It used to be simpler. When you needed expert information, you went to the library, looked up books in that field and picked out credible authors. For example, in the medical field, these were doctors who enjoyed a high reputation – they had a track record and experience, held a prominent position in a professional field, or were (had been) employed by a reputable institution. Then you copied the information from the books you chose, and perhaps cited the studies or sources from which the information was obtained. Usually the different books contained quite similar information, which was complemented or expanded upon, so there was no difficulty in assessing whether the quote was correct or not. The story was closed.
Today, the situation is different. Not only has the World Wide Web brought a huge flood of information, but it has also offered the opportunity to the hard-working “little fish” to come out and reveal their interesting points of view.
I am thinking of people who otherwise would not be quoted or have their opinion used as credible information. But since it is almost impossible to tell from the content of a website whether a source can be trusted, the “little fish” have stood up to the big fish. And because they lack credibility or their successes are not eloquent enough, they make their own way of getting noticed – by being different.
Make no mistake; as long as being different means including a colour that makes the rainbow complete, it is welcome. Or when we can shed a different light on an issue. But when one remembers that the rainbow would also include, for example, black – simply because it does not exist yet and because people would “twitch better” at the lure than if they were discussing existing colours – the story gets complicated.
Difference is exciting … and dangerous
Both together (“small fish” combined with the World Wide Web) cause a lot of confusion. Things are out of control. No one is under scrutiny anymore, as so much information is exchanged on a daily basis that it is theoretically impossible to keep track of, let alone classify or evaluate, all the new developments. Blogs, forums, guest posts, videos, comments …
And it’s not just the web. Today, anyone can write a book and publish it. Publishing a book used to be a project that involved a lot of people, time, money … and above all, effort and coordination. Today, with the availability of electronic formats, a book can be made practically without the help of others and can start selling in the biggest online bookstore literally overnight.
But we could not prevent it. Sooner or later, everything that can be minted into money becomes a niche market.Difference – and sometimes even open defiance of existing claims – is an excellent substitute for good and proven content. What’s more, what’s new, different, exciting or unusual gets our attention sooner than the usual, everyday stuff.
In addition, we are driven by the feeling that we have to check everything, or we might miss important information. That is also why difference is tempting. Purple cows are a hit … as are washing balls, which wash laundry organically and without washing powder.
As long as this kind of thing happens in areas that don’t play a major role in our lives, there’s no harm done. (Read: a new weight loss patch … an even better fitness machine … a miracle baker, etc.). But when they stray into vital areas – like health – it becomes dangerous. And that is exactly what happened.
Things have become so absurd that for practically every thing that speaks one way, we find contradictory information. In Slovene there is less of this, but in English the choice is endless.
Exercise is bad for your health … and so is drinking water?
For example, if you type into Google: exercise “good for health”, you will get 360,000 hits. If you type in: exercise “bad for health”, you find 808,000 (!). Or: drinking water “good for health” has 120,000 hits, drinking water “bad for health” has 216,000. And if we analyse who signs the articles and “research”, it is (also) renowned and reputable doctors.
The World Wide Web has become the perfect opportunity for the “little fish” to claim the pond, as the opinion of the one who has invested the most energy in his/her appearance prevails.
In fact, a web search engine will not usually put the most credible information first, but rather the information that someone has gone to the trouble to put at the top. The work put in always outweighs credibility: optimising a website for certain words or phrases … links to other websites … number of visits to a page … videos … targeted advertising and so on.
All of this helps the search engine to rank such websites higher, or to serve them up as if they were on a platter to a user who has typed in a certain term in the search box. So often a visitor who enters a word into a search engine, the real data doesn’t even come up – it could be buried somewhere on page 48 …
The second problem is this. If we happen to have access to credible content, nothing on this website will tell us that the information is correct. On the contrary, because the text will not be heavily emphasised, supported by statements or in any way ‘marketised’, it will appear to us as dull, pale and ‘too ordinary’. This is why we will find it less credible than the information that flashes off the screen with big headlines, smiling faces like “I’ve tried everything – nothing worked until I learned this method!” and unambiguous conclusions.
Doctors and “doctors”
And the problems are not over yet… If the reader somehow already realises that the person signing the text has the appropriate qualifications, he or she still does not know who is a doctor and who is a “doctor”.
For example, who has dedicated their career to solving a particular disease and is constantly researching, consulting colleagues, testing new approaches and diligently recording feedback… and who isa rider-only practitioner on paper – i.e., has all the necessary licenses to practice – but maybe doesn’t work with patients (anymore) at all?
How can we distinguish between them when both of them are touting their glittering careers, almost miraculous cures, with testimonials from cured patients who are praising the method and the doctor to the heavens, and so on. It is impossible to establish that the first actually does this, and the second merely has a good marketing consultant. Or, rather, he was prepared to invest a great deal of effort, time and money in this project.
First the man, then the doctor … and for the patient, only the “white coat”
It makes more sense if we look at all these doctors (and especially “doctors”) as ordinary people – which they are. Some of them do not do their work because they are maximally committed to it, or because they are willing to do whatever it takes to help their fellow human beings; it is just a job for them. “Over the years, you get used to things not getting to you,” they are able to say. Like many people, they want to adapt their work to themselves.
Of course, doctors are human too. But they are fundamentally different from everyone else. They have an enormous influence on the masses and, consequently, a great responsibility towards the people; whether they want it or not.
The designation “Dr.Med.” gives a person recognition and unprecedented power. Patients perceive the white coat as a sign of supreme authority. This means that we are much more inclined to follow the advice of a doctor than anyone else.
It is no wonder that there are “doctors” who are happy to take advantage of the situation. Their aim is not, for example, to verify their findings in a realistic and neutral situation, but to prove that a particular proposition is valid. As a result, the whole research is set up in such a way that the researcher is looking for different ways to confirm the hypothesis. And whoever looks, usually finds – because it is possible to show almost every thing from one point of view or another.
Of course, the unbiased user or patient does not know whether the researcher has neutrally explored the possibilities, or whether he or she has spent so much time tinkering and changing the parameters until he or she has found the ideal circumstances in which a slight deviation from the statistical average has occurred. Which, of course, the researcher announced as a big revelation and confirmation of his hypothesis, to the effect: “Things are not as they have been shown to you for years. Here is the proof …”
This is why we read of, for example, 90%+ cure rates in patients with serious illnesses.
On the other hand, we should not blame the media for painting our eyes only – or mainly – with colourful fish(or purple cows).
We are users, or readers and consumers, who choose what interests us. Exciting new things get our attention or make us respond better. The media simply adapt: “Fish with two heads? There you have them. A cow that looks like a zebra? No problem – as long as you find it interesting, we’ll pray it under your nose. Is there anything else we can do for you?”
Two additional problems
Another problem with research on the World Wide Web is the so-called closed circle of claims. Some time ago, I was looking for a source that could confirm first-hand that a statement had indeed come from a reputable institution. What I ended up finding was that web portals quote each other, thus forming a closed circle, but their links do not lead to the actual source. This phenomenon can usually be revealed through the use of phrases and clauses, as they all use exactly the same words and phrases. (They are not so creative as to change a few words in a sentence, but simply copy the text from one source and “paste” it into their own document.)
In the health field, we have another particular problem: many people are so focused on the tree that they forget about the forest. A narrowly focused view overrides the overall, holistic effect on the body. For example, an osteoporosis specialist recommends cheeses, but a doctor concerned about a patient’s cholesterol strictly advises against them. Or: a nutritionist recommends a significant intake of Himalayan salt, but a general practitioner is against all salt.
Where is the solution?
We therefore need to become wiser or more educated about the use of open content. If we follow the general strategy of searching for data on the World Wide Web, we will not get to real data. A web search engine is designed to show what it finds relevant first. Or what best fits the rules of the game. Those who know these rules and know how to take advantage of the situation will be seen better.
Nor can we use the web to confirm something we believe or don’t want to believe – because whatever search string we type into a web search engine, we will find confirmation (and “evidence”) of it.
So how should we go about finding and researching a topic? We need to decide and set the rules beforehand.
Let us start from the fact that the World Wide Web is not a substitute for an encyclopaedia. In an encyclopaedia, information is carefully selected and verified. A cue is a guiding thought that is supported by several pages. On the web, however, there is only a handful of real, useful information. There is no criterion for what information can be published, where, how aggressively, how many times, etc.
So we won’t use Google as a cue to type in, for example, “best cure for migraine”, but we will first look for key information from credible sources.
If we know for sure that a doctor has a track record, is realistic, sincere and genuinely committed to his work, let’s first investigate his findings. Let this be our starting point, and then let us explore further. If we know more doctors or verified sources, all the better – our foundations will be stronger. (Most often, we will find that committed and neutral researchers usually come to very similar conclusions.)
Once we have a solid foundation, we can use a web search engine to check the background and counter information. However, because we have a point of reference to refer to, we will not be blinded by brightly coloured fish and purple – or red, green … – cows.
Another solution is to use intuition. Let us rely on our own feeling, experienced through a gentle, warm energy that has been present for a long time. This is intuition or the heart. A strong and aggressive energy that flares up and goes out usually heralds a “purple cow”: the excitement has pulled us out of our existing thought processes and plunged us onto a merry-go-round of intense emotions. But we will not experience a deep and pleasant sense of relaxation that instils faith and confidence. Although we may feel comfortable – because we are familiar with this kind of state – we will experience a kind of turmoil or chaos.
Another good approach is to analyse the experiences of people who have been in a similar situation to ours. One possibility is to look at online forums or targeted web portals where users exchange opinions. Let’s read the stories of ordinary people who have been participating in this group for a long time and have contributed good advice in the past.
Let’s also remember our “reality filters”. If we are prone to exciting novelties, anything else that expresses a less aggressive energy will not even attract us. If we are more closed-minded and find “flashing in front of our eyes” to be boastful or throwing sand in our eyes, we may not be open (enough) to novelty. We will therefore be (too) confined to familiar or desirable frames.
We can be fascinated by the glamour, or by the open heart …
So who to believe? In two words: an open heart. Your own or anyone else’s.
The world is moving in two directions. The drama, the excitement and the frenetic pace create a specific environment that blurs our vision and builds a wall around our hearts. We are blinded by a glare that is becoming so intense that it is becoming disturbing for many. This is a good thing, because it shows us that we will not find a solution in it. So we will begin to look for it in the only place we have left – in turning inwards, in opening our hearts and taking responsibility.
The advice of the “ordinary person” who genuinely wants to help others will be increasingly valued. But it is up to us to become (more) open and receptive to “everyday”, sincere and warm advice.
One of the most important tasks for each individual is to reduce the level of drama in his or her life to the point where he or she can feel his or her true nature again.
The time has come to turn inwards … because that is the only way to true happiness.
This article is based on the book “The Big Ugly Crisis”, by Boris Vene and Nikola Grubiša.