Human Self as Information Agent: Functioning in a Social Environment Based on Shared Meanings

Human Self as Information Agent: Functioning in a Social Environment Based on Shared Meanings. Roy F. Baumeister, Heather M. Maranges, and Kathleen D. Vohs. Review of General Psychology, June 2017. DOI: 10.1037/gpr0000114

Abstract: A neglected aspect of human selfhood is that people are information agents. That is, much human social activity involves communicating and discussing information. This occurs in the context of incompletely shared information—but also a group’s store of collective knowledge and shared understanding. This article elucidates a preliminary theory of self as information agent, proposing that human evolution instilled both abilities and motivations for the various requisite functions. These basic functions include (a) seeking and acquiring information, (b) communicating one’s thoughts to others, (c) circulating information through the group, (d) operating on information to improve it, such as by correcting mistakes, and (e) constructing a shared understanding of reality. Sophisticated information agents exhibit additional features, such as sometimes selectively withholding information or disseminating false information for self-serving reasons, cultivating a reputation as a credible source of information, and cooperating with others to shape the shared worldview in a way that favors one’s subgroup. Meaningful information is thus more than a resource for individual action: It also provides the context, medium, and content within which the individual self interacts with its social environment.

---
One fascinating question about official falsehoods is whether the ruling elites who propagate such views believe them or not. We speculate that there are cases of both types. That is, some rulers may knowingly, even cynically, uphold a false worldview because it helps sustain them in power, whereas others sincerely believe their worldview. Probably many cases exist in the large gray area between those two, in which self-deceptive tactics are used to sustain preferred beliefs, and doubts are shrugged off as counterproductive. As an example close to home, psychology today is dominated by a political viewpoint that is progressively liberal, but it seems unlikely that many researchers knowingly assert falsehoods as scientific facts. They do however make publication of some findings much easier than others. The selective critique enables them to believe that the field’s body of knowledge supports their political views more than it does, because contrary facts and findings are suppressed (e.g., Duarte et al., 2015). In general, we suspect that far more elites use biased informational strategies to convince themselves of the truth of their preferred views than cynically assert positions they know to be false—though the latter happens too.

[...] Individuals should therefore first have some motivation to seek and obtain information. They may seek information to fill gaps in the group’s collective knowledge (as opposed to merely satisfying their own curiosity).

The group’s stock of information grows as people contribute different bits of information, but it is only a group resource insofar as the members share it. Hence resolving disputes and inconsistencies is helpful. There is thus some tension between adding diverse input and achieving agreement. A leader can encourage everyone to think the same thing, possibly at the expense of contrary and more accurate views. Leaders can also encourage diverse views and dissent, though that presumably makes it harder for the leader to lead.

Why might evolution have made people willing to sacrifice accuracy in favor of consensus, at least sometimes? Here we speculate that desire for consensus may derive from an innate social motive, whereas accuracy is an epistemic motive that would need to be acquired, and is therefore less deeply rooted and perhaps weaker [it is stronger the need to know what others think is true than to make sure you know the truth???]. Accuracy requires meaningful evaluation, as it is essentially a match between two ideas—and perhaps meaning cannot be transmitted by purely physical processes, such as birth. To put this another way, consensus is about you and me having the same thoughts, and nature can program us to want sameness in general, as is seen in preference for genetic kin. In contrast, accuracy is about abstract relationships between statements and circumstances, and thus it is a meaningful rather than a physical thing. There may not be an innate motive to evaluate the truthvalue of assertions or to appreciate the meaningful difference between truth and falsehood. Hence it may be necessary to learn from experience that accuracy is an informational virtue that confers benefits, whereas consensus may be more closely tied to innate motivations.