Reflections on Digital Ignorance
The digital age has certainly brought us numerous advantages. Yet, I’ve come to realize just how it has also facilitated the ongoing spread of misinformation and selective thinking.
It’s almost like a digital version of what I’d call “Spaniel Selective Hearing.”
Sometimes, it can stem from a conscious choice to ignore certain facts. Other times, it’s simply about denial. In any event, it represents a kind of intellectual evasion wrapped up in a false sense of security.
Paleontologist Pat Shipman’s book, Invaders, sheds light on the long-standing partnership between modern humans and dogs, which dates back around 40,000 years. Over this time, various breeds have been developed for specific tasks—whether it’s herding livestock, providing protection, or aiding in hunting.
These hunting traits used to be especially crucial. You and I might take our gundogs out to hunt, enjoying the rich experience together. Nowadays, though, it’s hard not to notice those adorable spaniel faces, their big, innocent eyes reflecting a yearning for companionship rather than work.
Yet, something significant has shifted.
In the past, spaniels typically lived in doghouses and were fed just once a day. They relied heavily on us, keeping them focused and alert. But today’s dogs? They’ve been transformed into cherished pets.
This “spaniel selective hearing” phenomenon occurs when dogs—a bit distracted—decide they’re not really “hearing” what we say. It feels incredibly real. And honestly, their cuteness makes it even more challenging to get their attention.
When I consider this in a broader context, it mirrors a human version of the same issue. Maybe others notice it too.
You can share well-researched information, structured arguments, and relevant articles—a few well-articulated points and all—yet, inevitably, someone in your social circle might simply dismiss it, saying, “The author is biased.”
If you push back, they might respond with a few supposedly “neutral” links, maybe an NPR article or a piece from a New York Times writer who often critiques Trump, proclaiming that they, themselves, are above partisanship.
And if the facts from your original sources turn out to be tough to dispute, they might just pivot. They come up with their “analysis,” which, oddly enough, tends to echo the very claims they initially dismissed.
You shouldn’t expect them to realize this inconsistency, though. Why? Because they fancy themselves neutral. Because they choose to disregard context. Because they just won’t allow themselves to go there.
This can sometimes be a willful ignorance, or perhaps simply a refusal to see reality. Whatever the case may be, it showcases a tendency for intellectual avoidance, cloaked in self-satisfaction.
Similar to spaniel selective hearing, this spreading phenomenon is a byproduct of nothing short of an overload of digital information and opinions from various self-proclaimed experts.
Maybe we should start referring to this as “deflected data deployment” or even “convenient data fencing.” Perhaps the best term would be “I won’t go there, and you can’t make me!” syndrome.
Regardless of what we label it, it’s something we need to confront.
We need to identify this behavior; it’s a vital first step in reviving healthy public conversations and breaking free from our echo chambers.
