’t is your personal decision.

Naturally we should try our best to shed whatever baggage or preconceived notions we have. This allows us to counter any cognitive biases that prevent us from even-handedly assessing the raw evidence once we are ‘brought up close’ to an object, either to its ‘pointers’ or ‘immediate vicinity’. The choice is yours to have an open mind[20] on topics and to balance the tension from maintaining critical situational awareness and ‘cunning’[21].

Conclusion

Coming together, after one of our longer posts, here are the key take-a-ways:

You don’t have to apply the critical online search and information gathering skills of verification and wide-band search to every topic.

Verification doesn’t have to be done for everything we are reading; only the most important topics that we deem need these additional wide-band searches. This is to conserve our precious time and effort.

But when you need to do more in-depth research, getting quality information efficiently is of critical importance. The trick to this is to avoid the pitfalls of wasting too much time and information overload when going about your own process of information gathering. We want increase your chances of getting satisfactory and quality (or ideally high quality) information.

Doing verification work is a good way of determining whether the information you receive is of quality or not.

Information is connected. Given these connections, we can dig deeper to an object’s/ information’s point of origination= getting verification.

By going through a process of verification and progressively getting closer to the information’s ultimate point, we can verify what we believe to be true or not to a point of self-satisfaction.

If we do not find good verification, then this may be the moment to gather further information or revisit what we think on a certain topic.

The internet is the best resource humanity has ever had to allow regular people to independently verify information. Not all of the data is good, that’s why finding information of quality is critical.

However, the sheer amount of data and the near-instant delivery of that information has given us amazing opportunities and capability to verify, therefore bringing us closer to the best attainable version of the truth than ever before. This power we have to confirm things is unique in human history.

If we can harness this power effectively, we can make better decisions with better knowledge of what is going on in our lives and communities.

At Stormthread, we want to empower you guys to be more effective in verifying things for yourselves on any topic. We believe there are methods that can greatly improve an individual’s efficiency in searching online.

So our next post, we will share our practical steps/approach for maximizing our individual efforts of verification.

Notes & References

[1] “The best obtainable version of the truth is partly about context. Too much information that we present is without context, argued Bernstein. Context is an essential element of the truth. Your judgement is based in part on the context of all the risk data that you are evaluating. “Simple facts by themselves are not the truth, especially in isolation from the bigger picture,” he said.” – Carl Bernstein

 

[Ref] https://www.webshield.com/post/bernstein-riskconnect

- As a side note, We will explore context and getting context in an upcoming post.

 

[2]  “A heuristic technique, or a heuristic is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method that is not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, or rational, but is nevertheless sufficient for reaching an immediate, short-term goal or approximation.” – Wikipedia (Ref. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic)

[3] BS radar is the continual critical analysis and thinking on the information we receive in the following but not limited to areas Evidence, [determined] Facts [from the evidence], Logical premises, and [overall] Arguments: EFLA.

[4] [REF. Wikipedia]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)#:~:text=The%20echo%20chamber%20effect%20occurs,declining%20exposure%20to%20other's%20opinions.

[5] These can range from the benign biases such as the variance in reporting between information sources that come from the lens of experience or interpretation. To the more extreme “God’s Work” – The manipulation of facts, truth to fit the agenda of a party(ies) or organization. The organization or party(ies) might have an interest beyond the accurate and truthful explanation of a topic or situation to fit in with the wider protection or furthering of that group’s  interests or agenda. This results in a corrupting of these groups or organizations outward or publicly stated goals.

 

Shout out to Vice for this amazing interview and Liam for his insightful and deep thinking in the creation of the idea of “God’s Work”. I haven’t seen the term “God’s work” applied to the concepts of corruption and the manipulation of facts and truth before that interview, so I believe its genesis is from Liam.

 

Check out the amazing full interview here:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2TC-ZvWdEk 7.22 – for Liam defining God’s Work

[6]Our working definition of what information of value is: information that has material impact to you or your communities that you belong to. In general this is subjective to some extent to the individual and one’s community’s priorities so this is determined uniquely by each person and group.

[7]The ‘Compression’ characteristic of quality information is information being in a state of concise existence without losing any key descriptive or explanatory value.

[8] Note that if a subject cannot be fully explained at a certain literacy level beyond broad conceptual discussions and their implications then it is up to the reader/consumer to educate themselves to a level on which a more detailed and precise understanding can be conveyed to them, not the person(s) sharing the information as that would violate the idea of delivering concise information- unless it was their stated goal to educate on that specific topic.

[9] A lot of this work would be unseen and most likely taken for granted and so this won’t be always immediately noticed. Think of Vox’s Explainers: For instance take a look at one of my favorites from them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMqZR3pqMjg

[10] Great example of this is Vox again see this video they did on tax brackets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJhsjUPDulw

[11] That is why project Stormthread exists and what we will help to facilitate in our humble way as best we can.

[12] (Note: highly recommend James’s Work, it can be a little dense and in an English style that is a bit antiquated. but he writes clearly and with great energy and excellent metaphors that I think make up for some of the more dense passages of writing that take time to piece exactly what he means by reading over those passages a few times over.)

[13] [Ref.] https://www.loa.org/books/66-writings-1902-1910

[14] Check him out, I highly recommend reading his Wikipedia and Britannica pages if you have the time.[14]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James, https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-James/Interest-in-psychology

 

[15] [Ref.]  https://www.loa.org/books/66-writings-1902-1910

[16] So elegant, so simple…

[17] James, if we are not mistaken, is saying that truth is not a stagnant property. But rather, truth comes out of a process of investigating whether something is true from our beliefs or not. It is the act of investigating to either prove or disprove can we actually establish if something is true or not.

 

[18] “At the core of all theories in psychology is a set of assumptions about the information people use to carry out the task being modeled and about the way that information is stored. The format in which information is stored and used in psychological processing is called knowledge representation.”

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-01035-005

 

[19] James defines pointing on page 27 from the Chapter 2 ‘The Tigers in India’:

“Pointing is known simply and solely as a procession of mental associates and motor consequences that follow on the thought and that would lead harmoniously, if followed out into some ideal or real context, or even in the immediate presence, of the tigers.”

[20] We will go into much more detail on these ideas and discuss the topic of keeping an open mind in a post coming soon. The ideas behind this one paragraph alone could be written about in many books, we’ll attempt to bring you our thoughts on them in a few posts. It may take us some time to do this and get it to you guys, but it is coming.

[21] See our upcoming post on MLK Jr’s thoughts on these topics. Coming soon!