A cage with all amenities

    Habr actively responds to all initiatives (whatever they concern) to limit the choice. And that's great. The same Internet (in those days when it was not written with a capital letter) was declared as a means of free communication of everyone with everyone and free search of information in order to develop society. And the keyword in the previous sentence is naturally “free”.

    Here is just one question. How free from restrictions and in the end how adequate is the result of our choice?

    Long gone are the days when the Internet was small, when cataloged lists of sites were popular (at first very small). Then every information seeker could quickly sort through most of the available resources. Now search by search on all sites is impossible in principle, and we are forced to use search services to search for information. In most cases, free. But precisely because of their free nature, these services are forced not only to collect detailed information about all of their users and trade it - they, due to the still existing competition, try to make sure that the user does not just receive exactly the information that he wants to receive. The user should be pleased with the result of his searches. And it’s really scary.

    Nobody wants to rummage through millions of links issued as a result of a request. In most cases, the first 3-5 are visible. A maximum of a couple of pages. Time is money. In order for the user to leave satisfied, the search engine collects any information about him, his current desires and needs. Ignoring those things that, according to the search engine, should not interest his client.

    And then comes the great science of psychology.

    One way or another, everyone has certain beliefs and, of course, everyone is psychologically more pleasant when they agree with him. One consequence of this is the formation of groups with similar interests. Absolutely not necessarily legalized and having a single VKontakte page. We are invited to the resources of the Network, where those who share our views gather - or we ourselves (in issuing a search engine based on the results of our own request) find materials that confirm our point of view. And of course those personalities, groups of people or sites that have the habit of arguing with the opinion that has formed are unpleasant. This makes one doubt their own rightness, lowers self-esteem, makes one think about their own significance in the eyes of others - not everyone is able to admit their own mistake.

    This is the first psychological effect -bias confirmation . It is inherent in man initially. And if in the real world we are forced to communicate with different people and learn to perceive different opinions, then in the modern world we can exclude from our blog all who object, do not meet with those who consider themselves - not us! - right. On the Internet, it’s simple - we create or find a cozy group of interests and close ourselves in it.

    In a famous joke, Napoleon claimed - give me the newspaper Pravda and no one will find out that I lost at Waterloo. In our world, the role of the newspaper Pravda is played by a search engine. Starting with the release of only the information we are interested in, he brings us together with those who share our interests and thereby complete the formation of our views. After all, we perceive information from the Internet as independent and objective - and it is very circumcised.

    Typically, the effect of neglecting probability is illustrated by the fact that many are afraid to fly airplanes, although much more people die in car accidents. But for IT, this effect is interestingly enough superimposed on the bias of confirmation. So, in fact, there are no statistics that can assess the likelihood of infection (and thus estimate the amount of real financial damage) for a particular company depending on its size, location, type of protection, type of activity, etc. As a result, there are two points of view. “We have statistics on how many companies contacted our tech support.” "I have for ... not a single virus." And if we are talking about viruses, then following an incident with the encryption of our data or reading an article about a new technology, the case of neglecting probability sharply turns into a neophyte effect or selective observation. When the “veil falls from the eyes” and the neophyte begins to notice everywhere the confirmation of a new truth. And it is natural not to notice its flaws. A typical case is cloud antiviruses or removable media protection or a behavioral analyzer or ... There are a lot of options.

    In the neglected case of confirmation bias, we begin to perceive only the information that “feeds” our already existing judgments, ignoring or rejecting everything that conflicts with them and threatens to destroy the image of the world that is familiar to us. A typical case is viruses and vulnerabilities for Linux. No matter how many of them are found and whatever danger they present, there will always be someone who ask him to give him at least one virus to see or someone who says that this is only for those systems where administrators have crooked hands.

    Fortunately, the next stage ( Craze effect ), although it is often encountered, passes for the majority. Although not without a trace. At the stage of the craze , a fashion arises. When everyone around us chooses a favorite (person or idea), the part of the brain that is responsible for the individual is turned off. We are falling into a state of peculiar “group thinking”. There are many options. From suicides resulting from the death of a Pokemon to the massive transfer of everything and everything into the clouds, regardless of the need and cost.

    A neglected case of isolation among like-minded people - Intra - group bias and the Transference Effect. Everyone whose opinion we listen to confirm our opinion. And we begin to think that all the other people in the world (and maybe aliens) also think. Often, those who join radical associations live with the belief that outside their group, many people share their beliefs, although there may not be any. If harsh reality confronts us with dissenters, then consciousness raised on the absence of discussions requires the destruction of this troublemaker.

    In the 1940s, a terrorist organization of Japanese immigrants existed in Brazil who believed that Japan had won the Second World War. Those Japanese Brazilians who did not share their beliefs, they were forced to commit seppuku or executed those who did not agree to this .

    There is a historical joke. They say that in the government of de Gaulle (and he was known to be distinguished by the fact that people of different views worked with him) there was a minister who constantly criticized de Gaulle. When de Gaulle was asked, why don't you take him away? And he answered - he does not allow me to be arrogant.

    Why is the article classified as information security? Just because we do not have the right to personal preferences, choosing what will affect our security and (more importantly) the security of those who entrusted us with the choice.

    Also popular now: