Is Curiosity the Cure to Our Misinformation Epidemic?

Why addressing misinformation about immigration might be more about nurturing curiosity than 'fact checking.'

Before I get started, I want to share an exciting milestone: this is my 200th post 🎉 on Substack! I’m incredibly grateful for the growing network of nearly 3,000 readers all over the world. To celebrate this milestone, I am asking you to do me one favor: please share this online or with a friend so that more people have access to this free resource. Thank you. Now here’s the article.

Curiosity is a superpower.

Political polarization tries to force us to choose between one (and only one) of two simplistic narratives.

We are forced to conform on pain of ridicule or rejection.

In most Internet bubbles, to express curiosity is to risk being seen as naive or, worse, a traitor.

This is certainly true in the world of immigration politics.

It is no surprise, therefore, that misinformation—especially misinformation about immigration—is so rampant right now.

The risk of interrogating information we see online feels much higher than the risk of being caught posting or sharing misinformation.

I am here to say as simple as I can: this is not the way it should be. It is not the way it has to be.

Even more importantly, you and I can change the culture surrounding misinformation by adopting, modeling, and spreading a culture of curiosity rather than dogmatism.

In my previous post, I lamented the deluge of misinformation online this week about immigration. And I pointed out (with empirical data) why some of the recent debates online about immigration policy are not grounded in reality.

But that was just the beginning, not the end, of addressing misinformation.

Just to be clear: I do not think that mere “fact checking” is sufficient to combat misinformation.

I say this as someone who has deep respect for (and have worked with) organizations and news outlets that specialize in fact checking misinformation.

The reason I don’t think fact checking is sufficient is because the problem is not access to accurate information. The problem is a lack of desire for accurate information.

Misinformation is a heart problem, not a head problem.

Yet our most common reaction to misinformation is to correct others. Give them the facts and a link. In many cases, this is both necessary and is (or should be) uncontroversial.

As I pointed out in my last post, Stephen Miller was simply factually wrong about Biden allowing single adult migrants in the country for the first time in history. Senator Graham was factually wrong about the number of times that parole has been used in the past. And on Friday, Senator Lankford was factually wrong that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by “illegal immigrants.”

But so what if they are wrong? I don’t know if replacing wrong information with correct information is the best way to actually create an alternative to misinformation. For many people, it probably just looks like more public figures claiming that they have the right answer.

Instead, I want to suggest that we try to foster a sense of curiosity. I am starting to believe that curiosity, not ‘fact checking’, is the better approach to addressing misinformation.

I’m using the term curiosity here because even though we tend to think about curiosity as an intellectual exercise, I believe curiosity starts in the heart with a desire to learn, rather than in the head as simply sorting out the correct facts.

This is not to say that curiosity is without its dangers.

For example, what many people call "doing my own research" suffers from both the Dunning-Kruger Effect and confirmation bias.

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is an observable phenomenon where people with less knowledge over-estimate their own competence, whereas more educated and experienced people are more likely to understand that boundaries of their own knowledge.

Relatedly, confirmation bias leads us to seek out evidence that supports our position and interpret that evidence more favorably, while avoiding (and avoiding to take seriously) evidence that challenges our position.

Both of these represent cognitive barriers that can turn curiosity cancerously back on itself.

I’ve certainly seen it in immigration debates. And I’ve seen it from people across the political spectrum, both when I was involved in local immigrant rights organizing and in public discourse at the national scale.

Instead of seeking only to confirm our beliefs, real research is driven by genuine curiosity. Real research seeks out data and perspectives that disprove your own thesis. Real research rejects dogmatism.

One author that I’ve been reading a lot of recently, the psychologist Adam Grant, defines curiosity as “being driven by a particular question, but not a particular answer.”

I like this definition because it implies that we are still in charge of the questions. Curiosity is not giving up control over your entire way of thinking. But it does mean that we approach questions with a healthy degree of attachment from what we find.

Curiosity means being driven by a particular question, but not a particular answer.

The only thing I would add to Adam Grant’s definition (and I suspect he would agree with this), is that the best questions are not static questions but recursive questions.

Here’s what I mean. Static questions are one-off questions, usually the first questions that come to mind, and they tend to be simplistic and arrive in our brains embedded with a wide range of un-interrogated assumptions.

Recursive questioning means asking questions of your questions in an exploration that drives you deeper rather than towards a simple solution.

One of the benefits of adopting a curious mindset is that it opens doors to conversations with people who can provide more insight into how the immigration system works, perhaps in ways that we hadn’t thought about.

We have these enormously powerful social media platforms that put us in touch with thousands of experts and yet we are—collectively—squandering the opportunity to have rich interactions that lead to greater understanding.

Instead, we usually just argue and name-call.

Yet for all of the negativity on social media, I am always impressed at how generous professors, policy analysts, and experienced immigration professionals are with explaining things to me that I don’t understand.

These immigration scholars and experts are online because they care about public education, and they want to engage in good-faith conversations.

In fact, just a few months ago, a group of colleagues and I published an article together on the value of public scholarship. You can read more about that article (and access a pdf copy) here:

The Public Relevance of Geography: Why Academic Geographers Should Engage Beyond Academia

My personal belief in public scholarship is a foundational part of why I write this newsletter and why I value this form of engagement more than social media platforms.

By the way, if you’re looking for a good book to help you understand the closed-minded traps that we fall into, consider picking up Adam Grant’s book Think Again. The book does a great job of demonstrating how “mental flexibility” can help us think in less reactive, healthier, and more productive ways.

In that book, Grant says something that really stuck with me. He said, "Listen to ideas that make you think hard—not just opinions that make you feel good."

What do you think? Can we cultivate a culture of curiosity? Should we? If so, where should we start? Could curiosity be an antidote to misinformation?

Let me know what you think in the comments. I’m eager to chat. I am so curious to hear what you have to say.

Support public scholarship. Thank you for reading. If you would like to support public scholarship and receive this newsletter in your inbox, click below to subscribe for free. And if you find this information useful, consider sharing it online or with friends and colleagues.

Photo by Gary Butterfield on Unsplash