… selection does not even come to mind when a decision is taken: people may never even ask themselves what it is that is not directly in front of them.

– What you see is all there is

Like abilities more generally – which are reliable ways of achieving certain goals in appropriate conditions – by using one’s cognitive abilities in suitable environments and conditions one can reliably achieve the epistemic goods in question.

– Epistemic Virtue and the Epistemology of Education

When we are vulnerable, our willpower is weak and sense of self-responsibility is diminished. During these moments, we are open to suggestion. These suggestions could be essentially untruths presented in an authoritative, matter-of-factly way. If left unaddressed, they would take root and alter behaviour in undesirable ways. Vulnerability is inevitable; uncritical acceptance of every suggestion is not.

Even when we are not particularly vulnerable, say for instance because of some event, we have vulnerabilities which are always present under the surface. Such vulnerabilities include, our limited attention span and cognitive biases.

Gatekeepers offered a measure of protection. In schools, textbooks and teachers played this role. Content allowed through was carefully selected. A student needed only to master the carved-out content. Anything not taught was not relevant.

The internet has rendered otiose the gatekeeping function. It is no longer feasible to decide what is seen by whom without coming across intrusive. Add this to the current movement towards self-directed learning and a potential problem becomes apparent.

Self-directed learning refers to, “a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (Knowles, 1975).

An air-steward recently had to leave. He is now a Feng Shui master. He attended courses, read books and researched on the internet. He took the initiative, wanted to become a Feng Shui analyst, identified what he needed to know and how to get that knowledge. He evaluates his skill level by offering consultations to his friends.

Self-directed learning should be encouraged because it empowers people to realise their aspirations and take action to improve their lives. It is more effective than teacher-directed learning because, it harnesses to a larger degree, intrinsic motivation and facilitates the experience of flow states (Schweder, 2018). Intrinsic motivation is feeling energised to pursue an objective for no other reason than personal satisfaction. When flow (Csikszentmihalyi,2008) is experienced, the seeker loses all sense of time and finds herself performing better than she had ever before.

A natural question would be, can there be expertise without accreditation? Does accreditation guarantee expertise? Another fortune teller in Singapore was self-taught and was internationally sought after by people such as Tiziano Terzani, an Italian journalist who wrote, A Fortune Teller Once Told Me. This person is no longer alive. Self-directed learning can lead to great success in one’s chosen field.

This ex-steward was interested in Feng Shui which is an accepted practice and cultural norm. What if a student was interested in something more deviant and was for any number of reasons, sufficiently motivated? The internet would facilitate his aims.

A student may be interested in anything that is not mainstream for its novelty value. He could be interested to assert his individuality. Some people laugh when they hear another listens to popular music. Popular music is not sufficiently Dubstep or Deep House or anything else with snob value. While it is true that something can be novel for only so long, it is entirely possible to be sucked into the depths with no way of return.

It is for this reason, that Pritchard (2013) contends that the purpose of education is to empower students to make “strong cognitive achievements” which “involves either the overcoming of a significant obstacle to cognitive success or the manifestation of high levels of cognitive skill (i.e., higher than normal)”.

He distinguishes between “a mere cognitive achievement” – “Watson may see the dirt on the subject’s shoe, and so come to know that her shoes are unpolished” and “strong cognitive achievement” – “Sherlock will immediately observe much more than this, seeing straight away, perhaps, that the subject before him lacks an alibi for the murder”.

He goes on to say that while schools could tell students what to believe, students would only stay safe so long as they kept to the straight and narrow. This is known as an “epistemically friendly” environment. If looking for news, turn to news outlets of record (if fortunate enough to have a non-crowded journalistic space at least where anything worth its salt is concerned) because these are differently incentivised; they have no need to resort to click-bait, sensationalism and targeted slant. An epistemically friendly environment is one where it is easy to tell apart truth from untruth without any need for especial cognitive ability.

When the environment is epistemically “hostile” – “there are lots of falsehoods on display”, a student needs to be able to “work out the answer for herself”. This will require cognitive skill.

This is a laborious and counter-intuitive process. It is far easier to accept something on social proof or the appearance of validation by some relevant authority.

Carter and Cheong (2018) describe how someone gets seduced and led into a trap online. In essence, this happens when one relinquishes ownership of choices and is very ready and relieved to not have to exercise independent critical faculty.

The seduction happens in a four-step process.

Step 1 Seducer: I know what you are thinking.
Step 2 Seducee: Yes, you do know what I’m thinking.
Step 3 Seducer: So, let’s do …
Step 4 Seducee: Yes, let’s.

This 4-step process has been empirically tested which means it has been seen to work. Even if the seducee was not at all thinking what was suggested, he might accept if he was in some way disoriented or vulnerable. This is to “find out what we think by having thoughts attributed to us and agreeing with those attributions” (Alfano, 2013; 2018; Doris, 2015; Wong, 2006, as cited in Carter & Cheong, 2018). The other way the seducer shows familiarity with one’s mind is to echo back “in a way we can accept” what one first expressed to the seducer.

Before feeling relieved that this cannot happen without the presence of some human being, it should be noted that websites, platforms and search engines are structured to suggest familiarity with a user’s mental model (Carter & Cheong, 2018).

They give the example of a news website which suggests certain categories which appear in a drop-down menu when a user clicks on a tab titled Issues. This would give the appearance of “carving news reality at its joints and engages … what-you-see-is-all-there-is (WYSIATI) mindset” which “leads people to uncritically accept one of the framed options as legitimate, and to carry on searching… having already made a choice within that framed space”.

They add that the suggested questions which appear – “predictive analytics” when we key in terms on a search engine and the subsequent search results which ensue – “prescriptive analytics” reinforce WYSIATI. Predictive and prescriptive analytics “tell a Netizen, I know what you are thinking and prompt …action” and this is “especially worrisome when the process bypasses the user’s capacity for reasoning”.

Carter and Cheong (2018) beseech technology platforms to adhere to International Organisation for Standards (ISO) requirements in design so that users are safe despite inherent vulnerabilities.

If a student has suffered some kind of trauma, he would be particularly vulnerable to “Social Reality Power of Isolated Groups” (Borum, 2011). A student is seeking answers or is merely curious and chances upon some edifice. There he hears a siren song and is inevitably drawn to a sure death on the rocks.

Let’s say, he chances upon some group online which is ritualistic. Before he becomes a member of such group, he would go through the following steps (from Step 2) in Conversion Theory (Borum, 2011):

Step 1: Context (environmental factors)
Step 2: Crisis (personal disequilibrium)
Step 3: Quest (to restore equilibrium)
Step 4: Encounter (with someone suggesting they understand and have just the right solution)
Step 5: Interaction (with this group)
Step 6: Commitment (a series of decisions demonstrating compliance through investment)
Step 7: Consequences (monitoring and evaluation of convert’s actions with accompanying rewards and punishment)

WYSIATI requires some kind of tunnel vision or mental isolation. If he appears to receive acceptance and does not take a step back, he would believe the reality suggested by the group.

What we see is never all there is. We cannot see into someone’s mind. When we go out, we choose clothes. When we write, we choose words. Everything that is presented is just that; deliberately presented.

The antidote to omnipresent and subtle influences is to develop intellectual virtues espoused by Baehr (2015) in his book, Cultivating Good Minds. They are, “character traits or personal qualities of a good thinker or learner. These include traits like curiosity, intellectual autonomy, attentiveness, intellectual carefulness, intellectual thoroughness, open-mindedness, intellectual humility, and intellectual tenacity”.

We can discuss two of the above; attentiveness and intellectual carefulness.

According to Baehr, attentiveness requires, “presence”, listening, noticing and giving sustained attention to “important details”. A suggestion can be very subtle and be said when one is in a vulnerable state. When one is vulnerable, one cannot be expected to be present because attention is focused on safety among other things. One potentially useful signal to warrant direction or redirection of attention to a suggestion is cognitive dissonance. For this to work, one must have a strong sense of identity which functions like muscle memory.

In defence arts, it is said that if you try to recall a technique during a crisis or when such technique is called for, it is over and you have lost. Therefore, the technique must be practised so many times that it becomes instinctive. Analogously, a very strong identity has to be forged during normal periods so that it kicks in strongly at the moment of suggestion such that there is cognitive dissonance.

So, listen to or read closely, what is said or written. If it jars, increase attention because the suggestion warrants it. Importantly, reject the suggestion (recall step 2 of the seduction process).

Intellectual carefulness, according to Baehr is “geared toward avoiding intellectual errors or mistakes” and requires adherence to rules of thinking. He gives the example of “PEMDAS” (BODMAS might be more familiar) which is a mathematical rule dictating order of operations. In the case of reasoning about what is read online or heard from someone, a useful reasoning framework which would ensure intellectual carefulness is Paul’s Wheel of Reasoning.

Some students are adventurous and might be given to jaunts in epistemically hostile environments where there might be attempts to convert.

They don’t have to reason like Sherlock to evade capture. They just have to know themselves. Then they can say no.

The Brain Dojo