[Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on Sep 4, 2025 and is intended as a philosophical commentary on the information divide, not a direct response to recent tragic events.]
By Shane Coursen with assistance from Gemini
As a web developer and designer, a programmer, and computer security enthusiast, I’m constantly solving problems. But sometimes, before I can solve a client’s problem, I must first understand how they see the world. This is an article about that. Far from being a white paper, you might simply call this a practical, applied epistemological study.
Three Ways to Look at a Problem: A Journey into How We Know What We Know
Have you ever wondered why some arguments feel like they’re coming from a different planet? Or why two people can look at the same information and walk away with opposite conclusions? This article is a journey into that disconnect. We’re going to explore not just what we know, but how we know it.
This piece started as a simple idea: compare the person who gets their news from a newscaster with the person who “does their own research”. But that simple question quickly spiraled into three distinct and evolving perspectives. First, we framed the debate in black and white: the passive news consumer versus the active, informed researcher. Then, we realized that the phrase “Do Your Own Research” has been co-opted, often by conspiracy theorists, leading us to a more cynical view of the digital landscape. Finally, we stripped away the judgment, giving genuine credibility to the person who digs into primary sources.
By combining these three views, we’ll expose a deeper truth about the modern information age. You’ll see how a single idea can be seen as a sign of intellectual sloth, a marker of dangerous misinformation, and an act of genuine intellectual curiosity, all at the same time. This is not about telling you what to think, but about showing you how we think about what we think.
Why 3 versions?
Because writing without bias isn’t possible
A perfectly unbiased article is impossible because all writing, by nature, reflects the author’s choices about what to include, what to emphasize, and how to frame the information. Every word choice, every analogy, and every omitted detail is a form of bias. However, it is possible to write an article that is more balanced and objective by actively trying to minimize bias. The goal is not to eliminate it entirely but to reduce its influence to present a more complete picture. This involves:
- Equal Representation: Giving equal weight and credible examples to both sides of the argument without one side being framed as the obvious “correct” one.
- Neutral Language: Avoiding loaded words, emotionally charged language, and value judgments. For instance, instead of describing one group as “wary” and the other as “trusting,” one might use more neutral terms like “relies on” and “investigates”.
- Focus on Process, Not People: Shifting the focus from the individuals themselves to the information-gathering processes they use. This helps to depersonalize the issue and avoid character judgments.
Here are 3 versions of the same base article. The first attempts to present in a balanced manner. The second presents with a bias towards a typical “DYOR”. The 3rd presents with a bias towards a typical “News” consumer.
Version 1: Balanced Approach
Exploring Two Approaches to Understanding the World
People engage with information in different ways, and this can lead to different understandings of the world. Two common approaches are often discussed: relying on mainstream news sources and conducting independent research. This article explores the characteristics of each without assigning superiority to either.
The Reliance on Filtered Information
One approach to staying informed is to rely on established news organizations. These outlets have an editorial process where journalists and editors select, verify, and present information. This method is highly efficient, as it provides a curated stream of current events that is easy to consume. It allows a person to be generally aware of a wide range of topics without having to dedicate significant time to in-depth investigation. This process, however, involves a layer of interpretation. Information is condensed and simplified to fit time constraints or platform formats. This can lead to a simplified understanding of complex topics, where nuance, statistical context, or methodological details from original sources may be lost.
The Practice of Independent Investigation
Another approach involves going beyond curated news to seek out and evaluate primary sources. Individuals who adopt this method read original documents, academic studies, or data sets directly. This practice allows for a more detailed and contextualized understanding of a topic. It provides direct insight into the methodology, limitations, and specific findings of a study, rather than relying on a secondary summary. This method requires a substantial investment of time and effort. Navigating complex academic language and technical data can be challenging. It also places the burden of source verification entirely on the individual, who must critically evaluate the credibility and potential biases of a wide range of materials.
Different Processes, Different Conversations
These two methods create different foundations for understanding. The person who relies on news is equipped with a broad but summarized knowledge base, while the person who conducts independent research possesses a deeper, more detailed understanding of specific topics. When these individuals discuss a subject, their conversations can differ in focus. One might discuss a topic in terms of its general public narrative, while the other might refer to specific data points or the limitations of a study. The difference lies not in a disagreement over facts but in the level of detail and the source of the information. All information-gathering methods have trade-offs. Relying on news is a time-efficient way to stay broadly informed, while independent research offers a deeper and more nuanced understanding at the cost of significant time and effort. Neither approach is without its challenges, and the ideal may lie in a combination of both.
Version 2: Bias Towards “Do Your Own Research”
Two Worlds Apart: When “Doing Your Own Research” is a Virtue
Have you ever found yourself in a conversation about a complex topic, only to realize you and the person you’re speaking with are operating from different levels of understanding? This isn’t just about believing different things; it’s about how you know what you believe.
We can broadly categorize how people “learn about the world” into two main approaches:
- The News Consumer: This person primarily relies on established news organizations. They are largely passive receivers of information. They trust that journalists and newscasters, in their role as a filter, will accurately present the most important events and findings, including those from complex academic or scientific sources.
- The “Do Your Own Research” (DYOR) Adherent: This individual is wary of second-hand information. They actively seek out and read primary sources, such as original peer-reviewed articles, academic papers, or raw data reports. Their goal is not to find a pre-packaged answer but to understand the methodology and draw their own conclusions directly from the source.
Initially, one might assume the News Consumer is the more responsible citizen. They are keeping up with current events and trusting in the system. But let’s re-examine this dynamic with a more nuanced perspective, giving the DYOR adherent the credit they deserve.
The Passive vs. Active Approach to Knowledge 🧠
The News Consumer’s approach is efficient but comes with significant risks. The newscaster, in a brief segment, must condense a complex peer-reviewed study into a soundbite. This process of filtering and summarizing can lead to a simplified, misinterpreted, or even sensationalized version of the original findings. The consumer, having heard a headline like “New study shows X causes Y,” accepts it as fact without any understanding of the study’s limitations, sample size, or funding sources.
The DYOR adherent, in contrast, engages in a form of intellectual labor. They locate the original peer-reviewed article on a site like PubMed or Google Scholar. They don’t just read the abstract; they delve into the methodology, the results, and the discussion section. They might look at who funded the study and if there are any potential conflicts of interest. This active process allows for a more comprehensive and critical understanding.
For example, a news report might state that “a study found a link between coffee and heart disease”. The news consumer simply accepts this. The DYOR adherent, upon reading the actual paper, might discover the study was observational, meaning it can’t prove causation, and that the link was weak and found only in a very specific sub-group of the population. The two individuals, having “learned” about the same study, walk away with completely different levels of knowledge and different conclusions.
The Erosion of Nuance and The Wasted Time ⏳
This brings us to the core issue: the two groups are not just talking past each other; they are speaking with different vocabularies. The News Consumer is fluent in the language of headlines and summarized facts, while the DYOR adherent understands the language of nuance, methodology, and statistical significance. When they try to communicate, the conversation can quickly break down. The News Consumer will say, “I saw on the news that X is true”. The DYOR adherent will respond, “The original paper shows that’s a misinterpretation. The correlation was…” and is immediately labeled a pedant, a know-it-all, or worse, a conspiracy theorist. The DYOR person is, in effect, challenging the very source of the News Consumer’s knowledge.
This is a fundamental conflict. The DYOR person is trying to have a conversation based on the primary source, while the News Consumer is defending a conclusion based on a secondary or tertiary source. They are not arguing about the facts themselves, but about how to get to the facts. And here’s the ironic, self-deprecating truth: this very article, in attempting to explain this divide, is a perfect example of the problem it describes. I’m taking a complex issue and filtering it through my perspective, presenting it as a concise narrative. If you read this and accept it without critically examining my own sources, you are playing the role of the News Consumer.
A Call for Intellectual Humility
So, is the DYOR person wasting their time trying to convince the other group?
Yes, often. The chasm is too deep. One side is working from a place of intellectual labor, and the other is working from a place of learned trust. One is trying to share a nuanced understanding, while the other is looking for a simple, digestible truth. The energy spent trying to bridge this gap with rational arguments often dissipates into frustration and further entrenchment. Perhaps the most effective path is for the DYOR person to simply continue their diligent research, and for the News Consumer to consider a healthy dose of intellectual humility: to question how much they really know about a topic and to ask themselves, “What if there’s more to the story than what the newscaster told me?”
Version 3: Bias Towards News Consumer
Two Worlds Apart: Why We’re Talking Past Each Other in the Age of Information
Have you ever found yourself in a conversation about current events, only to realize you and the person you’re speaking with are operating from entirely different realities? It’s a common, and increasingly frustrating, experience in today’s information-saturated world. Let’s unpack why.
We can broadly categorize how people “learn about the world” into two main approaches, each with its own benefits and pitfalls:
- The News Consumer: This person primarily relies on established news organizations—whether through traditional television, newspapers, or their digital counterparts (often accessed via social media). They are largely passive receivers of information, trusting that these entities will filter, verify, and present the most important events of the day.
- The “Do Your Own Research” (DYOR) Adherent: This individual is wary of mainstream sources and prefers to actively seek out information independently. They often delve into a wider array of online content, aiming to uncover what they believe are deeper truths or alternative perspectives.
Initially, one might assume the “DYOR” approach is inherently superior. After all, isn’t active inquiry better than passive reception? We started this very discussion with that premise, exploring how a person who “watches the news” might be in a
constant state of reaction to a filtered, often sensationalized reality, while a person who “does independent research” might be equipped with enough knowledge to make responsible life decisions.
The Digital Divide: Social Media Deepens the Chasm
The rise of social media profoundly complicates this picture. For many, especially younger generations, social media isn’t just a source of news; it’s the primary gateway to information. This is where the “news consumer” often becomes even more passive, their feeds curated by algorithms designed for engagement, not accuracy. They are trapped in filter bubbles and echo chambers, reinforcing existing beliefs and creating a distorted view of the world.
Conversely, the “DYOR” individual, while seemingly more active, often falls prey to the same algorithmic forces. The phrase “do your own research” has, ironically, been weaponized. It’s frequently used to dismiss expert consensus and justify belief in misinformation, propelled by emotional appeals and sensationalized content that social media algorithms love. What appears to be “research” is often a deep dive into confirmation bias, leading to an illusion of knowledge without genuine critical analysis.
Two Worlds, Different Languages
This brings us to the core realization: the two groups aren’t just getting different facts; they are operating on entirely different understandings of what constitutes a “fact” and who to trust.
- The Consensus-Based World: This group places its trust in institutional authority—peer-reviewed science, established academic bodies, and journalistic organizations with processes for verification. They understand that no single person can become an expert in every field, so they rely on the collective wisdom and rigorous methodologies of specialists. They speak the language of evidence, data, and peer review.
- The Individual-Based World: This group, particularly in its more extreme manifestations, actively distrusts institutional authority. They believe that “the truth” is often suppressed or corrupted by mainstream sources. Their trust lies in personal intuition, anecdotal evidence, and charismatic online figures who echo their skepticism. They speak the language of “common sense,” personal experience, and often, conspiracy.
When these two worlds collide, communication breaks down. A person from the consensus-based world might present a scientific study or an article from a respected news outlet. The “DYOR” proponent will immediately dismiss it as biased, part of a larger deception, or simply “not doing their own research”. The “facts” themselves become contested, and the very method of establishing truth is different. There’s no shared foundation for a productive discussion.
The Futility of Cross-Communication (Yes, Even This Article!)
And here’s the ironic, self-deprecating twist: this very article, in attempting to explain this divide and convince you of its reality, is a perfect example of the phenomenon it describes. If you’re someone who already resonates with the idea of critical thinking and evaluating sources, this might make perfect sense. But if you’re deeply entrenched in the “DYOR” mindset, suspicious of “mainstream” analyses, you’re likely already dismissing this as another attempt by “them” to control the narrative. You’ve probably stopped reading, or you’re looking for reasons to invalidate every point.
The Wasted Time
So, is a person who genuinely believes in “doing their own research” (in the critical, objective sense) wasting their time trying to convince the other group?
Yes, largely. The chasm is too deep, built on fundamentally different epistemologies and fueled by emotional entrenchment. Energy spent trying to bridge this gap with rational arguments often dissipates into frustration and further entrenchment.
Perhaps the more effective path is not to shout across the divide, but to strengthen the foundations within our own communities: fostering critical thinking, promoting media literacy, and building trust in rigorous inquiry. While we strive for an informed society, the reality is that for many, two worlds exist, and they are, for now, speaking entirely different languages.