There are, of course, caveats, but it applies in many cases. Related essay: Side Doors.

There are two types of information. One that finds you, and the other that you find.

Information finds you when someone sends you that news article or an algorithm recommends it to you. In both those cases, it must’ve been provocative in some way. An algorithmic feed’s sole objective is to recommend things you’re most likely to click and share. And your friends and family only share things you’re likely to enjoy, relate, or react to, just like an algorithm.

The content or headline must’ve been emotionally charged. Scary, pleasant, infuriating, pleasing, shocking, exciting, raunchy, or something along those lines. That’s what makes it shareable and thus finds its way to you. Why is that a problem?

Oftentimes, the truth is boring or a bit more complex than a black and white answer. Do processed foods cause cancer? Yes and no. They have been shown to increase cancer risk, but they do not cause cancer. It also depends on the food.

That did not really answer the question and may have left you unsatisfied. But it’s the truth based on what research has discovered as of today. And if you want to know details about specific foods, you’ll have to read pages of more information. Not very appealing, and not shareable.

Meanwhile, your friend is much more likely to share an article warning you that your favorite breakfast cereal will give you cancer. It’s not exactly true and not completely false. But it’s definitely more appealing and shareable, so that info finds people.

In most cases, your friends, family, or your news/social media algorithm will not send you something boring. It won’t recommend a post that will take effort to understand. The retention rate is too low, so it doesn’t align with the goal.

People often want high-density info packed into as few words and as little time as possible. Feel smarter instantly! Everybody wants to feel smarter. People also want to be entertained and feel something. Dopamine sells. And evocative headlines induces dopamine.

If you want to seek truth, be critical of information that finds you. I’m not saying avoid it. I discover lots of interesting topics through social media and algorithmic feeds. But once you become interested in a subject, whether it’s from a friend sending you a headline or your algorithm, then start your own research.

Ideally, you should fact-check using multiple trusted sources. If it’s a politically-charged topic, I make sure to read from all sides of the spectrum and look for objectivity. I try to look as close to primary sources as possible (scientific journals, original documents, etc) and cross-reference at least two different trusted sources to identify any inconsistencies.

You can also verify the accuracy of information by looking at who endorses it. For example, scientific journals are peer-reviewed, meaning other scientists scrutinize and then approve of the scientist author’s work. So we can pretty confidently say it’s accurate. I’m no scientist, so if they’re lying in a scientific journal, I’d have no way to know. There’s some inherent trust there.

Same with investing information. If many successful investors agree with a theory about the market, then it’s likely (not certain) to be true. For example, during the bubble of 2021, many Fortune 500 CEOs and fund managers were quietly selling shares while the market was booming. Those CEOs and fund managers are true experts in the field and have quality principal information on the market. The market crashed soon after.

This much verification isn’t required for all information. But for important topics, or things you confidently want to understand, I think it’s a must. Trust, but verify.

---