Post-Truth Dictionaries of Future
#Misinformation #Disinformation #FakeNews #Reality #EthicsInTech #Power #PowerDynamicsInTech #PostCovid #HumanTransformation #Emotions&Tech #Privacy #Freedom
Iteration 1:
In the future people will have created such information silos, and specific social groups will have evolved in such radically different ways that communication between them is no longer possible. The groups have developed not just unique languages but also unique ways of understanding the reality surrounding them.
Dictionaries of post-truth futures are conversational artefacts that showcase how differently human understanding of the reality can evolve, through the use of technology. This evolution of the human mind, based on the information overload carried by media and accessible through personal technology companies, went so far that it shaped the image of reality first in people's minds, then words and eventually environment.
​
​
This idea could be explored by a conversational piece in which several dictionaries of future languages describe certain ideas in radically different ways.
This iteration of Speculative Fiction further explored explores topics of "The Truth Subscription" story.
​
The story’s purpose was to explore the ethical/ philosophical problems:
What if the “real” environment, constructed and controlled by others (e.g. tech corporations through the use of technology, or made-up reality architects) confirms your beliefs about reality you develop based on your online experience? Can you live your life consciously and with intent? Who holds the power over your experience of life?... How do you choose what to believe in and what to trust in the world where almost every information can be put into question due to the information overload?
This exploration intended to create a design fiction conversational piece that allowed participants to ponder on that question.
The story is an exaggerated tale of the world that suffers from similar problems as our current world does in 2020, like information bubbles, confirmation bias etc. Talking to the participants I discovered that people think about the issues mentioned in the story and have developed coping mechanisms like: “I have been taught not to believe in such things [talking about getting your information from FB]”, “I choose my sources wisely, I choose who I want to trust.”, “upon reflection, I have no way of verifying what’s trustworthy”.
We are not sure what to believe and what is real, so we decide what to believe based on what we decide not to believe - elimination method.
People develop coping mechanisms and thinking patterns to cope with information overload and confusion and fear of being disinformed.
People criticise and discredit other people’s perspectives to justify their choices & opinions - negative reinforcement and binary black and white thinking.
Confirmation bias: People are quick to judge others for what they believe but are less critical of the sources they choose to trust (as no source is 100% objective).
Insights derived from the story:
The insights are an analysis of participants thoughts and emotions evoked by the speculative fiction. The insights frame a wider set of problems with behaviours around information overload. They have allowed me to define a couple of HMW questions.
HMW create a conversation between polarised sides/parties without using dystopian future scenarios? HMW develop more healthy mechanisms of coping with a lack of confirmation of what we should believe in?
Future iteration 3:
Based on the emotional responses of viewers of the 2nd interaction and the insights I managed to form, I know what direction my project could take. Two participants suggested building on top of an idea of radical isolation caused by information silos and its impact on human ability to communicate.
In the future, groups of people who have not attempted to communicate with each other would develop totally different languages as well as understanding of the world.
This idea could be explored by a conversational piece in which several dictionaries of future languages describe certain ideas in radically different ways.
​
My next step would be to prototype the content of a few dictionaries and get a participant's reaction on what they think about the different outlooks on the world the two dictionaries provide.