# Information Hygiene

Do avalanches get caused by loud noises?

Based on my dozen+ times giving this class or presentation, at least 7/10 of you are nodding yes, and the main reason the other 3 aren’t is that you sense a trap.

So. What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?

Our bodies are under constant assault. Bacteria, viruses, parasites—an endless parade of microscopic organisms trying to hijack our cellular machinery for their own replication. You don't notice most of these attacks because your immune system handles them quietly, distinguishing self from non-self, helpful from harmful, and deploying targeted responses to neutralize threats before they can take hold.

Our minds experience the same thing. We all lived through a global pandemic not too long ago, and got a crash course reminder on how to keep ourselves safe from hostile genetic code in COVID-19. But as the “information age” continues to warp into an endless misinformation war, protective efforts on the memetic warfront are lagging hard.

Today more than ever in human history, ideas, beliefs, and narratives continuously seek entry in your mind, competing for the limited real estate of your attention and memory. Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" precisely to highlight this analogy: just as genes propagate through reproduction and mutation, memes propagate via communication. And just as genes guide their host life forms toward replicative fitness, independent of ethical notions of benevolence or suffering, memes spread based on memetic fitness—being catchy, being shareable—independent of being true.

This creates a problem: the ideas most likely to reach you are not the most accurate ideas. They're the ideas most optimized to spread.

**Two Immune Systems**
----------------------

Your biological immune system has two main components. The innate immune system provides general-purpose defenses: skin barriers, inflammatory responses, cells that attack anything foreign-looking. The adaptive immune system learns from exposure, building targeted antibodies against specific pathogens and remembering them for faster future responses.

Your memetic immune system is similar in some ways, and also shares similar failure modes:

**1) Failure to recognize threats.** Some pathogens evade the immune system by mimicking the body's own cells or by mutating faster than antibodies can adapt. Similarly, some bad ideas evade epistemic defenses by mimicking the structure of good arguments, by appealing to emotions that feel like evidence, or by coming from sources we've learned to trust in other contexts.

**2) Autoimmune responses.** Sometimes the immune system attacks the body's own healthy tissue, causing chronic inflammation and damage. Epistemically, this manifests as excessive skepticism that rejects true and useful information, or as a reflexive contrarianism that opposes ideas simply because they're popular.

**3) Vulnerability through entry points.** Pathogens exploit specific vulnerabilities—mucous membranes, cuts in the skin, the respiratory system. Memes exploit specific emotional and cognitive vulnerabilities—fear, tribal loyalty, the desire to feel special or vindicated, the discomfort of uncertainty.

**4) Compromised states.** Stress, malnutrition, and lack of sleep all weaken the biological immune system. Emotional distress, cognitive fatigue, and social pressure all weaken epistemic defenses, but not just negative ones! You can't get more sick from being too entertained or validated, but you're certainly more open to believing false things that way... like, say, when a loud noise causes an avalanche in a cartoon or film.

No matter how rational you think you are, *you cannot evaluate all information perfectly*. Just as your body doesn't have infinite resources to investigate every molecule that enters it, your mind doesn't have infinite resources to carefully reason through every claim it encounters. Your reasoning ability is affected by your physical and emotional state, and often relies on heuristics, shortcuts, and trusted filters. This is necessary and appropriate—but it creates exploitable vulnerabilities.

**Lines of Defense**
--------------------

If you want to avoid getting sick, you have various different lines of defense. Most people think of their skin as their first line of defense, but it’s actually your environment. By avoiding others who are sick, you reduce the risk of being exposed to hostile pathogens in the first place.

*Then *comes the skin, which does a pretty good job of keeping hostile genes away from your body’s resources. Some bacteria and viruses specialize in getting through the skin, but most have to rely on wounds or entry points: ears, eyes, nose, mouth, etc. 

The equivalent lines of defense exist for your mind.

First, environment: if you want to believe true things, try not to spend too much time around people who are going to sneeze false information or badly reasoned arguments into your face. You can’t fact check everything you hear and read; you literally don’t have the time, energy, or knowledge needed. **Cultivate a social network that cares about true things.**

An important, practical aspect of this is to be on guard against any group or forum you're part of that is extremely ideological and likely to act as an echo-chamber, *particularly* if it exists primarily to dunk on or hate on a particular other ideology or group. There's no surer way I know to get regularly exposed to a slew of one-sided, memetically fit, but false, ideas. You might think you can skim the titles and laugh at the good digs while not having your epistemics affected, but my bet would be it all adds up, little though each "hit" might be.

Second is your “skin,” in this case, the beliefs you already have. The more knowledge you have, the less susceptible you are to naively believing falsehoods.

Many people will read a dozen news stories and presume that the authors at least put in *some *reasonable effort toward accuracy and truth… until they read a news story about a topic they’re an expert in, and get upset at all the falsehoods the journalist got away with publishing. Gell-Mann Amnesia is the name for the bias where they fail to then go back and notice that all the other articles were likely also worthy of similar scrutiny, but they lacked the knowledge needed to scrutinize them.

You may think you’re a skeptical person, but all your skepticism doesn’t matter if you don’t have enough knowledge to activate it in the first place when you encounter new information. You can try to rely on broad heuristics (“journalists aren’t usually experts in the topic they’re writing about” or “journalists often have biases”) but heuristics are not bulletproof, and worse, misfire in the opposite direction all the time.

Like many who grew up at the start of the information age, I used to think I didn’t need to memorize facts and figures because I could just look things up on the internet if I needed to. I no longer believe this. **Your memetic immune system requires that you know things to activate. **Confusion is your greatest strength as someone who values truth, but you need to *feel *and *notice *it first, and you need some beliefs for new information to bounce off of to feel it.

Third comes your active immune system: your ability to reason through bad arguments and research information to separate truth from falsehood. The better you get at identifying logical fallacies and common manipulation methods, the better you are at fighting off harmful memes once they get past your other defenses. **Practice good epistemics. **Investigate claims, resist emotional manipulation, check your blind spots with trusted peers.

**Vaccinate: Knowledge as Protection**
--------------------------------------

Why are children so gullible? Because they *don’t know anything.*

Children will believe literally anything you tell them, *until* you tell them something that either directly contradicts what someone told them before, or directly contradicts their own experiences. Only then do they feel confusion or uncertainty or skepticism, and only after enough instances of being misinformed do they form heuristics like “my parents can be wrong about things” or “adults sometimes lie,” which eventually grows into “people/teachers/governments/etc lie.”

A healthy organism’s genes are constantly informing the cells and systems that make up their body what it needs to do to maintain or return to a healthy state. But there is no inherent homeostasis that human minds know to maintain against each invading idea: baby brains are much closer to empty boxes, and the initial ideas we’re exposed to are what form the immunoresponses against what comes after.

Noticing confusion is the most powerful tool for investigating what's true. When something doesn't fit, when a claim contradicts what you thought you knew, that friction is information. But you need existing beliefs to experience that friction. If you know nothing about a topic, you can't notice when a claim about it is suspicious.

Gullibility isn't just a deficit of critical thinking skills. It can result from a deficit of information. Critical thinking tools don't help if you never think to deploy them, and you're less likely to deploy them when a claim doesn't trigger any "wait, that doesn't match" response.

We learn through the context of what we already know. New information bounces against existing beliefs, gets incorporated or rejected based on how well it fits. The more robust your existing knowledge, the better you can evaluate new claims. The more you know, the harder you are to fool.

This means that rationality training shouldn't neglect object-level knowledge. Learn lots of things. Read widely. Build detailed models of how various domains work. This isn't separate from epistemic skill-building—it's a core component of it.

Stay Informed: Memetic Weak Points
----------------------------------

Your eyes and ears are the entry point for memes to get in, just like genes, but there are other, more relevant weakpoints in your memetic immune system.

Ideological Bias is one of them. Just like Gell-Mann Amnesia, most people will read dozens of articles making all sorts of claims, and it’s all accepted uncritically so long as the authors are reaching conclusions they agree with. Once the author says something the reader doesn’t agree with, their reasoning, or even motives, are subjected to much more scrutiny. In general, we’re more susceptible to believing false things if they confirm what we already believe.

And then there’s Emotional Bias. [Emotions aren’t irrational](https://daystareld.com/blog/emotions-make-sense/)—they're encoded combinations of implicit beliefs and predictions, rapid evaluations that something is good or bad, safe or dangerous. The problem isn’t that we feel emotions when we consider assertions or hypotheses, it’s that the emotions narrow our awareness and ability to process all the data. Most emotions that are harmful to our epistemics are those meant to drive action *quickly.* 

Fear is adaptive when it drives you to react to the shape of a snake in the grass before you have time to evaluate if it’s actually a snake. The people who were not sufficiently afraid when their fellow tribesmate yelled “cougar!” did not pass along their genes as often as those who were. When the cost of being wrong is way lower in one direction than the other, you should expect that there will be a “bias” in a particular direction.

[Anger is similar](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/). Protective instincts are far more powerful when acted on quickly, and before there was any sort of misinformation-driven culture wars, a tribe that’s easy to unite in anger would easily outcompete tribes that weren’t. 

Our emotions all serve purposes, and one of those purposes is to fuel heuristics that save us cognitive effort and motivate us toward helpful behaviors. It’s only when we recognize a *false *belief or *unhelpful *outcome that we label the heuristic a bias. 

To avoid these biases in your epistemology, **know what your emotional weakpoints are. **Some people are especially vulnerable to claims that validate their intelligence or moral superiority. Others are vulnerable to claims that justify resentment toward outgroups. Still others are vulnerable to claims that promise simple solutions to complex problems, or that offer belonging to an exclusive community of truth-knowers.

Relatedly, logical fallacies exploit structural vulnerabilities in reasoning. Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, false dichotomies, slippery slope arguments—these persist because they work on human minds, sometimes even minds that "know better." Awareness is necessary but not sufficient. You need to practice noticing these patterns in real-time, in the wild, when your emotions are engaged and the social stakes feel real.

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/7165ae69af4b2002ab06b8ceeec5a4a7d73815d30102047f.png)

**Exercises:** Which emotions make you more credulous? More skeptical? Think of some beliefs you hold that you know many others disagree with. Can you tell if you *want *any of them to be true? Notice if you feel a “flinching” when you imagine any of them being wrong. 

**Origin Tracing: Where Do Beliefs Come From?**
-----------------------------------------------

Imagine a line, starting at a point and squiggling through three-dimensional space. The origin is the point in spacetime you were born, and the arrow at the end is where you now sit or stand or lie reading. This is your lifeline, the path your physical body has taken through the world.

Imagine now a sheathe around that line, spaced out to about three miles. That’s how far you can see on a clear day before your gaze meets the horizon. Within that sheathe is everything you’ve ever seen with your own two eyes, and also everything you’ve ever heard, smelled, tasted, and touched.

That’s your sensorium, the tunnel through spacetime that makes up all the things you’ve ever experienced.

*Everything outside that tunnel *was told to you by someone else. *Everything.*

Books you’ve read, things your teachers told you, even video and audio recordings or live footage, *all *of it is something you had to *trust someone else* to understand and fact check and honestly present to you.

Can you honestly say that you evaluated all those sources? What about how *they *learned what they passed along to you?

Beliefs, like viruses, always come from somewhere. Knowing the source of a belief is *crucial *for evaluating its reliability.

Pick something you believe that is not the direct result of something you experienced yourself, whether it’s an economic argument or a simple historical fact.

Ask yourself: Who "coughed" this idea on you? Why did you believe them? Confidence? Authority? Something else?

How long ago did it happen? Has new information become available? Do you know if the studies have replicated?

What was the context? Were they sharing something they learned themselves? Or repeating something they read online or heard someone else say?

If the latter, the tracing can continue all the way back to whoever experienced the observation directly from their own sensorium, then wrote a paper about it, or talked about it on TV, or told it to others who did.

It *could *continue. *Should *it, though?

Well, I’d say that depends a whole hell of a lot on what your error tolerance is on your beliefs and how important that belief being correct is to your goals or values.

But at least *be aware *that this is what it means to do origin tracing on your beliefs, and why it matters if you don’t.

Again, we *cannot *expect ourselves to independently verify everything we believe. We can’t rerun every scientific study we hear of, and we can’t personally verify every historical event to the level of the Apollo 11 moon landing, the Holocaust, or the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York City… three of the most well documented events in history that still somehow manage to provoke conspiracies.

We must trust, at some point, that we have evidence enough, and that the society around us is sane enough in aggregate, to hold with high enough probability that the belief is “justified.”

But there are still pitfalls to watch out for, and the reliance on others should always be paired with understanding of what heuristics are being used to fill in the gaps.

For example: if all you know about two beliefs is that a million people believe in Belief A, and a thousand people believe in an unrelated Belief B, is there a justified reason to hold a higher probability in belief A?

Many people find this question difficult because it sets at odds different intuitions about proper epistemology; the answer is “it depends.”

A thousand experts who've examined evidence independently might outweigh a million people who absorbed a belief from their surrounding culture. But a million people who all observed Event A *does *add more reliability than a thousand people who saw Event B. And of course a single person with direct access to crucial evidence might outweigh them all. 

With that in mind, beware double-counting evidence! If five of your friends believe something, that might seem like strong corroboration—but if they all believe it because they read the same viral tweet, you have *one *source of information, not five.

Information cascades create the illusion of independent verification. Belief tracing, consistently applied all the way back to the origin, can reveal how much *actual evidence* underlies apparent consensus, not to mention the quality of that evidence.

It seems intuitive to believe that if a piece of information has passed through multiple people, it’s more likely to be true, because multiple people haven’t determined that it’s false. But in reality, people aren’t just at risk of passing something along without factchecking it; they're also likely to misremember or misunderstand or misquote things as well. The thing you heard them say may not even be the thing they originally read or heard!

**Exercise:** Name one of your load-bearing beliefs—something that supports significant parts of your worldview or decision-making. Where did you learn it? How reliable were the sources? How much time did you spend looking for counter-evidence? Is there some obvious way the world would be different if it wasn’t true?

**Mask Up: Don't Cough Misinfo Onto Others**
--------------------------------------------

As mentioned before, the first step in protecting yourself from hostile genes or memes is a safe environment. And *you *are part of that environment, both for others and also for your future self. If you pollute the epistemic commons, you’ll likely be affected by something downstream of those false beliefs yourself sooner or later.

The most simple rule: ***don't repeat things with the same confidence you'd have if you'd verified them yourself***. Notice how confidently you talk about things in general, and what phrases you and others use. "I heard that..." should prompt a thought or question from yourself or others: “heard from where?” 

"I checked and found that..." should evoke a similar “checked where? When was that?”

If you pass on secondhand information as if it were firsthand, you launder away the uncertainty, making the claim seem better-supported than it is. You also use your own credibility in the place of the source you’re repeating, which for your friends or peers, may make them believe it more than they should if you didn’t look deep enough into it.

More vitally, ***notice when you’re trying to persuade others of something***. Notice if you start trying to argue someone into a belief and ask yourself why. What emotion is driving you? What are you hoping or fearing or trying to protect?

Persuasion is inherently a symmetric weapon. People who believe in true or false things can both be persuasive by means both subtle and forceful. Asymmetric tools like direct evidence and formal logic are cleaner.

The best practice when facing someone who disagrees with you on something important is to try to explain ***what convinced you*** the thing was true in the first place. If that’s not convincing for them, investigate what beliefs they hold that your evidence or reasoning is “bouncing off” of so you can examine those beliefs yourself, and then explain why you don’t find them convincing (assuming you don’t!).

This preserves important information—the actual evidence and reasoning—rather than just the conclusion. It treats the other person as an epistemic agent capable of evaluating evidence rather than as a target to be manipulated into agreement. And it allows you to stay open to new information and arguments, while also better understanding others and why they believe the things they believe. Julia Galef calls this "scout mindset" as opposed to "soldier mindset": the goal is to map reality accurately, not to win rhetorical battles.

Use good filtration on your information sources. Before absorbing someone's object-level claims, try to evaluate their epistemics. Do they practice what they preach? Do they build things with their hands, or just opine? Are they regularly wrong? Do they admit when they are? Are they sloppy with beliefs, making confident claims without adequate support? Can they explain their reasoning clearly, or do they rely on appeals to authority or status quo bias?

Variety has value—seek perspectives with different heuristics than yours, even if some have lower epistemic rigor than others. But weight those sources accordingly.

There's a deeper point here, articulated in Eliezer Yudkowsky's Planecrash through the character Keltham:

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/6fc47936457eaa467f3df4bdc149ebbea9971b2bea32b7f6.png)

Or, as he summarizes later: "It is impossible to coherently expect to convince yourself of anything… You can't expect anyone else to convince you of something either, even if you think they're controlling everything you see.”

Your expected posterior equals your prior—you might end up more convinced, but there's a counterbalancing chance you'll find disconfirming evidence and end up less convinced. On net, if you're reasoning correctly, it balances out. You can't rationally *plan* to move your beliefs in a particular direction.

This means that if you notice yourself *hoping* to be convinced of something, or *trying* to convince yourself, something has gone wrong. That's not truth-seeking; it’s the dreaded (and badly named) rationalization.

**Exercise:** List three people you think have good epistemics, three with bad epistemics, and three you're unsure about. For the uncertain cases, what would it take to find out? Notice if there's something you've wanted to convince yourself of, or hoped someone else would convince you of. Why?

**Risks and Practice**
----------------------

Information hygiene, like physical hygiene, requires ongoing maintenance. It can also be overdone.

If you decide to stay indoors all day and never talk to anyone except through a glass door and only eat dry food… you’re definitely minimizing the chance you’ll get sick, but also leading an impoverished life, and in many ways a less healthy one. It might be justified if your immune system is compromised or during a pandemic, but something has likely gone wrong if you’re living your life that way.

Similarly, beware of being so skeptical that you can no longer trust anything you read or hear. We cannot trust everything others say. We cannot even trust everything we observe ourselves. But caring about truth requires an endless fight against the forces of solipsism or nihilism: reality exists, independent of our subjective experience. We can’t understand the territory, but we still have to live in it, and our maps don’t need to be perfectly accurate to still be worth improving.

Some practices that help:

Improve self-awareness through mindfulness exercises. Notice your emotional reactions to claims. Notice when you feel defensive or vindicated.

Practice explaining what you believe and why to someone skeptical. Write more if you’re practiced in writing. Speak if you’re not practiced at speaking. Articulating the justifications for your beliefs will often reveal that they're weaker than you thought.

When something changes your mind, record the context and circumstances. Build a model of what kinds of evidence actually move you.

Practice asking people what informed their beliefs. Make it a habit to trace claims to their sources. Keep track of people who reveal solid reasoning. Keep them part of your information feeds, and eject people who constantly cough without a mask on.

Prepare for epistemic uncertainty—lots of it. People are generally bad at remembering how uncertain they should be. Even in communities that explicitly value calibration, it's hard. The feeling of knowing is not the same as actually knowing. Betting helps.

And remember: this is genuinely difficult. Even with good intentions and good tools, you will sometimes be wrong. The goal isn't perfect accuracy, but building systems and habits that make you wrong less often and help you correct errors faster when they occur.

Your mind, like your body, will face an endless stream of would-be invaders. You can't examine every one. But you can understand your vulnerabilities, trace your beliefs to their sources, take responsibility for what you spread, and build the knowledge base that makes deception harder. The next pandemic hopefully won’t be for a long while, but the information age has brought with it a memetic endemic, and we all need to be better at hygiene, for our own sake and each other’s.