FTII to JNU row: Media sells you 'What you see is all that is' as news

One thing that stands out in the recent national debates is the stark polarities they have created. Be it Dadri lynching or return of awards following it; the JNU, FTII, UoH row and the passions it has flared, the reactions on battleground media, both mainstream and social, have been unprecedented. Positioning, grandstanding, name calling, abuse, along with some amount of nuance have been hallmarks of these debates. In a constantly-fed-with-information era, the "management of perception" thus has become very crucial. For, the managers understand human psychology well, What You See Is All That Is (WYSIATI) theory of which is exploited maximally.

There are basically two ways of thinking. They have been termed as System 1 and System 2 by psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West. System 1 works automatically without any or little effort and is quick. System 2 reasons out, has beliefs, makes choices, takes time to decide and is lazy.

System 1 builds a story, which it does really fast, with whatever little or incomplete information that is available, and jumps to conclusions easily. System 2 is systematic and is careful in making sense of partial information in a complex world. Both the systems are equally important and have specific functions for us humans.

WYSIATI is effective in pushing people to easy conclusions. It can be safely said that majority of reactions that controversies foster is resultant of jumping to conclusion too soon. It is responsible for various biases of judgement. Prominent among that is framing effect. Framing is an effective technique of putting one’s point across to persuade, to motivate and is effectively used by politicians and advertisers.

Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman in his book Thinking Fast and Slow illustrates the figure below, which shows how framing of an issue changes its perception. While you would read the letter "B" between A and C, you would read the exact same shape as "13" when it is placed between 12 and 14.  

The sentence "ANN APPROACHED THE BANK" would, for most of us give an idea of Ann, a female, going to the "Bank" for some financial matter. The brain has derived this conclusion based on the sentence which with some addition could mean a river bank as well.

We have seen examples of such in the current discourse. I will cite two examples which have become viral. The first is that of a "photoshopped" image of Kanhaiya Kumar speaking with the backdrop of a Balkanized India. Look at the two images below and think of the reaction they produce in you. The edited picture feeds on the brain conditioned with imagery of say an ISIS operative speaking with such a backdrop and thus is aimed to evoke that set of emotions. 

The second example is that video clip which has now been forwarded on Whatsapp umpteen number of times, of a fiery Arnab Goswami lambasting his panellist while co-opting the tragic event of the demise of Lance Naik Hanumanthappa. A debate on nationalism, based on now-proven morphed videos, framed with the supreme sacrifice for the nation aims at invoking a certain set of emotions which taking up both issues singularly would not do.

WYSIATI makes one overconfident, of the conclusions one draws. Since the thinking system, System 1, does not depend on quantity or quality of information it receives to build a story, the plethora of news channels and websites, the fast paced social media and mandarins of controversy-beneficiaries have enormous ability to sway people’s judgement by crafty framing, unethical practices and even peddling lies.

An increasingly shorter attention span only adds to our vulnerability. While examples of doctoring is an uncommon example of WYSIATI or framing, it is subtly carried out, all the time, and professionally at that. Conforming to a political ideology is the ultimate target of any political group and thought engineering is an effective way to reach there.

Perhaps pausing for a while, allowing the more rational System 2 to think about the sequence, to think about the veracity of a claim, to wait for pieces of evidences, to delve into other aspects and details of an issue will help in reassessing what the System 1 has hastily concluded. Daniel Kahneman writes "you will often find that knowing little makes it easier to fit everything you know into a coherent pattern". Last thing I knew, it is neither flattering to know little nor intelligent to put everything into a coherent pattern.