And why that matters for the world of ideas
This piece was co-authored by Nason Maani, and his version is cross-posted here.
We live in a world that often appears to love the new, from new technologies and products, to new policies, to new publications, carrying an inbuilt assumption that if an idea is new, it is worthy of focus. Our brains are wired to light up at new things. Neuroscience shows that our reward system is stimulated by novelty; encountering an unfamiliar idea or object triggers curiosity and attention. This “novelty bias” can be useful, it pushes us to explore and learn, but it also creates a cognitive fallacy: we often assume something is better simply because it is new. Psychologists call this the novelty fallacy, the informal belief that newer equals better. In modern life, we see it everywhere. We rush to buy the latest smartphone or try the hottest trend. The same bias applies to ideas: the latest theory or discovery grabs our interest more than well-trodden knowledge, regardless of its actual value.
Social media and news amplify this bias. Online, algorithms favor fresh content and surprising or attention-grabbing headlines because they are the posts that engage us most. False news (often novel and sensational) spreads far faster and wider than truthful news on platforms like Twitter. Why? Because we are likelier to share novel information, creating an algorithmic amplification of novelty: outrageous rumors and click-bait ideas get disproportionate attention, while nuanced or familiar truths get drowned out. The result is an information ecosystem where the loudest voices (often pushing novel or extreme claims) eclipse the most thoughtful voices. The design of our digital platforms, optimizing for engagement and rapid reaction, fuels this cycle, making it ever more tempting to equate newness with importance as we will discuss in a future essay on ideas and the attention economy.
Read more here