YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → COMM 10 SU26 Lecture 1

COMM 10 SU26 Lecture 1 — Transcript

by Gabe Jones · 14,771 words · 2,224 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01Hey, I'd like to introduce you to the
0:02bane of my existence. This is the
0:04California ground squirrel. And let's
0:06have him say a few words.
0:17Yeah. So, these guys live in my yard and
0:19they make this sound all day long. So,
0:21this particular sound is a warning to
0:24other ground squirrels. There's an
0:25aerial predator, so a hawk in the air
0:28that might come down and pluck one out.
0:30Um, they have a similar but slightly
0:32different, more metallic chirp. Um,
0:34that's a warning that there's a ground
0:36predator like coyotes. So, they have a
0:38distinction of how they're trying to
0:40communicate, trying to signal to each
0:42other of potential dangers.
0:44Interestingly, also, um, the same kind
0:47of whistling chirp you heard is their
0:49mating call, but somehow they know the
0:52difference. uh scientists when uh they
0:55played the mating call in non-mating
0:57season, the ground squirrels perceived
0:59as a predator. So they looked up in the
1:01air as opposed to like, hey, it's time
1:04to get it on. So um I raised this
1:06because okay, here's a communication
1:08system, but in a way is it communication
1:10the way that we want to understand it?
1:13So
1:21the communication scholar John Durham
1:23Peters at the University of Iowa notes
1:25that the etmology of communication its
1:26origins from Latin basically means to
1:28make common to share. But I would say to
1:31expand upon that it means to cocreate.
1:35So to distinguish between the ground
1:37squirrels you just saw what's happening
1:38in the ground squirrel system. It's a
1:40basic um signaling system that means one
1:43thing. Um it means there's a predator in
1:45the air. There's a bird that's going to
1:46come after you if you're not careful or
1:48the coyote is going to come after you if
1:49you're not careful. Um versus human
1:52communication where uh the meaning of
1:55something is co-created through the
1:58sender and the receiver. So, as you'll
2:00see in the relationships in Married at
2:02First Sight, um the meaning of a given
2:05statement is often um cocreated through
2:09the person who's speaking and the person
2:11who's listening as well as the product
2:14of the context they're in and the
2:16history of the dynamics between them. So
2:19the same utterance um if someone said
2:22the exact same sentence in one
2:23relationship, it can mean something very
2:26different in a different relationship
2:27because of that context because of how
2:30the sender is receiving it because of
2:32their history together. So welcome to uh
2:36introduction to communication com 10. Um
2:38you'll see a quotation from George Mard
2:40Shaw on the screen. The single biggest
2:42problem in communication is the illusion
2:44that's taken place. And that's partly a
2:46joke, but I think think also as with
2:48many jokes, it's reflecting on something
2:50true and real, which is that uh we we
2:53perceive that we're being understood.
2:55You know, a ground squirrel I don't I
2:57don't think has to worry when they're
2:59sending out the alarm signal of a hawk
3:01in the air, like will they understand
3:03me? Will there be ambiguity? So that's
3:05the distinction between again that
3:07simple signaling system that you often
3:09see in animal communication and the more
3:12um contextbased
3:14uh co-creative aspect of human
3:17communication.
3:19So um in talking about contemporary
3:21communication um earlier in 2026
3:24um United States uh invaded Venezuela to
3:28take out its uh its president Nicholas
3:30Maduro. Um, and a lot of tweets were
3:33sent out. A lot of, uh, social media
3:35posts, including this one, uh, that got
3:37a lot of attention. Venezuelans are
3:39crying on their knees thanking Trump and
3:41America for freeing them from Nicholas
3:43Maduro. I added English subtitles so
3:45that you can understand them. The people
3:47cry for their freedom. Thanks to the
3:48United States for freeing us, the hero.
3:51Thank you, Donald Trump. And I don't
3:53have it um playable in this slide, but
3:56uh what ensues is a video of a number of
3:58Venezuelans expressing gratitude to
4:01Donald Trump in United States uh for
4:03finally taking out the dictator Maduro.
4:06Uh as you're probably already guessing
4:07from this this screenshot, this is
4:09entirely AI generated. And my point here
4:12is that um
4:15that co-creation and communication can
4:17often be man manipulated. This is this
4:19will come to no surprise for anyone who
4:20spent much time on the internet or in
4:22social media over the last few years,
4:24but there's a heavy emphasis on trying
4:26to man manipulate public perception.
4:29That's something we'll also talk about
4:30in this class. Um, so building upon
4:33this, shortly after um that uh invasion
4:36of Venezuela, we started seeing a lot of
4:39social media posts uh like this one. Um,
4:42I'm so jealous. I want the same freedom
4:44and the same joy for Iran and the
4:46Iranian people. giving the appearance
4:49that um
4:52this freedom was being cried out for by
4:54[snorts] the Iranian people by or by the
4:56Venezuelan people. Uh that doesn't
4:58really do justice to the complexity of
5:00the ensuing aftermath um of of both
5:03actions,
5:05but really sort of simplifies things
5:07down to the basic simple idea of United
5:09States bringing freedom. So what we're
5:11seeing here is the cocreation of the
5:14idea of America, of the idea of war, of
5:17the idea of freedom and a particular
5:19definition of freedom as represented by
5:22a particular idea of America that is the
5:24product of complex acts of communication
5:27that cocreate both in the in the
5:30signaling as you see in these tweets
5:31that may or may not be from authentic
5:34active agents um or active people but
5:38sometimes are the product of agent
5:40system should be trying to influence
5:42public opinion to serve their own
5:44financial or political or military
5:46interests.
5:50Now, it may well be that you saw that
5:51tweet about Venezuela and you could
5:53immediately spot it was AI and thought
5:55like, okay, this is another example of
5:57manipulation of, you know, political
5:59actors trying to influence us. And if
6:02so, well done. Good spot. And obviously
6:05for UCLA, you have good critical
6:07thinking skills. And we like to think
6:09that logic and reason uh are how we
6:12navigate making sense of society of how
6:14we try to assess what is a given signal.
6:17What is communication for how people are
6:19trying to influence us. But I want to
6:22take a a step back and look at a few
6:24landmark studies in psychology and
6:26communication. In the course, psychology
6:28and communication are closely linked
6:30because when we're talking about
6:31communication, we're talking about about
6:33both the psychological processes that
6:35influence um what signals we create and
6:39try to make sense of why are we sending
6:41out those signals? What do we think
6:43we're doing? How do we think we're
6:44trying to influence people? How do we
6:46think we're trying to represent
6:47ourselves? As well as the psychological
6:49processes of influence um and behavior
6:52in response to signals. when I uh watch
6:55a television show and I get emotional,
6:57what's happening? Why is that? Uh and
7:00that's both a communication and a
7:01psychological problem. Anyway, so I want
7:03to go through a few influential landmark
7:06studies that chart a different way of
7:08understanding the question of
7:11are we reasonable people? Are we logical
7:13people? Do facts and logic uh change
7:16people's minds, how do we get influenced
7:18in complex societies? So this study by
7:22um Ross Leper and Hubard uh in 1975
7:26perseverance in uh self-perception and
7:28social perception biased attributional
7:30processes in the briefing paradigm. You
7:33can read the study on your own but
7:34perseverance here uh refers to the p
7:37perseverance of a particular idea um of
7:40something like how a particular
7:41perception perseveres in spite of
7:44conflicting evidence. And so the basic
7:46idea of what the study did was they got
7:49some people together to do a a basic uh
7:51test and they said like wow to half the
7:54group like wow you're really good at
7:55this and to the other group like wow
7:57you're really bad at this. Of course
7:59both of those allocations were
8:01completely made up. It was completely
8:02random. It had nothing to do with the
8:03actual performance of the people on the
8:05test whether they were good or bad.
8:06However, the perseverance of
8:09self-perception of like, "Ooh, I'm
8:11really good or I'm really bad at this um
8:14kept up even after the subjects uh in
8:18the research pool were told like, yeah,
8:20that was totally made up. It had nothing
8:22to do with your actual skills." So my
8:24point here is this this study was an
8:26early indicator from a scientific
8:29perspective of yeah people are much more
8:32likely to to stick to what they're first
8:35told in social settings because we're
8:36trying to make sense of you know what's
8:38my standing what's my status what group
8:40do I belong to what degree do I belong
8:42to them to what degree is my status
8:44within that group um solid and stable um
8:48so the idea is that once formed
8:50impressions are remarkably perseverant
8:53Um another study similarly that came out
8:56um about 5 years later uh by Anderson
8:58Leper again from the same study before
9:00and Ross also uh perseverance of social
9:02theories the role of explanation and the
9:04persistence of discredited information.
9:06This was looking at when we hear an
9:08explanation for a given outcome. Um do
9:11we stick to the explanation even after
9:14we're given contradictory facts or
9:16evidence? In this case again you can
9:18pause the video and read the abstract
9:20but the gist of it was
9:22They gave um subjects um stories about
9:26firefighters. Some were uh risktakers
9:29and some went by the book and in some
9:32cases the risktakers were rewarded by
9:34success in you know going in and being
9:37the hero and sometimes they created
9:39problems and so the question was um as
9:42they were trying to ask the subjects
9:43like do you think that uh risk-taking is
9:46a good thing or a bad thing? Do you
9:48think they should they should go by the
9:50book and go by their training or do you
9:52think sometimes they should take risks?
9:54And the folks who were given the
9:55scenarios where a risk taker was heroic
9:58and rewarded thought yeah okay uh
10:00risk-taking is a good thing. The folks
10:02who were uh were given scenarios where
10:04risk-taking was disciplined thought like
10:06okay it's not a good thing. And then
10:08they were told afterwards, okay, again,
10:10these were fictional stories. And
10:12however, that initial perception was
10:14perseverant. Um, uh, kept up as an as an
10:18explanation of is it okay to break rules
10:21or is it bad to break rules?
10:24Um, so yeah, even after the evidence for
10:26their beliefs um has gone away, people
10:29fail to make appropriate revisions in
10:31their perceptions and their explanations
10:33um of outcomes. So um to again take an
10:36even bigger step back uh one of the key
10:38insights of the study of communication
10:40is that humans biggest advantage as a
10:42species over other species is our
10:44ability to cooperate and communication
10:47fundamentally is the way that we ensure
10:50cooperation. You know we don't have many
10:52physical um advantages over other
10:56species. Our our bellies are soft. We're
10:58not especially fast. um you know,
11:01compare uh the claws um of bears or the
11:05the teeth of a lot of animals um and
11:08it's hard to compete with those those
11:10physical attributes. However, what we're
11:12really good at is cooperation and
11:15coordination. That's what gave us an
11:17evolutionary advantage over other
11:19species.
11:21So, communication serves as a way to
11:23coordinate that cooperation in groups
11:25and signal belonging and status within
11:27those groups. So fundamentally we we
11:30need to belong. Humans evolved to need
11:32to belong to groups because that's how
11:34we survived as individuals and as a
11:35species is our belonging to a group on
11:38the on our own. Again it's really
11:40difficult to survive.
11:42We're good at adaptation but for the
11:44most part we need to rely upon other
11:46humans for success within especially
11:49harsh environments. So we need to belong
11:51to groups and communication evolved as a
11:54way of signaling belonging. But here's
11:56the thing. Once you are in a group, you
11:59also are worried about status within
12:01that group. So we need we need
12:03belonging. We evolve to to need
12:05belonging within a group. But then once
12:07we are in that group, we need uh we need
12:10to feel that we are secure and we need
12:12to seek higher status within that group
12:14to feel okay that we are important
12:16within that group.
12:19So to survive and flourish, we need a
12:21ways to enforce cooperation as well
12:23because sure um we're really good at
12:25cooperating for a hunt to ensure that
12:28the different members of the hunt are
12:29able to track down um a herd of buffalo.
12:33Uh but we also need to make sure that we
12:36catch freeloaders. Um those who want to
12:39benefit from that cooperation without
12:41putting in the work in for a few
12:43reasons. One is um if you have too many
12:45freeloaders uh it can drain resources
12:48from the group but it can also tear down
12:51the sense of uh cohesion within that
12:54group because if I feel like I'm putting
12:56all the work in and I'm seeing other
12:58people get away with doing nothing, it's
13:00going to diminish the likelihood that
13:01I'm going to want to continue to put the
13:03work in. So we also needed ways to
13:05enforce that cooperation to catch
13:07freeloaders. Uh because a big part of
13:10social living is convincing others that
13:12rules are fair because if people
13:14perceive the rules aren't fair, you
13:16know, I'm putting all of this work in
13:17and I'm getting nothing out of it. Um
13:19and you can think of this both from an
13:21evolutionary ancestral uh component of
13:23again if uh we're all on the hunt, but I
13:26feel like I'm putting in way more than
13:28my tribes people are, then I'm going to
13:31feel like, well, is it really worth it
13:32to me put to put all this work in? Or
13:34you can think about it in modern um
13:36complex societies where if people spend
13:40uh their entire careers working uh
13:43following the rules doing what they were
13:44told and you know you might have heard
13:47stories about whether social security is
13:49going to be solvent by the time that you
13:51retire uh that can undermine your sense
13:54of faith in the system can undermine
13:56your sense that the rules are fair. So,
13:58a big part of social living, whether
14:00it's in uh ancestral conditions or
14:02modern conditions, is trying to get
14:05people to believe that the rules that
14:08govern society are fair. Uh also
14:10identifying cheaters so that um we we
14:13penalize those who are trying to
14:15freeload. Um and arguing about who
14:18should contribute and to what degree so
14:20that we're trying to figure out the
14:22social dynamics to ensure that we have a
14:25cohesive community. so that that means
14:27of cooperation stays stable. Uh as well
14:30as individually just justifying why I
14:32should or should not contribute. And
14:34think again about how this can play out
14:36in essential conditions as we're trying
14:38to figure out like who should go on the
14:40hunt and who who should stay behind or
14:42in present conditions um who should be
14:45able to benefit from social services. um
14:48and should our taxes go towards uh
14:50supporting social services for others
14:52and whether we should be charged taxes
14:54or whether um you know I should be just
14:57be able to take care of myself and other
14:59people should be taking take care of
15:00theirelves. Uh so we have different
15:02conflicting ideas of what our community
15:05uh is. And again obviously you see a
15:08close relationship between the word
15:09communication and community as we're
15:12talking about the construction of um
15:16ideas of of what we're trying to
15:19co-create and share as we define those
15:22rules for society.
15:24Um so let's also talk about reason going
15:26back to the studies to see how this all
15:28connects. Um I mentioned before the
15:30question of um we like to think that um
15:36that if we simply present others with
15:40facts and logic you know if we hear a
15:42political argument a social argument a
15:44cultural argument that we think is
15:46mistaken um you know about whether it's
15:48about about climate change or vaccines
15:50or some other um uh situation
15:54uh we like to think that if we simply
15:56prevent present people with here are the
15:58facts Okay, I understand that you think
16:00this, but here's the evidence. Look at
16:01these peer-reviewed scientific studies
16:04uh that uh refute what you're claiming.
16:06So, we expect them to change their
16:08minds. And as you've probably seen if
16:10you've ever tried to make an argument
16:11like this, it doesn't work. Uh for the
16:13most part, occasionally it might, but
16:16quite often facts and logic are not
16:19sufficient to change other people's
16:20minds. And if we're being honest with
16:21ourselves, uh facts and logic often
16:24aren't sufficient to change our own
16:25minds. As smart as we are, as educated
16:27as we are, as good critical thinkers as
16:29we are, reason alone is often not
16:31enough. Um, so let's talk about the
16:33evolution of reason and the role that
16:36reason plays in communication. So reason
16:38evolved, as I say here, not to enable us
16:40to solve abstract logical problems or
16:42even to help us draw conclusions from
16:45unfamiliar data, which is what we often
16:46think about from scientific work. Uh,
16:49but rather it developed resolve the
16:51problems posed by living in
16:52collaborative groups.
16:55Okay, what do I mean by that? Um, and
16:58this is uh much of this is taken from of
17:00influential book by the the
17:02psychological researchers uh Huga
17:04Mercier and Dan Spurber, The Enigma
17:05Reason. Fantastic book in case you want
17:07to read more about this. Reasoning helps
17:09humans uh persuade others, uh justify
17:12cooperation, argue about who is fair or
17:14unfair, identify freeloaders, like we
17:17were saying before, maintain social
17:19bonds. Um so all of this what you're
17:21seeing here is it becomes a way of
17:24negotiating the rules for a given
17:26society for a given community. So
17:28reasoning in communication is less about
17:30trying to involved um to be less about
17:34trying to identify what's the right
17:36position what's the best informed
17:38position based upon the evidence uh and
17:40it's more about trying to again persuade
17:43others influence people trying to
17:45justify why people should contribute and
17:47cooperate. So the idea here is that
17:49reasoning and communication more broadly
17:51evolve to help social interaction and
17:54group decision-m
17:56uh not to help us understand the world
17:58objectively. So I so I say all this
18:00because I want to understand like again
18:02why don't facts and logic necessarily
18:04change people's minds? Well, it's
18:05because our brains didn't evolve to uh
18:08to see the benefit of that. Um, and when
18:10we're talking about evolution, what
18:11we're fundamentally talking about is
18:13what helps us survive and reproduce. Not
18:18what is true, not what is right, but
18:21what helps us survive and reproduce. And
18:24quite often we might believe things that
18:26aren't true but help us better connect
18:29and cohhere that help us better navigate
18:32complex uh social problems that help us
18:35better
18:37understand our our place within a
18:39community. So
18:43um getting back to a few more studies to
18:45see how this all connects.
18:47One of the early studies that uh
18:49explored the impact of confirmation bias
18:52which many of you are probably familiar
18:53with. Confirmation bias is one of the
18:55most uh prominent cognitive biases. Uh a
18:58cognitive bias is simply a tendency in
19:00the brain to process information in a
19:02particular way. So when you think when
19:04you think of bias we often talk about
19:05bias like oh someone is biased against
19:08somebody else. And that's that's partly
19:09what we're talking about here. But a
19:11better way of understanding uh bias in
19:13this context is um a tendency to lean a
19:17particular weight. Uh so there have been
19:19some interesting studies where um for
19:22example people who are walking out um in
19:25the snow uh during winter when there
19:28aren't uh landmarks to tell you um you
19:32know you see a fence and it's easy to
19:34walk along that fence or there are trees
19:36to tell you like are you walking toward
19:38it or away it. When there aren't visual
19:40markers to tell you if you're walking
19:42straight, we tend to walk in a curve
19:46even if we think we're walking straight.
19:47And that's the way I would ask you to
19:48think about a cognitive bias is you
19:51think you're walking straight. You think
19:53you're seeing or thinking straight when
19:56in fact your brain naturally is is
19:58guiding you uh to walk in a curved way
20:01uh just because we have a tendency to
20:03walk in that that uh approach. uh in the
20:06same way that we tend to think um that
20:10we are seeing things true and accurately
20:13and as they are when our brains evolved
20:16often to process information in a biased
20:19manner because as I said before you know
20:21our brains um well I should say um
20:25evolution uh cares more about uh what
20:29helps us survive and reproduce. And so
20:31what that would tell you is in terms of
20:33thinking uh sometimes truth isn't
20:36helpful for um for having lots of
20:40babies. If if you if you give someone
20:42your really honest opinion of them, uh
20:45they may not be interested in you and
20:46therefore may not be necessarily
20:47terribly interested in uh reproducing
20:49with you. So we often give um you know
20:53nice flattering statements as part of
20:55the courtship courtship process uh that
20:59leads the likelihood of reproduction
21:01that serves evolutionary advantage. So
21:04in the same way um cognitive biases and
21:06there are I think by now we've
21:08identified a few hundred they're they're
21:10fascinating to understand u how the
21:12brain evolved to naturally process
21:14information a particular way and the
21:15important thing to understand is uh the
21:17way that contemporary researchers
21:19understand uh cognitive biases as
21:21they're not they're not flaws in human
21:23reasoning. They're not flaw sorry
21:24they're not flaws in the brain. they're
21:26actually features meaning that um at
21:30some point in the past and possibly in
21:32the present they serve an evolutionary
21:34advantage of helping us again survive
21:36and reproduce. So quite often uh there
21:39are fictions that are beneficial to
21:42helping us navigate the world that if we
21:45believe in um help us better um survive
21:48and cohhere and cooperate in groups. So,
21:52this study you're looking at, and again,
21:53you'll see some familiar names. Um, in
21:56this study, um, they asked people to,
21:59um, to read some evidence for and
22:02against capital punishment. And the
22:04subjects in the study, uh, some of them
22:06had, um, strong feelings for capital
22:09punishment, and some of them had strong
22:10feelings against it. And so, the
22:12question is, how would they view the
22:14evidence for and against capital
22:17punishment? Uh, and many studies have
22:19been done on this um, since then. not
22:22necessarily about capital punishment,
22:23but about various political and social
22:25and cultural arguments. And what they
22:27find over and over again is that people
22:29who are for capital punishment tend to
22:32be a lot more critical of the evidence
22:35against capital punishment and vice
22:37versa. So what we're doing here is using
22:40our confirmation bias. We're we're and
22:41sorry I should define confirmation bias.
22:44What that what that means is uh a
22:46tendency to um wait more or notice um
22:52evidence that supports your prior belief
22:56and ignore or dismiss evidence that
22:59contradicts your prior belief. So in
23:01this case,
23:03people who are for the for capital
23:05punishment are likely to heavily weight
23:07evidence that shows the benefits of
23:09capital punishment and dismiss evidence
23:12that suggests uh the negative aspects of
23:14capital punishment and again vice versa.
23:16So the point here is not that one side
23:18is wrong and the other side is right,
23:19but confirmation bias on both sides
23:22tends to weight evidence that supports
23:25my prior beliefs
23:28more heavily. So weight them more
23:29heavily.
23:31So um the idea here is the confirmation
23:34bias can be viewed as an adaptation as
23:36an evolutionary advantage to help us
23:39better survive and reproduce. Um so yeah
23:42the takeaway that I'm trying to lead up
23:44to is that reason evolved again to solve
23:46social cooperation problems not abstract
23:48logic. Uh and people are excellent at
23:51defending their beliefs and social
23:53contexts but they aren't especially good
23:55at changing those beliefs even when
23:57faced with facts. So communication
23:59becomes not necessarily a means of
24:01trying to figure out the true and right
24:03thing or at least it evolved uh not
24:05necessarily to figure out what the true
24:07and right thing is but to signal
24:10belonging signal status signal the
24:13values and norms that are appropriate
24:15for this community.
24:19So another study more recent from 2016
24:23uh in Hugo Messier um again one of the
24:25co-riters of the book I mentioned before
24:27the enigma of reason uh here they were
24:29looking at and I highly recommend that
24:31you read through the abstract I won't do
24:32it for you because you can read on your
24:33own but it's a pretty pretty funny study
24:35where uh people were asked to give
24:37arguments uh about a given instance and
24:40sometimes they were then subsequently
24:41given the same argument they wrote and
24:44were asked to evaluate as if it was
24:46someone else's like not realizing that
24:48was someone else's and they would often
24:49be much more critical um of their own
24:52arguments not realizing that they were
24:54their own arguments. So, as the last
24:56couple sentences say here, this
24:58demonstrates that people are more
24:59critical of other people's arguments
25:00than of their own without being overly
25:02critical. They're better able to tell
25:04valid from invalid arguments when the
25:06arguments are someone else's rather than
25:07their own. So, we do have the ability to
25:09think critically and reason. However,
25:12there's often a social cost to this,
25:14which is that if the argument is well,
25:16first of all, it's made by ourselves or
25:18made by let's say our tribes person um
25:21our our fellow uh tribes people um we
25:24tend to be less critical. So, what we're
25:26seeing here slowly emerging is how
25:28communication also evolved as a way to
25:32reinforce belonging within a group and
25:35reinforce others membership within a
25:37group. So we often tend to um apply
25:41confirmation bias um to arguments made
25:45in support of things we already believe
25:46or uh made by people that we um we are
25:50affiliated with. And so therefore what
25:52we also see is an in-group bias where
25:54we're biased towards those who share our
25:57group affiliation and biased against
25:58those who don't.
26:04Um so um Mercury and Spurber again the
26:07the writers of the book I'd mentioned
26:09before um have a different name for
26:11confirmation bias. They prefer to call
26:12it my side bias. And what they mean by
26:15this is a bias towards uh perceptions,
26:18beliefs, norms that come from my side
26:21and against perceptions or beliefs that
26:23come from the other side. So the reason
26:25why they draw a distinction here and
26:26call it my side bias is it really
26:28reinforces it really explicitly
26:31pulls out this idea that we we evolved
26:35uh to privilege communications signals
26:39from my tribe and evolved to be much
26:42more critical or to reject uh
26:45communications from the out group. So
26:48they argue that it survived confirmation
26:50bias or my side bias survived because it
26:52has an adaptive function related to
26:54humans hypersocial ability um
26:56socialability that is we we need to um
27:00cohhere in social groups to survive. So
27:02we are really prone towards wanting to
27:04socialize. Um so basically what they're
27:07saying is uh we evolve to avoid getting
27:08screwed over by the other members of our
27:10group. And you may find this in your own
27:13uh practices u in in friendship groups
27:15where um you might find yourself
27:18defending and um if if you really think
27:21about it, you might realize, wait a
27:23minute, maybe my friend's argument isn't
27:25right. However, we're often just driven
27:28to want to defend our friends uh because
27:31we want to demonstrate support as
27:34opposed to what's actually right or
27:35wrong. I'm not saying this is true for
27:37everyone, but I think it's a common uh
27:39tendency that really demonstrates the
27:42way that certain communication practices
27:43have evolved. Um, and this speaks again
27:45to ancestral conditions uh and concerns
27:48about belonging, status, social standing
27:50and freing like I mentioned before. Um,
27:53so this is one of the many as the
27:54writers say in which the environment
27:56changed too quickly for our cognitive
27:59processes to catch up. Uh and that
28:01becomes a key insight also from
28:02evolutionary theory where quite often
28:05the conditions
28:07of the environments in which our
28:09adaptations originally emerged change
28:12more rapidly than our brains or body's
28:15ability to adapt. And so quite often we
28:18are responding um the triggers uh that
28:21evolved as adaptations to help us better
28:24survive ancestral conditions aren't
28:27necessarily so good about helping us
28:28survive present conditions.
28:31Okay, now let's go to another study and
28:33and I'll eventually show how all this
28:34sort of fits together um of the concept
28:37of what's called the illusion of
28:38explanatory depth. Um this is from a
28:41book called the knowledge illusion which
28:42I think is is also pretty readable,
28:44pretty interesting book. Um, and so this
28:47looks at a few different studies about
28:48how we think we understand something,
28:52but we only think that because we are
28:55part of a group that includes members
28:58who really do understand something. What
29:01that shows you is that um communication,
29:06knowledge and belief are the product of
29:11social networks as opposed to individual
29:15understanding. So in the book they
29:17argued that people believe that they
29:18know way more than they actually do. And
29:20one of the studies that um uh that found
29:22this um looked at um had a a group of
29:27subjects where they asked like, "Hey, do
29:29do you know how a toilet works?" And
29:30they said like, "Well, yeah, of course."
29:31Uh, and they said, "Cool, explain it."
29:33Uh, and then once they once they were
29:35asked to explain it, they realized, "Oh,
29:36it's a lot more complicated than I
29:38realized." And what the study found was
29:41that we thought we understood it because
29:44we we have in our communities, our
29:47societies, um, plumbers, people who do
29:49understand the technical complex aspects
29:52of how a toilet works or how, um, uh, a
29:55car engine works or how other
29:57complicated pieces of engineering work.
30:01So,
30:03so we're relying on other people's
30:04expertise, which we've been doing since
30:05we figured out how to hunt together way
30:07back in ancestral conditions. And we
30:09collaborate so well that we can hardly
30:10tell where our own understanding ends
30:12and others begin. So, we sort of absorb
30:15the perception of mastery knowledge from
30:18other members of our group. So that
30:20really shows how we could see the brain
30:23as a social construct uh that that
30:26perceives it understanding from um the
30:29full membership of that community. So um
30:32an interesting takeaway from the book is
30:34that one implication of the naturalness
30:36with which we divide cognitive labor you
30:38know the work of thinking understanding
30:40is there's no sharp boundary between one
30:42person's ideas and knowledge and those
30:45of other members of the group which
30:46shows you how important uh that sense of
30:49group cohesion cooperation and the role
30:51that communication plays in shaping
30:54social um connections uh are. Um so this
30:59is certainly true about you know
31:01ancestral things like um blacksmithing
31:03where as a species we evolved to
31:07understand how to hunt, how to garden,
31:09how to build houses and okay maybe I
31:12don't understand how to do any one of
31:14those things but I understand my thing
31:16and other members of my community
31:17understand those things. And so we
31:19evolved to uh to carry that illusion of
31:22explanatory depth of the belief that we
31:25do know how to explain things. But if
31:27you press, we realize, oo, I guess I
31:28don't really know how a toilet works or
31:30how an engine works. And that's fine
31:32again for things like blacksmithing
31:34where we can outsource
31:36um uh the the blacksmithing to the
31:38blacksmith while I'm over here gardening
31:40and they're over there hunting and
31:42they're over there uh protecting our
31:44lands from potential.
31:46But that may not necessarily apply to
31:49complex modern problems like immigration
31:52um or uh or war about what to do in
31:54Ukraine. And I raised this because the
31:57same brain uh that same social brain
31:59that evolved to uh rely upon other
32:02members of the group to understand how
32:06to do blacksmithing and gardening um and
32:09hunting is now being used to also solve
32:13complex problems again like immigration
32:15or war or housing or health insurance.
32:19And because we're part of communities
32:21and I don't just mean part of America or
32:23California or Los Angeles. What I mean
32:25is people are often parts of uh
32:28discourse communities. Discourse is just
32:30like you know communication um uh the
32:33way we talk about a particular thing. So
32:34a discourse community might be um social
32:38conservative or progressive liberal or
32:41um any any group that shares a
32:43particular disposition um or attitude or
32:46belief about something. And so in the
32:48same way that we'll accept like you know
32:50John the blacksmith you know he mastered
32:52blacksmithing and I'll just um take uh
32:54what he knows and assume that we got the
32:57blacksmithing worked out will often rely
32:59upon a member of our disc discourse
33:01community. You know if if I happen to be
33:03a part of a particular political
33:04movement or belief I will trust the
33:07people um in my group um that they have
33:10the right policy on immigration the
33:12right policy on Ukraine or Iran or
33:15something else. And my point here is
33:16that okay uh we take we've taken taken a
33:19a particular cognitive evolved process
33:23that's um evolved over thousands of
33:26years to enable us to uh fit in within
33:31social groups in those ancestral
33:33conditions that we're now using to apply
33:35to very complex and challenging problems
33:39that maybe aren't the best place to uh
33:43outsource our understanding.
33:45understanding of immigration or war um
33:48or various domestic or foreign policies
33:52but we
33:54need to reinforce that group membership.
33:56So we'll simply accept like okay this is
33:58what my group says on immigration so
34:00I'll accept it's not like we you know we
34:01are constantly thinking that it's just
34:03that we absorb um from the group the the
34:07right the quote right position on
34:08immigration or war etc. Um, so as an
34:12example, let's talk about uh the
34:14previous uh invasion of Ukraine by
34:17Russia. So an interesting study was done
34:19back in 2014, shortly after Russia
34:21annexed the Ukrainian territory of
34:22Crimea. Uh, a study asked respondents
34:25how they thought the United States
34:27should react to this invasion and also
34:30whether they could identify Ukraine on a
34:32map. And the farther off base that
34:36people were about the geography, the
34:38location of Ukraine, the more likely
34:41they were to favor military
34:42intervention.
34:45And I'm not sure if I don't think the um
34:46the recording will capture my mouse, but
34:48I'm circling over it. But anyway, um if
34:50you're wondering, if you're not sure,
34:51Ukraine is the land mass right above the
34:54um or that uh protrudes into the Black
34:56Sea next to the huge land mass to the
34:58right. So basically um
35:03you got Russia on the upper right side
35:04of the map and then um the next country
35:07um at the bottom right above that little
35:08water mass is is Ukraine and uh Crimea
35:12the part part I just mentioned is the
35:13part that that extends into the Black
35:15Sea. So again as I said before the
35:17farther off base the the people were
35:19about the geography the more likely they
35:20were to favor military intervention. uh
35:23response were so unsure
35:26location were sometimes off by several
35:28hundred miles which just shows um how
35:31confident people uh can be um and how
35:34there's a direct correlation between
35:36short go in there um and having no idea
35:39where he even is. And therefore what
35:40they've done is um they've internalized
35:43the perception that they are experts on
35:46uh the military military intervention on
35:49foreign affairs uh on international
35:52politics. They assume that they
35:53themselves are experts because they know
35:56that there are genuine experts in their
35:59community who have communicated um uh
36:02policies on this issue. And even though
36:05in the same way that we don't understand
36:06the complexities of how a toilet works
36:09and yet because we know that there are
36:10plumbers in our community and therefore
36:12like we we know how how a toilet works,
36:15we sort of internalize that sort of
36:17social mind into also thinking that we
36:20know uh what's the right policy on
36:22Ukraine and how to handle the Russian
36:24invasion. Um and so this also extends to
36:27complex things like the Affordable Care
36:28Act or to vaccines. So um to underscore
36:32this point about the illusion of
36:33explanatory death depth this works well
36:36when we rely on genuine experts like
36:38blacksmiths but what about issues where
36:41uh my opinion is baseless where I don't
36:44know uh anything about how a toilet
36:46works or how health insurance works or
36:49how um uh a vaccine works. uh but um you
36:53rely it on it to form your opinion and
36:57your friend relies on your friend to
36:59form theirs and so on. Meaning sure this
37:02is fine when we we actually have experts
37:05who we trust um and listen to and who
37:08influence our understanding of how
37:10things are done. And toilets are pretty
37:13easy. If if um someone comes in to try
37:15to fix someone's toilet doesn't work, we
37:17know, okay, that didn't work. But um
37:19things like vaccines and health
37:21insurance uh policies um and uh uh
37:27immigration and war are much more
37:29complex and it's quite difficult to
37:31understand the relationship between
37:32cause and effect to know if something
37:34worked or didn't work. And so what
37:35happens if I base my opinion about what
37:38to do in Ukraine or um how to approach
37:41universal health care or vaccines or
37:43immigration? What happens if if um uh I
37:46base my opinion on someone who doesn't
37:48know what they're talking about, who
37:49isn't informed, however, that gradually
37:52takes the the community's understanding
37:54of what is right uh about this issue and
37:58confirmation bias kicks in and inroup
38:01bias kicks in uh to reinforce that
38:04social belonging, that sense of cohesion
38:06that's reinforced by the need to show
38:09affiliation, support, support for other
38:11members of my group. Um so that this
38:14extends to current contemporary
38:15political issues. So there's some
38:17complex things going on in the world
38:19journalism and newspapers lately. Um
38:23the um the owner of the Los Angeles
38:26Times, Patrick Sunung Chong,
38:29um decided to intervene in uh the
38:31editorial board's decision to endorse
38:33Kla Harris in the 2024 presidential
38:36election.
38:38um in part because um he shares some
38:43similar um political perspectives with
38:46Trump um and partly because he probably
38:50didn't want to anger Trump in in case
38:52Trump won, which he did. And this
38:55created the belief that uh okay, we now
38:57have um wealthy owners intervening in
39:01the newsmaking process and led the
39:04editorial chief to quit the LA Times.
39:07And something similar happened with the
39:08Washington Post around the same time
39:10where Jeff Bezos, of course, the founder
39:13um of Amazon
39:15decided to block his editorial board's
39:17decision to endorse Kla Harris and
39:20hundreds of thousands subscribers uh
39:21left the post and discussed over what
39:23they perceived to be um the wealthy
39:26elites intervention into trying to
39:29communicate to our community what is the
39:31right uh and and sensible direction to
39:34take with this election. And there are
39:36complicated reasons again why Basos
39:38wanted to intervene. Um ranging from um
39:41Basos argues that uh increasingly people
39:45are are losing faith in media because
39:49they believe that it is politically
39:51biased. Um he also argues that
39:56uh newspapers should not be in the
39:57business of endorsing candidates but
39:59should just be instead of giving the
40:01news. And you know there's something to
40:02that argument where um should newspapers
40:05really be uh endorsing a particular
40:07candidate and uh there's also the
40:09question of how influential is that? Do
40:11we really look to uh my newspaper to
40:14tell me who to vote for especially for
40:16something as high a profile as
40:18president? Sure, it might make sense for
40:20who should I vote for for uh this the a
40:24judge for the seventh circuit in the
40:26court of appeals where I may not be as
40:28informed about uh that race as I might
40:30be about the the president of the United
40:31States. So there's also all sorts of
40:34communication questions we can ask about
40:36um what's the right direction to take
40:38here with endorsements. Do endorsements
40:40work? Are they influential? To what
40:42degree are they influential? With what
40:44kind of voters are they influential? So
40:45these are all raising interesting
40:46questions. But to to circle back to the
40:49big question that's framing this, we
40:51look to experts to communicate what the
40:53right position um of on a given issue
40:56is. And we internalize that as that's
40:59what the group thinks because uh again
41:01communication's fundamentally evolved as
41:03a means of communicating the norms and
41:06values of the community so that the
41:09degree to which we also communicate
41:11those norms demonstrates the degree to
41:13which I belong to that community and
41:15demonstrate respect for and support for
41:18that community. So if we trust
41:21journalists and newspapers as experts to
41:23tell us like what's the right um leader
41:26to vote for and then wealthy elites um
41:30like Bezos intervene, we have an
41:33interesting conflict between two
41:34different groups of experts that are
41:36complicating our sense of what the right
41:39what direction to take is.
41:42And um some more fallouts of what
41:44happened with the Washington Post. um a
41:48uh a cartoonist who had worked for the
41:50Post for a long time who drew this image
41:52um you know a caricature of Trump who's
41:54famous for having uh long ties and then
41:57we have u Bezos, we have Elon Musk, we
41:59have Mark Zuckerberg uh each
42:02demonstrating feelalty. We also have of
42:04course Mickey Mouse uh pushing on the
42:06grounds representing Disney. all these
42:08corporate uh figures trying to
42:10demonstrate feelalty to uh to Trump and
42:14certainly Bezos and Musk um well I guess
42:16all of these have particular um personal
42:18interests in trying to uh garner Trump
42:21support especially Bezos who in addition
42:23to founding Amazon owns uh or founded uh
42:27a CEO of Blue Origin which is a space
42:28exploration company who's deeply
42:30concerned about losing government
42:32contracts uh Musk has been much more
42:34successful at securing government
42:35contracts because he has a much closer
42:37relationship
42:38to Trump. Uh, and Bezos is worried that
42:40because he also owns the Post and
42:43because the Post has been critical about
42:45Trump that that could anger Trump and
42:47therefore reduce the likelihood of
42:49securing government contracts to boost
42:51Blue Origin's um, financial prospects.
42:56Um, and Zuckerberg for his part, um,
42:59this is back in 2025, early 2025, um, a
43:03big news story was was going around
43:04about how Meta started getting rid of
43:06fact checkers. Um, so during the 2024
43:10presidential election, um, a lot of
43:12controversy both during and prior to it,
43:16uh, a lot of controversy was raised
43:17about to what degree were fact checkers
43:20politically biased. And that often was
43:21raised by the people who felt like the
43:24the fact checkers were checking their
43:26facts. So um now we have the question of
43:31as we're trying to figure out what is
43:34truth, what is right, what is real. And
43:36as you saw from an earlier slide,
43:40uh what is quote true or right or real
43:43is less evolutionarily important than
43:46what does our what does our group
43:48believe? What will strengthen social
43:50cohesion? what will allow us our group
43:52to survive and prosper and reproduce. So
43:55again we are carrying the the mechanism
43:57allowed us to evolve and flourish and
43:59prosper in a special conditions but now
44:02that same operating system that same
44:04mechanism that same tool we've carried
44:06into the present in very different
44:08environmental conditions to make sense
44:10of what is true and what what is real.
44:12Um, and so the question that Meta has to
44:15face is should we continue to rely upon
44:18fact checkers to try to correct
44:21misinformation and Zuckerberg
44:24made the decision to get rid of them uh
44:27because that was creating too much
44:29controversy for um for Facebook, for
44:33Instagram
44:35that was creating political problems for
44:38him uh and therefore financial problems
44:40for him. And so he figured, okay, the
44:41way to deal with this is just get rid of
44:43them. And he did acknowledge, yeah, more
44:44harmful content, meaning more
44:46misinformation about vaccines and other
44:49health matters, misinformation about
44:51immigration, misinformation about crime
44:54would proliferate. But what he argued is
44:57um I'm going to rely upon the community
44:59to uh identify misinformation to push
45:02back as opposed to have appointed
45:04so-called experts who will intervene to
45:07identify and stamp uh as false uh this
45:11misinformation. And so what we're seeing
45:13here again is uh an interesting uh
45:16contest between different ideas of the
45:19role that experts should play in society
45:23and the ways that the group as a whole
45:26internalize those experts opinions as a
45:29way to communicate what are the norms
45:31and values that our group um endorses.
45:35And continuing on this point about Meta
45:36ending the factchecking program, of
45:38course Zuckerberg was trying to curry
45:39favor with Trump uh upon his election
45:42because Trump had been quite critical of
45:44Zuckerberg and Meta u previously because
45:48um after the end of Trump's first term
45:50uh Facebook kicked Trump off um as did
45:54Twitter um and so that led Trump to be
45:57uh quite angry with both um and so now
46:00that Trump was was coming in as
46:02president again uh Zuckerberg was very
46:04concerned concerned about potential
46:05regulation, potentially Trump speaking
46:08out against Meta products and therefore
46:11seeing uh people flee those platforms if
46:14if Trump was able to successfully
46:16influence his followers to move away
46:18from. So again, what this shows is
46:21the way that what is true or real um
46:25often is more a reflection of what the
46:28community uh chooses to believe is true
46:32or real through communication practices.
46:34Um now let's talk about misinformation,
46:37disinformation more systemically. Um so
46:40in the leadup to the 2024 presidential
46:43election um so Infoscurity magazine is a
46:45trade publication that's read by
46:47information security professionals um
46:50and uh one article uh shortly after the
46:52election found that the United States
46:54confirmed that Russia uh gendered AI
46:57disinformation operations targeted the
46:59election to try to influence voters
47:01opinions. meaning there was the use of
47:03gendered AI uh to try to uh infiltrate
47:07various platforms whether it be Reddit,
47:09Meta, Twitter um I should say not Meta
47:12but uh Instagram and Facebook to try to
47:14influence people's beliefs and to uh
47:17play upon their um cognitive biases like
47:20inroup bias and confirmation bias to
47:22intensify passions against the outroup
47:25um uh folks such as people who come from
47:29different political parties uh to try to
47:31intensif ify and polarize attitudes. Um,
47:34another article from the same
47:35publication uh found that China was also
47:37using agenda content to sew division in
47:40the United States. Uh, and so the point
47:41is not only to try to influence
47:43political outcomes in a way that might
47:46be favorable to uh to their interest,
47:48but there's also um a frequent effort to
47:52try to sew division um which can tear
47:56down social cohesion within a community.
47:59So going back to ancestral conditions,
48:01you know, if we have two competing
48:02tribes, um you can either fight against
48:06that tribe in battle or you can do
48:11things that can uh spread chaos within
48:15that group. You can spread rumors that
48:17might spread within that group about um
48:20whether their leader said a certain
48:22thing that um might tear down that
48:24group's uh sense of connection. So um
48:28you see some interesting uses of
48:30disinformation, disinformation and
48:32especially the use of AI to try to uh
48:35sew dissent uh division and political
48:37chaos to try to influence political
48:40outcomes and social outcomes. Um and uh
48:43China and Russia aren't alone. Uh
48:45Microsoft also found that Iran
48:48uh engage in operation to try to
48:50interference interfere with the US
48:52election. So what you see here is and by
48:54the way I want to make clear it's not
48:55just like Russia and China and Iran are
48:57doing this um and US is um innocent.
49:01We're doing the same thing. So I'm not
49:02trying to make a political point here so
49:03much as I'm showing here how these
49:06evolved mechanisms to try to um both uh
49:11strengthen the social cohesion of of our
49:14group, our tribe, our position and also
49:17to try to divide and uh conquer other
49:21groups through communication practices.
49:24Um you see you can see a direct line
49:26between antial conditions and the
49:28present complex age. Um, so
49:34continuing on and talking about uh the
49:36use of propaganda to try to influence
49:37people's attitudes. Um, uh, in November
49:412025, um, Elon Musk made the decision
49:43to, um, show
49:47where um, accounts origins were from. So
49:50if you had a Twitter or X account, um it
49:53would now say like when you originally
49:55created it, you might have been like
49:56like live in Los Angeles and then it
49:58would say like okay your name and you
49:59know Los Angeles. Um and so there were
50:03many popular US political accounts that
50:05posted frequently um as if like I'm a
50:07true American and I believe this and I
50:10support this. And so the irony is that
50:12um once uh his new feature of showing
50:15where different accounts were from, it
50:18turned out that as you'll see here
50:21um accounts with names like Trump Army
50:24or Magnation X uh turned out they were
50:28often based in Eastern Europe or Asia or
50:30Africa. So again, what this shows is how
50:32easy it is to manipulate social media to
50:35try to influence people online. And I'm
50:39pretty sure that you probably know this.
50:40I'm not trying to make the point about
50:42like, you know, this this massive
50:43misinformation and propaganda online.
50:45The point here more broadly is how that
50:48misinformation and propaganda are trying
50:50to use the mechanisms of evolved
50:54cognitive biases to try to influence our
50:57sense of cohesion and group affiliation.
51:00Uh both in terms of intensifying
51:02in-group bias as well as intensifying
51:04outgroup bias.
51:12So yeah, there are lots of articles
51:13about um how these top mag influencers
51:16um were unmasked as foreign trolls
51:18trying to influence public opinion. Um
51:21and here's an article from the Guardian
51:23about foreign interference or
51:24opportunistic drifting. Why are so many
51:26proTrump exac accounts based in Asia?
51:28And I say this um I gave this article
51:30because uh indeed it might be about
51:32foreign interference trying to serve uh
51:34political interest or it may just be
51:36well this is making money and so it
51:38might be that if I push um proTrump
51:41propaganda people will buy my merch or
51:45uh watch my content and I can monetize
51:47that. So it's hard to really parse what
51:49exactly the motivations and goals um of
51:52the folks engaging this and it might be
51:54a bit of both or depending upon um what
51:57a given user is for one or the other.
51:59And now speaking of AI certainly AI has
52:02flourished and developed rapidly in the
52:05last few years. Here's a lovely picture.
52:07Did you know before uh Taylor Swift
52:10married Travis Kelce she had a lovely
52:12relationship with Kim Jong-un from North
52:14Korea. Of course, this is AI generated.
52:16Um, and I don't know whether anyone's
52:18grandma really thinks this is real.
52:20Certainly, there's both um widespread
52:22belief in AI generated images uh that
52:25spread political, social, cultural
52:27attitudes, but sometimes generational
52:30conflict leads people to think like the
52:31older generation doesn't really know
52:33itself. Who knows? Um, but this is a
52:35post of several pop stars um finding
52:38romance with several political leaders
52:40of various fame and infamy. Um
52:46here's a short video I made um uh early
52:49last year uh 2025 of uh a young woman.
52:52What was striking about this is I want
52:54to play it again. Um notice how the
52:56lighting changes. So this is a rapid
52:58evolution in AI's ability to try to uh
53:01fool detectors of fakes because you know
53:05you probably recall in the early years
53:07of AI jointed images um fingers uh were
53:11an indicator of uh it being AI because
53:14AI could not accurately represent uh the
53:16number let alone the the appearance of
53:18hands but gradually it figured that out.
53:21Um, lighting has often been used as a
53:23way to indicate whether it's fake, and
53:25it's getting better at that, as well as
53:27motion, for example, the complications
53:28of hair. Um, and
53:34and uh Will Smith, ironically, has
53:37become a uh a marker, a measure of AI's
53:40evolution. Um, and I'll post in the
53:42notes for this lecture um some some
53:45useful videos to show how rapidly AI has
53:48evolved. uh and you know all the stuff
53:50is entertaining and uh and amusing of
53:52course uh some ways it's not so amusing
53:55is that uh it can get increasingly mixed
53:59up in politics and again social
54:01attitudes. I'll also post a link to a
54:03New York Times uh article from from
54:052025. Um and you'll probably not have
54:10much difficulty. What was interesting is
54:12that when this article first came out in
54:14mid 2025, uh, a lot of people struggled
54:16to figure out which one was real and
54:18which was AI. Um, it's been over a year
54:21now and I think we're getting better at
54:23detecting as we're getting more, um,
54:25used to seeing I generate images, but
54:28uh, again, these would be images from
54:30over a year ago. Um, it would be
54:32interesting to see if there's an updated
54:34article from New York Times to see like
54:35how we would fare from more advanced
54:38images now. Um and uh yeah, so AI is
54:43increasingly everywhere. Um and uh it's
54:47taken over social media. There's even um
54:50in some circles the the belief in the
54:53what's called the dead internet theory,
54:55which is a bit uh heavy-handed, but the
54:57idea there is that uh human beings are
55:01not really engaging much in social
55:03media. That's largely bots talking to
55:04other bots. Obviously, that's meant to
55:06be um uh inflammatory and extremist in
55:10its representation of what's actually
55:11happening, but it's it's a useful marker
55:14of people's decreasing faith in uh the
55:19communications that they see online,
55:21whether they're legitimate. Um and uh
55:24one of the um
55:27the founders of Reddit, Reed Huffman,
55:31has a useful quotation where he says,
55:33"In trying in his his effort to try to
55:36address the infiltration of bots into
55:38Reddit for 20 years, we've been fighting
55:40people who have wanted to be popular on
55:42Reddit." Huffman said, "We index very
55:44well into the search engines. If you
55:45want to show up in the search engines,
55:47you try to do well on Reddit." And now
55:48the large language models, it's the same
55:51thing. If you want to be in the LLMs,
55:52you can do it through Reddit. And so
55:54what he's talking about there is uh
55:56Reddit has often been um a used as a
56:01marker of authenticity. Meaning uh if
56:04someone wanted to get an authentic
56:05review of a product, if someone wanted
56:07to get, you know, real, uh advice about
56:10a particular wellness practice, what
56:13they might do is uh Google search for
56:16whatever that product or service or um
56:20or practice is and add Reddit because
56:22then that would take them to threads uh
56:25where people are talking about it and
56:26saying like, "Oh, I don't know. I I
56:28didn't really like that product." Like,
56:29"No, it worked for me." and you would
56:30get actual human beings talking about
56:32it. So, Reddit has been historically
56:34pretty good uh or at least well regarded
56:36from an authenticity standpoint as you
56:39see the continuous arms escalation
56:41between uh efforts to try to detect uh
56:46deception or um dishonesty
56:50um and efforts to try to outf fox those
56:54detection means. And I would say that's
56:57in many ways um deeply intertwined in
56:59the history of communication is also the
57:01history of deception and the history of
57:04deception detection. Um, so when we're
57:07talking about um social media and
57:10Reddit, we're talking trying to talk
57:11about um as people are searching for
57:13legitimate information, what to trust,
57:15who to trust, because obviously there's
57:17a lot of money um wrapped up in trying
57:19to influence people to believe that this
57:22product, this service, this practice is
57:24the right thing to do. Not only um
57:26financial um power, but political power.
57:30uh sorted has a problem in trying to
57:32address the issue of the proliferation
57:34of bots into their site that can
57:36undercut the sense of authenticity of
57:38are these actual human beings with
57:41genuine motivation to try to inform
57:44others as opposed to influence them for
57:47motives other than authenticity. Um,
57:55and here's a quick uh study done a while
57:58back of um just a bunch of threads on
58:00Reddit, and you see a mix of bots and
58:04real people, and it becomes increasingly
58:06difficult to tell the bots versus real
58:09folks. Um, and as I mentioned before,
58:12the the history of deception and
58:14deception detection uh as that arms race
58:17of increasingly sophisticated ways of
58:19trying to catch fakes and uh increasing
58:23sophistication among the fates be fakes
58:25to become more and more uh lifelike. Uh
58:28it becomes more and more challenging.
58:30And so here's another um uh Reddit
58:33thread uh of some nice people who were
58:35just responding to a guy um who is going
58:38through some difficult uh times. And one
58:41response to the post says, "Hey man, I
58:44hear you and your feelings are valid.
58:46Everyone has their own journey and your
58:47worth is not defined by others. Take it
58:49one day at a time and you matter more
58:50than you think." Very nice. Very
58:52supportive. Another person says, "Hey,
58:54life is not and never will be a beauty
58:56contest. We're all out here trying to
58:57find our place in a world that can often
58:59make us feel insignificant. Also so
59:02sweet, so supportive. You know, just one
59:03human being out there trying to look
59:05after another uh human being. We're all
59:07mixed up in this crazy world trying to
59:09look after each other and take care of
59:10ourselves. And another person says,
59:12"This is hearts on repeat." Sure. Um,
59:14hey man, don't be so hard on yourself.
59:16Beauty is subjective. There's always
59:18someone out there who will appreciate
59:19you for who you are, not just for your
59:21looks. Keep pushing. Stay strong. You're
59:23more than your challenges. Remember, the
59:25night is darkest. It's just before the
59:26dawn. You probably guessed these are all
59:28bots. Um these are just simulating human
59:31communication. And these are nice. These
59:32are supportive. Um as they're responding
59:34to someone who is expressing concern
59:36about being rejected for their physical
59:38looks. Uh but sometimes whether they're
59:40bots or real people. There are people
59:42online um or agents online, I should
59:44say, um who are not so well disposed
59:48like like say this guy. So, there are
59:50plenty of people online like that that
59:52last poster um who are feeling insecure
59:55about their looks and it's nice that the
59:58bots are trying to be supportive, but
1:00:00there's plenty of instances also of
1:00:01trying to prey upon that insecurity and
1:00:05trying to motivate
1:00:07uh those those insecurities into anger
1:00:11into blame. Um so, let's hear from this
1:00:14guy.
1:00:15>> You want to know our number? This is
1:00:17unironically just true. The number one
1:00:20political enemy in America is women.
1:00:24Straight up. I'm just telling you. I'm
1:00:26telling it like it is. People might say
1:00:29it's Jews, it's Democrats, it's white
1:00:32liberals, it's leftists, it's the
1:00:33Chinese. Our number one political enemy
1:00:36is women because women constrain
1:00:39everything. Every conversation, every
1:00:41man, everything.
1:00:44So there's Nick Nick Fuentes who is um a
1:00:48prominent political agitator and
1:00:50certainly inflammatory, certainly
1:00:53offensive um has some very strong
1:00:56opinions and we might um we might debate
1:00:59about the degree to which he's being
1:01:01forthright and honest about his actual
1:01:02opinions versus just being a provocator
1:01:05uh to try to get clicks and likes. And
1:01:07certainly there are plenty of examples
1:01:08of people online who are intentionally
1:01:10inflammatory just because that's how to
1:01:12get attention in the crowded media
1:01:14landscape that we have today. So again
1:01:16this is also raising some interesting
1:01:18questions not only about uh how
1:01:21individuals um can get manipulated and
1:01:24influenced in online spaces as we're
1:01:27looking for belonging and a sense of
1:01:29status and purpose. And certainly that's
1:01:31contributed to the rise of what some
1:01:32people call the manosphere um in trying
1:01:36to draw uh young men who are feeling
1:01:39insecure about their place in the world
1:01:42um into feeling into blaming women or
1:01:45other groups for um for what they
1:01:48perceive to be their failings. So you
1:01:52also have the question of again
1:01:54authenticity and to what degree can we
1:01:56trust as authentic such expressions like
1:01:58this that uh may or may not uh represent
1:02:02Nick Fuentes's actual uh feelings. I
1:02:04wouldn't recommend looking too deeply in
1:02:06it because it becomes a pretty
1:02:08problematic rabbit hole, but there's
1:02:10always opinions. Um, so
1:02:16you want to know our
1:02:45And certainly the rise of um neo-Nazis
1:02:48in the United States. Um and um I would
1:02:52say racism more generally uh one could
1:02:54argue is a product of these complicated
1:02:57forces in social media that are
1:03:00benefiting from polarization. um an
1:03:03interesting recent book um American
1:03:05Reich and Murder in Orange County, you
1:03:07know, just south of Los Angeles,
1:03:08neo-Nazis and the new age of hate. Um
1:03:11looks into the ways that in part hate
1:03:13groups can often emerge from or are
1:03:15connected through online forums and
1:03:16networks. Um and he argues that this new
1:03:20age of hate that he mentions in his
1:03:21title is boosted by digital ecosystems
1:03:24uh and online spaces can increasingly
1:03:25serve as an infrastructure for community
1:03:28building and radicalization. So in the
1:03:30same way that we seek belonging and we
1:03:32seek status um if we what one way of
1:03:35looking at that is um if we don't find a
1:03:39sense of belonging or if we don't find a
1:03:41sense of status within mainstream groups
1:03:44uh we be we arguably can become
1:03:46particularly susceptible to groups that
1:03:49do give us belonging that do give us
1:03:51status. So we're trying to make sense of
1:03:53why do we see a rise of neo-Nazi Nazism
1:03:56why do we see the a rise in the
1:03:58manosphere? Why do we see a rise in in
1:04:01various hate groups uh that seem
1:04:03invested in polarization? Um it may be
1:04:06that the motivation is not so much
1:04:08hatred of others or outsiders, but that
1:04:10becomes uh a byproduct of the need for
1:04:13belonging, the need for status, the need
1:04:15for um a sense of of connection that
1:04:19these groups um offer people who feel
1:04:22otherwise left out um and like they
1:04:25don't belong. Um so continuing um with
1:04:29you know bots and a AI um practices
1:04:33uh there was a a pro a high-profile
1:04:35investigation into uh Donald Trump uh
1:04:39with allegations that he colluded with
1:04:42uh Russia to influence the 2020 2020
1:04:46election and uh Robert Müller was
1:04:48appointed as an investigator into Robert
1:04:52Müer is the former uh as a former FBI
1:04:54director um and uh in retirement was
1:04:57appointed to become uh the chief
1:04:58investigator into these allegations. And
1:05:01if you look at Mueller's actual
1:05:03statements, um, uh, they're pretty demic
1:05:06about, um, the degree to which allegedly
1:05:08Trump, uh, was involved with this. But I
1:05:10want to make clear this is not a
1:05:12political point but um
1:05:15a after the report came out that itself
1:05:18was uh uh was considerably redacted and
1:05:22watered down uh there was a
1:05:24proliferation of bots on Twitter that
1:05:27pushed the narrative uh that Russia
1:05:29quote Russia gate which is a term Trump
1:05:31coined um to say that this was a hoax uh
1:05:36heavily pushed that narrative. So there
1:05:38was an orchestrated campaign to push the
1:05:39perception that this investigation was
1:05:42all a hoax to try to bring Trump down as
1:05:45opposed to investigation into uh real
1:05:47evidence of of collusion. Uh so whether
1:05:52it be about politics or uh Hollywood,
1:05:55you know, lots of interesting things
1:05:56going on in the age of um of social
1:05:59media and bots. So, you may have also
1:06:01heard about the high-profile um legal
1:06:04case between Blake Lively and Justin
1:06:06Baldoni uh involving the movie uh It
1:06:09Ends With Us. And so, the the short
1:06:11version, some of you probably know a lot
1:06:13more about this than I do, but the short
1:06:14version is that uh Blake Lav was
1:06:16starring and I believe producing the
1:06:18movie. Justin Baldoni was directing the
1:06:20movie. They had a difference create a
1:06:21difference um of opinion about how the
1:06:23direction the movie should take. Um and
1:06:26allegedly u Baloni may have engaged in
1:06:29sexual um uh improprieties on the set
1:06:32that alleged by uh by Lively and um
1:06:38after the uh the court case was was
1:06:42filed um an interesting high-profile
1:06:46article came out New York Times
1:06:49uh that alleged that Belon had uh had
1:06:52hired a PR firm to engage in campaign to
1:06:56tarnish Blake Lively. Um I'll I'll give
1:06:58a link to this article in the notes as
1:07:00well. Uh but as you see here, uh a
1:07:03quotation from the the chief um the head
1:07:06of the firm, We Can Bury Anyone, uh and
1:07:08private messages detail an alleged
1:07:10campaign to tarnish Blake Lively after
1:07:11she accused Justin Baldon of misconduct
1:07:13on the set of It Ends With Us. And I I
1:07:15mentioned this in particular both
1:07:16because it's a high-profile case, but
1:07:17also because I recall seeing this in
1:07:19real time where uh as I was reading
1:07:21through Reddit just, you know, killing
1:07:23time and I was seeing a lot of people
1:07:25express um negative attitudes towards uh
1:07:30Blake Lively and I'm like where where's
1:07:32all this Blake Lively hate? I I confess
1:07:33I don't have opinions about Blake Lively
1:07:36either way. I think I've seen her in one
1:07:38movie. Um she seemed good. Uh but I
1:07:40don't I'm not a fan and I don't have any
1:07:42negative feelings toward her either
1:07:43other than she's someone doing a job. Um
1:07:46but I find intriguing when there are
1:07:47strong feelings about celebrities and
1:07:50you know certainly you know we all have
1:07:52the people we love. Um you know there
1:07:54are plenty of uh fan groups. Some are
1:07:57very fervent in their love for the
1:07:58celebrities and they're also hate
1:08:00groups. There are some interesting uh
1:08:02snark uh subreddits where um people are
1:08:05deeply invested in snarking on and
1:08:08hating on uh various celebrities. Um
1:08:11sometimes it gets uh a little
1:08:13pathological. Um, and there's mentioning
1:08:15communication questions to be asked
1:08:17about both what's happening in the
1:08:18parasocial relationships that fans have
1:08:21with celebrities as well as uh what's
1:08:24driving the hate um for various
1:08:27celebrities and is it about you know out
1:08:29groupoups feeling excluded and therefore
1:08:31wanting to attack um other groups or um
1:08:34is it because those celebrities
1:08:35represent or espouse values that people
1:08:38want to try to push back against? So, um
1:08:42the the gist here is that
1:08:45allegedly Baldoni um hired a PR firm
1:08:48that uh engaged in a stealth propaganda
1:08:51campaign to try to undermine Blake
1:08:54Lively's reputation and it had ripped
1:08:57effects where um her company has seen
1:09:00losses of of tens of millions um as
1:09:04people no longer have the same positive
1:09:06image toward Lake Lively. So, it's
1:09:08interesting how easily uh group
1:09:10attitudes can be influenced. Um, and
1:09:13continuing with the article, uh, I'll
1:09:15read this too. Miss Lively's lawyers
1:09:16assert that through strategic
1:09:17interactions with the news media and
1:09:19manipulation on social media, Mr.
1:09:21Baldon's crisis team worked to quote,
1:09:23disparage Miss Lively's character and
1:09:25discredit any allegations that might
1:09:27arise about Mr. Baldon's onset behavior
1:09:29by boosting derogatory content about
1:09:32Miss Lively alongside content about Mr.
1:09:34Baldoni. And the point is not whether a
1:09:36Baldonia is good or bad or Lively is uh
1:09:39good or bad. The point is how we're
1:09:41seeing um attitudes about either being
1:09:45influenced. And I'm trying to connect
1:09:47this back also to um the early things we
1:09:50talked about in this lecture about how
1:09:52susceptible we are to impressions and
1:09:55how perseverant those impressions can be
1:09:58as we're looking to the group to
1:10:01determine what are the norms and values
1:10:04because uh as we're seeing communication
1:10:06practices uh unfold for what the group
1:10:09is telling us. Um we are learning you
1:10:12know um to belong to this group we have
1:10:15these attitudes um we have these beliefs
1:10:17we have these values. I demonstrate that
1:10:20I belong to this group by voicing those
1:10:22attitudes those values those beliefs. So
1:10:25we evolve to um to look to the group to
1:10:29understand um what what does the group
1:10:31believe and then we also engage in the
1:10:34communication practices that reinforce
1:10:36those beliefs to demonstrate our um our
1:10:39belonging to the group. Um and
1:10:42continuing to talk about celebrity news.
1:10:44We also have an interesting case of
1:10:45Amber Herd and Johnny Depp and the
1:10:47high-profile case from a few years ago.
1:10:49Um and so people had strong feelings
1:10:52about both there before the trial.
1:10:54People had some very negative attitudes
1:10:55towards death. After the trial, people
1:10:57had some very negative attitudes about
1:10:59Amber Heard. If you watch the trial, you
1:11:01probably have some opinions as well. Um,
1:11:03but for our purposes for the class, what
1:11:05we're interested in is um what's
1:11:07influencing these attitudes? Um, and how
1:11:11are we influenced by other people's
1:11:14communication practices to then form our
1:11:18opinions about these celebrities?
1:11:22>> Certainly a
1:11:25harassment against
1:11:45really connects I think also to some of
1:11:47the attitudes you heard earlier from
1:11:48Nickus and his message.
1:11:55Subways.
1:12:15investigations
1:12:17or she did not understand
1:12:22like
1:12:26if I did have an opinion
1:12:31wouldn't be meaningful for trying to
1:12:33shape anyone else's opinions
1:12:35That's a case to understand my views
1:12:39influenced
1:12:41by
1:12:45my attitudes were influenced.
1:12:51So um
1:12:55so again this all connects to um not
1:12:58just the individual case of Amber and JD
1:13:02but also broader attitudes about
1:13:04feminism um misogyny against um some
1:13:09people's ideas that feminism has gone
1:13:11too far and it needs to be push back
1:13:14against the backlash against
1:13:18is to try to speak out
1:13:22against domestic violence
1:13:24clash against the me too movement. So
1:13:27this gets connected to much larger
1:13:30social and cultural attitudes and
1:13:32weaknesses. Um and what's interesting
1:13:35about this
1:13:46or um
1:13:54some examples.
1:13:59I'm sure United States has engaged that
1:14:01too.
1:14:07orchestrated the
1:14:10I want to make clear certainly there are
1:14:12plenty of people have actual human
1:14:14beings who strong feelings about a so
1:14:18I'm not saying that those people were
1:14:19inauthentic what I am saying is did
1:14:22their passions get stoked by an echo
1:14:27chamber of inflammatory statements about
1:14:31anger that may or may not be true may or
1:14:33may not be cherrypicked that intensify
1:14:36provide our existing attitudes of being
1:14:38given um that may partly have
1:14:42influenced those attitudes. So those
1:14:45those beliefs or attitudes towards Amber
1:14:48heruthentically
1:14:50generated
1:14:53particular group those people were
1:14:57so
1:14:59article
1:15:01into also the relationship between
1:15:06France
1:15:08from Saudi Arabia as India is trying to
1:15:10think about where Saudi Arabia go in
1:15:12post oil world and he's trying to toy
1:15:15their economy and he's trying to
1:15:17Hollywood in Saudi Arabia and posing up
1:15:20with you know highprofile
1:15:24also arguments not only about okay
1:15:28someone who I want to
1:15:31up to to try to build up my
1:15:35And there's part of that too, but also
1:15:38there are some interesting political
1:15:39complications going on with the United
1:15:41States and Saudi Arabia. At least there
1:15:42were at the time and so uh some
1:15:49there may be some benefit
1:15:52to agents
1:15:54sewing division in the United States. So
1:15:58this connects also to some of the
1:15:59articles you see earlier from the
1:16:01security magazine.
1:16:04uh is there a political advantage to
1:16:07trying towards trying to sew division
1:16:11within you know the the out group to try
1:16:15to undermine cooperation.
1:16:17So again going back to evolutionary
1:16:19neutral uh
1:16:23communication
1:16:25cooperation
1:16:32as a species a strong way of trying to
1:16:35cooperate and coordinate our efforts.
1:16:38So we need cohesion to support
1:16:44cooperation. If you don't feel cohesive,
1:16:47if if we're in a group where uh people
1:16:50don't trust each other, it undermines
1:16:52ability to work well together, it gives
1:16:55an advantage to opposing groups. So
1:16:57there's an evolutionary reason for uh
1:17:00this effort to try to sew divisions in
1:17:04complex societies as well. Um so you see
1:17:07another article in public corner about
1:17:09um you know this rant like between the
1:17:11Saudi prince and um and it's not just in
1:17:15Hollywood Yeah.
1:17:33All right.
1:17:53supported but was killed because
1:17:57subsequent
1:17:59support was arguably
1:18:05here's a post by Elon Musk from earlier
1:18:082026
1:18:12America's
1:18:15most ethical
1:18:18is using intentional extremist language.
1:18:21They will they'll open to illegal
1:18:22immigration fraud. Again, inflammatory
1:18:24phrasing won't be America anymore. Uh in
1:18:27order to
1:18:30support a a particular political
1:18:31platform
1:18:33and more broadly, we've seen an uptick
1:18:37in what's called slime in newspapers.
1:18:42Historically, newspapers have been used
1:18:43obviously as a means of understanding
1:18:45what's going on in our community,
1:18:46whether community be um local or state
1:18:50or national. Um and newspapers have
1:18:52played a foundational role in shaping
1:18:55our sense of what a community is. You
1:18:57know, a community is basically a people
1:19:00communicating to each other and you know
1:19:02the news that we hear the figures what
1:19:06we learn about like through gossip and
1:19:08you know sometimes people think gossip
1:19:10is bad. I want to make clear that gossip
1:19:11is a grand evolutionary driver to
1:19:14understand what is okay, what's not
1:19:17okay. Um what will happen if you break
1:19:20the rules um what kind of practices will
1:19:23get you high status. So gossip plays an
1:19:25important role in informing us of what
1:19:28should be doing uh and what we shouldn't
1:19:30be doing and what the consequences are
1:19:31of both. uh and so in newspapers uh
1:19:33whether it be for your local town, it be
1:19:35for Los Angeles uh you know newspaper
1:19:39the prominence of the New York Times and
1:19:41Washington Post and
1:19:43the newspapers in other cities but
1:19:45they're really standing as national
1:19:48is increasingly due to the media um we
1:19:52we have a much stronger sense of
1:19:54community nationally
1:19:57than we do you know state in terms of
1:19:59the news that we look to to understand
1:20:01what's going on uh and certainly the uh
1:20:04the heavy focus on the president uh
1:20:07either on the governor or the mayor uh
1:20:09demonstrate the degree to which we're
1:20:11we're linking in newspapers to
1:20:14I would say news media more broadly to
1:20:17understand what is our community what
1:20:19are the issues important to our
1:20:20community and how do we reinforce the
1:20:22those stories that we tell so
1:20:26the rise of of what pelon
1:20:29refers to the fake newspapers that give
1:20:34the appearance the illusion of real
1:20:36newspapers
1:20:38that that run articles that that have
1:20:42the thin appearance of being legitimate
1:20:46news articles in what you might see in a
1:20:49paper like the the post or show or
1:20:53something but have a slant that's trying
1:20:56to influence identity. It's about
1:20:59health care about
1:21:03etc. And pixel itself as a term refers
1:21:06to um a practice in food restaurants
1:21:10where
1:21:12beef in hamburgers
1:21:14non-nutritious pink slime um that just
1:21:18it serves as filler but there's no
1:21:20content there. So it becomes a metaphor
1:21:23analogy uh to um you know this idea of
1:21:25filler with no content. Uh the same
1:21:28thing that you have you have a newspaper
1:21:29that has like articles but there's no
1:21:31substance there's no real
1:21:34news there. Um and here's another
1:21:36article that shows how like uh local
1:21:39news outlets um uh are erupting all over
1:21:43uh to try to influence attitudes about
1:21:45like local mayor elections, judges, um
1:21:48different local figures to try to
1:21:50influence who we vote for. And you know,
1:21:52most voters may not have the time to
1:21:54really invest really uh investigate
1:21:57every single election and know who to
1:21:58vote for. So they'll look to um some
1:22:01paper, some some local paper to like,
1:22:02okay, who should you who should you vote
1:22:04for? Uh that can heavily sway the
1:22:07outcomes of an election. So when I talk
1:22:09about uh pink slime, I'm talking about
1:22:11um newspapers that give the appearance
1:22:14of local flavor. You know, your local
1:22:16town. Like if you live in Ohio, you
1:22:18might look to the Buckeye Reporter
1:22:19because Buckeye is a nickname for
1:22:20someone from Ohio or the North Boston
1:22:23News or the Cape Cod Ledger or the Santa
1:22:26Clara Today or the San Diego City Wire.
1:22:28And it might seem like I typed this out,
1:22:30but but these are actually screenshots
1:22:32uh snippets of the actual mashed heads
1:22:34of every single one of these actual
1:22:36newspapers. So if you Google it, uh
1:22:38you'll you'll find this exact same font.
1:22:40So you'll see something consistent going
1:22:42on where it gives the appearance of
1:22:44local flavor of just like you know your
1:22:46local Cape Cod news when in fact it's
1:22:49very much orchestrated by um by national
1:22:52or international figures trying to
1:22:54influence uh our attitudes and beliefs
1:22:56and who we vote for um or the West Times
1:23:00can Grand Canyon Times, West Cook News,
1:23:02Detroit City Wire, Tucson Standard,
1:23:04Phoenix Reporter, North Kuma News, etc.
1:23:06and all these different papers. So, uh,
1:23:09to be clear, this is nothing new. Um,
1:23:11and if you recall from US history, if
1:23:13you took it in high school, you know,
1:23:15yellow yellow journalism
1:23:17certainly had its heyday, uh, trying to
1:23:20push uh, strong political agenda to make
1:23:23it seem like this is the right one and
1:23:25anyone who has different opinions is has
1:23:27the wrong one. Um, and then we had the
1:23:29rise of objective journalism in the 20th
1:23:33century that attempted to bring a more
1:23:36fact-based approach. But what I would
1:23:38say is increasingly we're seeing a shift
1:23:40more towards opinion-based journalism.
1:23:42Certainly, there are still outlets that
1:23:44attempt to do objective fact-based
1:23:46journalism, but we're seeing a rapid
1:23:47decline and erosion in support for that
1:23:50approach to journalism and a rise toward
1:23:52opinion-based journalism, whether it be
1:23:54in social media um or in in um uh
1:23:58television uh news that we look to
1:24:00because that bring that stoime, it
1:24:02strokes passions, it it strokes emotions
1:24:06um that speak to much more primal human
1:24:09instincts than the more objective
1:24:12factbased approach which connects again
1:24:14to what we said said earlier on in this
1:24:16lecture about uh the role that um group
1:24:19communication can play in in shaping
1:24:22public opinion um and the role that
1:24:25facts and facts and logic can play. We
1:24:27often want to believe that facts and
1:24:29logic can convince people and we find
1:24:31through both research and contemporary
1:24:33examples like I've just spent um talking
1:24:36about not so much the case. Um
1:24:40but um there are plenty of commission
1:24:42scholars that are attempting to uh
1:24:44dissect this. So here's one uh at the
1:24:46University of Virginia who um uh studies
1:24:51uh the proliferation of bots and the
1:24:53identification of bots. So I want to
1:24:55make clear that um in some ways
1:24:57communication scholars uh are the heroes
1:25:00of this story um where experts can serve
1:25:05um a a public role in identifying uh
1:25:09both the presence proliferation and
1:25:11influence of bots on on public opinion.
1:25:15Um, and I'll I'll leave this here as a
1:25:18as a quotation from the article from one
1:25:20researcher about what's going on here
1:25:22just as an example of the kind of
1:25:24research the kind of questions that
1:25:25researchers are looking into. Um,
1:25:30and continuing on the same article as uh
1:25:32he notes traditionally bots play a major
1:25:33role in spreading misinformation,
1:25:35disinformation with generative AI that
1:25:37can create content tailored to specific
1:25:38audiences using humor, memes, and even
1:25:40sarcasm to make messages more
1:25:42compelling. This makes it easier for
1:25:43bots to sway public opinion or mislead
1:25:45people on important issues. So, I say
1:25:47all this because um you know, as we're
1:25:49trying to figure out um what do we
1:25:52believe, what do we know, what do we
1:25:53think is true, who do we trust, what
1:25:55experts do we look to, um why do we
1:25:57trust them, uh you know, we evolve as a
1:26:00species, as individuals to um to trust
1:26:03our tribe, to trust the elders in our
1:26:05tribe to determine uh what's the right
1:26:08belief, what's the right set of values.
1:26:10And we reinforce those through our own
1:26:12communication practices of um of
1:26:15repeating them um and uh demonstrating
1:26:18our support for them and trying to
1:26:20reinforce them, reproduce them for
1:26:22others. But those evolved tendencies,
1:26:23those evolved practices now in the
1:26:25modern um information ecosystem get
1:26:28harnessed uh get manipulated by agents
1:26:31like AI and bots uh to easily sway
1:26:35public opinion um and lead to outcomes
1:26:38that we might not otherwise have chosen.
1:26:41Um and um some recent studies have found
1:26:44for example as you see here chat bots
1:26:46can sway political opinions but are
1:26:48substantially inaccurate that he finds
1:26:50information dense AI responses are most
1:26:52persuasive but um these tend to be less
1:26:54accurate. So what we see here is our
1:26:57reliance upon the appearance of
1:27:00knowledge that often undercuts accuracy.
1:27:03Um and I'll leave this here for you to
1:27:04read through. um some interesting recent
1:27:06articles uh in Nature and Science, two
1:27:09high-profile
1:27:10um scholarly journals uh that um that
1:27:14speak to that um that finding I just
1:27:16mentioned um about the role that chat
1:27:18bots and AI can play in political
1:27:20campaigns. Um and here's a study
1:27:22recently also that's worth noting about
1:27:24um how voters are persuaded using um AI
1:27:28dialogues. Um and here's the abstract
1:27:30which you can look through. So, I'm
1:27:32giving you a a a range of different
1:27:34kinds of communication studies that show
1:27:36the impact of communication practice and
1:27:39signals on outcomes, whether it be
1:27:42political or social uh outcomes. Um,
1:27:45that also speak to like how humans as a
1:27:47as individuals and as a species evolved
1:27:50to process information uh process
1:27:52communication signals.
1:27:55Okay. So in sum to wrap up what we've
1:27:58seen through this lecture is that again
1:28:01communication evolved as a means of
1:28:03trying to signal belonging um you know
1:28:06we we can't survive on our own very
1:28:08easily. So we need to belong to a group
1:28:10that can increase the chances that I can
1:28:13survive and reproduce. Um and it's not
1:28:16that necessarily uh human purpose is to
1:28:19reproduce but we are here um because our
1:28:23ancestors were successful in that and so
1:28:26um our behaviors were optimized um to
1:28:29promote those those uh those practices
1:28:32that best supported uh survival and
1:28:34reproduction um because the folks that
1:28:36didn't didn't survive to pass on their
1:28:38genes. So um we need to belong um and we
1:28:42need ways to signal belonging to feel
1:28:44like we're part of something meaningful
1:28:46to give us a sense of purpose. Uh but
1:28:48the again the moment that we belong uh
1:28:51to a group we also want status both to
1:28:53ensure our ability within that group and
1:28:56also because um status uh allows us to
1:29:01often command better resources within
1:29:03that group. um you know, if we're more
1:29:05attractive, [snorts] um if we have more
1:29:07resources, um and and when I say
1:29:10attractive, I don't necessarily mean
1:29:12conventionally attractive. I mean um how
1:29:16do signals of attractiveness, what we
1:29:18wear, how we um do our appearance, um
1:29:23the indicators, the symbols, the signs
1:29:26of status, um how we use them or
1:29:29manipulate them to to signal our value
1:29:33to others. uh these can all be seen as
1:29:36communication practices as communication
1:29:38signals uh that we're trying to engage
1:29:41in to try to increase our status within
1:29:43a group to therefore command more
1:29:45resources uh more high-profile resources
1:29:48that reflect better upon us. And so this
1:29:50this plays out in a number of ways as
1:29:52you'll see through the remainder of the
1:29:53course. you know, obviously we're about
1:29:54we're in the midst of analyzing um some
1:29:58complex relationships in your first
1:30:00sight. And the goal there um in the next
1:30:02lecture I'll focus more on the
1:30:03individual theories of interpersonal
1:30:05communication, but the goal there is to
1:30:07understand um getting back to that
1:30:09definition of communication as the the
1:30:12the shared co-construction of meaning.
1:30:15Not like those ground squirrels where
1:30:17there's no ambiguity. Um this chirp
1:30:19means there's a hawk flying overhead. Uh
1:30:22whereas in human communication there's a
1:30:25lot of ambiguity and uncertainty because
1:30:27um again the same expression the same
1:30:29phrase said in one context said by one
1:30:32person in one relationship can have a
1:30:34very different meaning um in a different
1:30:36context in a different relationship or
1:30:37even in a different time in the same
1:30:39relationship because meaning is
1:30:42cocreated. That's what communication
1:30:43means that comm that with uh we are
1:30:46sharing the construction of meaning. And
1:30:49so we're talking the set of
1:30:50communication. We're fundamentally
1:30:51talking about how meaning is
1:30:53co-constructed through sender and
1:30:55receiver within a particular context.
1:30:58And how we can dissect, how we can
1:31:00analyze uh both the causes um of why a
1:31:04particular signal was sent um and the
1:31:08the causes of why a particular signal is
1:31:10interpreted the way it is based upon the
1:31:12history, the dynamics, uh the context.
1:31:16And we also want to look to um the way
1:31:19that um well getting back to merit at
1:31:21first sight uh the way that a
1:31:23relationship is itself uh a
1:31:26communication construct. A construct is
1:31:28something that is built uh that doesn't
1:31:30exist out in the world but it's
1:31:32something that is it's constructed
1:31:33through social practices through through
1:31:35communication practices. So relationship
1:31:37is continu is is continually being
1:31:40built, redefined, evolved uh through
1:31:43communication practices which makes it I
1:31:45think such an interesting text mind at
1:31:46first sight um to apply these these
1:31:49theories that we're learning about to
1:31:51see how individuals um uh strengthen
1:31:55their sense of connection to others or
1:31:58retreat. Um how how they uh they try to
1:32:02move towards uh decreasing uncertainty.
1:32:06um how they signal in every statement
1:32:09both uh the content of their um their
1:32:13the meaning like you know um if um if
1:32:17one member comes home and the other
1:32:19person says how was your day obviously
1:32:20that's just a question of like hey
1:32:22please inform me of of how your day went
1:32:24but that's also a signal of relational
1:32:26value. So as you saw in the reading um
1:32:29every expression can be analyzed both in
1:32:31terms of its content value. What's the
1:32:33explicit meaning um of the statement as
1:32:36well as the relational value. How does
1:32:38this expression signal uh how I feel
1:32:41toward you and and we can analyze that
1:32:44every expression in uh the relationship
1:32:46you chose in married to first sight to
1:32:48understand uh what's being signaled both
1:32:50in terms of content and relational
1:32:52value. Um, so as we continue to talk in
1:32:54these lectures, what I'll try to do is
1:32:56is um, you know, apply specific examples
1:32:59um, of these theories to see like how
1:33:02are they applicable to help us make
1:33:03sense of how human beings construct
1:33:06meaning um, construct relationships,
1:33:09represent identity, um, and you know,
1:33:12how we therefore construct the social
1:33:14world. So, thanks for watching. Um, I'll
1:33:16post more shortly. Bye.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of COMM 10 SU26 Lecture 1 by Gabe Jones, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 14,771 words across 2,224 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.