Generally, I argue that access to more information via technology is good for development. Access to information (e.g. prices) improves market efficiency. Communication flows fostered by the Internet strengthen democracy. With this information, people are empowered to debate the direction they want their societies to move in. I've read my Amartya Sen, after all.
But could too much information actually be counterproductive? Apparently, yes. As I sat in
David King's first lecture in my Culture, Power, and Politics course last week, he said something that challenged these assumptions. He told us that the world is becoming more polarized right when information is most available.
These two things are not unrelated. People with strong belief systems, it turns out, tend to react instinctively. Strong ideologues think the least about how to process information and have the most closed minds. They are the most likely to seek out information that confirms their biases (George W. Bush, anyone?).
So here's the rub: when people have access to too much information, they increasingly must process that information in the most efficient way possible. That is, in accordance to their ideology. People react to the explosion of information by seeking that which confirms their bias. Our natural tendency to hear what we want to hear and ignore elements that don't fit into our world view actually gets exacerbated.
I still think access to information is a net positive in developing countries, but this serves as a reminder that the human brain works in mysterious ways that often lead to unintended consequences. It would behoove us all to stay tuned to the findings of behavioral economics.
And while I'm at it, here's a link to
Sendhil Mullainathan's TEDIndia talk last November. In case you don't know who he is, he's a leading academic in the intersection of development and behavioral economics. I'm lucky enough to be taking a class from him this semester so hopefully I'll have more to share, and often.
