[Please note: there is AI generated text and an image in this post.  It is well-marked.  All other text is mine.]

 

I have been skimming Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg’s new book Verified a la Mortimer Adler’s How to Read a Book. Here is my raw skim using that method.

I prompted Exa AI (AKA Metaphor) to aggregate some reviews of the book.  These are skims in their own ways and are copied below.  I will be flitting about in their margins using Hypothes.is.

Mike Caulfield and Sam Wineburg’s book, “Verified: How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online,” has garnered attention for its practical approach to combating misinformation and disinformation in the digital age. The book is praised for providing readers with tools and strategies to navigate the complex landscape of online information critically and effectively.

The Chicago Tribune highlights the book’s timeliness and relevance, emphasizing the ongoing threats of disinformation and misinformation to democracy. The review appreciates the book’s clear guidance on resisting these threats through the SIFT model, which stands for Stop; Investigate the source; Find better coverage; and Trace claims, quotations, and media to the original context. The Tribune notes the book’s potential to become second nature to its readers, equipping them with a metaphorical shield against being fooled online[2].

The University of Chicago Press describes “Verified” as offering focused strategies for researching and navigating online content. It is recommended for every literate person, especially educators, as a crucial resource for understanding and teaching digital literacy. The book is lauded for its research-verified techniques that simplify the process of distinguishing between reliable and unreliable information[3].

The New Books Network review emphasizes the book as an indispensable guide for discerning fact from fiction on the internet, often in less than 30 seconds. It praises the authors for enabling readers to perform due diligence on the internet through an informative and approachable guide. The review appreciates the book’s practical advice on using common websites like Google and Wikipedia effectively and avoiding common pitfalls[4].

The Harvard Book Store echoes the sentiment of “Verified” being a lifeline in the age of online misinformation. It highlights the book’s step-by-step guide to sifting through the vast amount of information online to find what is true and useful. The review also notes the book’s appeal to a wide audience, including parents, high school students, and educators, for its straightforward and accessible techniques[5].

Overall, “Verified” is acclaimed for its practical, accessible approach to improving digital literacy and critical thinking skills. It is seen as an essential read for anyone looking to navigate the digital world more wisely, armed with the tools to discern credible information from misinformation and disinformation[1][2][3][4][5].

Citations:
[1] https://teachinginhighered.com/podcast/verified-with-mike-caulfield/
[2] https://www.chicagotribune.com/2023/10/28/biblioracle-if-youve-ever-been-lied-to-or-misinformed-online-try-this-book/
[3] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/V/bo207015182.html
[4] https://newbooksnetwork.com/verified
[5] https://shop.harvard.com/book/9780226822068
[6] https://samwineburg.com/writing/
[7] https://www.amazon.com/Verified-Straight-Better-Decisions-Believe/dp/0226822060
[8] https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/verified-mike-caulfield/1143121543

One of  the stories that Caulfield and Co. relate in the conclusion was one shared by Herbert Simon.  It is the tale of two bunnies.

Simon bought a pair of them for his daughters as an Easter present. Simon did not know he had a male and a female.  The neighborhood was soon overpopulated with rabbits. Simon observed that when there is a surplus of one thing (bunnies) there is shortage of another (lettuce). Generalizing from that he noticed that the same was true of information:  it eats the attention of its recipients. According to Simon, “a wealth of information leads to a poverty of attention.”

This “problem” leads to an obvious solution: pay more attention, right?  Wrong.  Simon argues that attention is a zero sum game.  More attention paid means less attention somewhere else.  Caulfield and Wineburg write that what this means is we need to develop a capacity for “critical ignorance”.  Reading this book is justified by that one observation!

I was going to advocate for folks to pay attention to these reviews taken from various sources by using Hypothes.is to socially annotate in the margins, but why would my few and fine readers do that?  We already know that attention is a zero sum game.  What could possibly draw readers to the margins to discuss AI, filtering with various tools fact from opinion, or how to critically attend by critically ignoring?  I think the answer is that annotation in the margins is a way to engage with the text at least as an audience of one reader.  That is reason enough to attend.  Sharpening your attention skills is a way of whetting your analytic knife.  A sharp knife can save a lot of time and can help you cut through a world of adjacent drivel.

Also, if there is only so much energy for attention,then as teachers and mentors and learners we have to be careful about the demands we make on that attention.

That is an assumption (that attention is a zero sum game) that has far-reaching consequences for the management of schools from K-University.