"The best response to manipulative and persuasive choice architecture might therefore be to empower users to become choice architects of their own proximate digital environment (self-nudging) or self-restrict engagement with certain information sources (deliberate ignorance) rather than attempt to exercise a superhuman ability to detect and resist all attempts at influence. By contrast, false information and AI-powered persuasive techniques such as targeted political advertisement can best be met by people exercising existing competencies (e.g., reasoning and judgment of information reliability) or learning new ones (e.g., lateral reading).


The idea that deliberate ignorance can be an ecologically rational strategy does not align with classical ideals of epistemic virtue and rationality (see Kozyreva & Hertwig, 2019), which presume that information and knowledge have intrinsic value for decision makers because they allow them to accumulate more evidence (e.g., Carnap, 1947), acquire better understanding, and ultimately make more informed and rational choices (e.g., Blackwell, 1953; Good, 1967). However, deliberate ignorance is a reasonable strategy in many situations—for instance, in the interest of impartiality and to shield oneself from biases (e.g., see MacCoun, 2020)."

Anastasia Kozyreva, Stephan Lewandowsky, & Ralph Hertwig (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100620946707)

Kozyreva A, Lewandowsky S, Hertwig R. Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2020;21(3):103-156. doi:10.1177/1529100620946707


Seán ⠀