Motivated Reasoning and The Problem With Google Social Search

According to Michael Shermer, people believe weird things because they are natural born pattern-seekers. “Patternicity”, he says, is our innate tendency to seek out meaningful patterns in random noise. Patternicity is the reason we find everything from slot machines, conspiracy theories, and the paranormal so incredibly captivating.

Shermer provides a good explanation, I think, as to why and how wacky ideas manifest themselves. But what I’m really interested in is why people stick to their patternicity-induced beliefs when faced with insurmountable evidence of the contrary. Why, after all this time, do some people still think that the moon landing was an elaborate hoax?

The answer can be found in a phenomena known as “motivated reasoning” which, I think, is best explained in relation to The Argumentative Theory of Reason (Mercier & Sperber). According to this theory, reasoning isn’t the objective thought process it’s been made out to be. Instead, it’s primary concern is to win arguments:

“[Reasoning] is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade…Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias…[Reasoning] does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found.”

Motivated reasoning refers, in this context, to our tendency to seek out evidence that can justify our own preconceived ideas. It’s what allows us to turn a blind eye to potential inconsistencies and altogether ignore challenging pieces of information. It’s also the reason why I think Google’s new search feature is misguided.

Don’t fret if you’ve never heard of Google Social Search. You’re not alone. Few people I’ve talked to are familiar with the concept. And that’s the problem. Social Search was rolled out in late 2009 and has, since then, been an inconspicuous part billions upon billions of Google search results.

The concept itself is fairly straightforward. It capitalizes on the idea that information from your social circle is more relevant to you than are regular search results. And on the face of it, this does appear to be the case: I’d be the first to admit I rather seek the advice of friends than that of complete strangers.

But dig a little deeper and we soon realize that this is true only in certain situations. Whereas the value of restaurant reviews, photo albums, and personal anecdotes increase the closer I am to the author, the same cannot be said for factual information. In such cases, I’d be better off relying on the expert advice of complete strangers.

Why? Because people tend to surround themselves with others that think and act like they do. I’m not a exception in this regard, and I’m pretty sure you aren’t either. And so with that in mind, we can conclude that Social Search makes it easier for us to hold on to our preconceived ideas; Social Search facilitates motivated reasoning.

To be fair, Google has already taken a number of, what seems to be, precautionary measures: You’ll need to be signed in to your Google profile to see Social Search results. You also need to add a number of social networks to said profile. And, last but not least, Social Search results are relegated to the bottom of your search result page.

Be that as it may, I still don’t think they’ve gone far enough. I mentioned earlier that few of the people I talked to were familiar with Social Search—let alone the possibility that they were already using it. And this is simply not acceptable. Social Search needs to be labeled more clearly and, preferably, kept out of regular search results.

[Update Feb 19, 2011] Google has gone and exasperated the problem further: “[S]ocial search results will now be mixed throughout your results based on their relevance.”