Misinformation is a 'sloppy recipe'—An introduction to fact-checking through cooking

When you cook, do you mix ingredients without looking at a recipe, just because it 'seems like it would taste good'?

You probably don't. You would at least check the basic steps, such as the quantities of ingredients and how long to cook it at what temperature, before you start.

But strangely, the moment it becomes information, we judge it as 'this looks good' without a recipe and serve it to someone else.

While handling medical information in the workplace, this has always bothered me. Today, I would like to think together about how to identify misinformation and uncertain information 'before sharing it,' while borrowing the perspective of cooking.

Information and recipes are actually very similar

This may be sudden, but have you ever heard the word 'reproducibility'?

It is a common concept in the scientific world, but simply put, it means that 'if you use the same ingredients and follow the same steps, you can get close to the same result.' And actually, the exact same thing can be said about cooking.

A proper recipe has specific quantities of ingredients written down, steps in a specific order, and carefully added guidelines on 'what state to reach before moving to the next step.' You must have had the experience of feeling that 'this recipe is reliable' after looking at a cookbook that even includes how to recover if you make a mistake.

So, what kind of recipe is needed for reliable 'information'?

The primary source must be clearly stated (links to the original text, official statistics, or papers), the method of how it was measured or aggregated must be written, and the target group, period, and definitions must be clear. And above all, what is most important is 'falsifiability,' which means it can be verified with different data.falsifiability.

Conversely, misinformation and uncertain information are, when viewed as cooking, a sloppy recipe, ingredients are hidden, or the heat level is not written down. That is why it cannot be reproduced. Just having this perspective will completely change how you engage with information.

7 patterns of 'defective recipes' common in misinformation

When I am in a clinical setting, I sometimes receive consultations from patients and their families saying, 'I read this on the internet...' Every time, I feel that there is a strangely common pattern in uncertain information.

If we compare it to a cooking recipe, these defects become visible.

Information without quantities is composed of adjectives like 'many people' or 'rapidly increasing' instead of numbers. If you ask 'what percentage?' or 'how many out of how many?' and they cannot answer, it is the same as a recipe that does not have the quantities written down in the first place.

Information where the source of ingredients is unknown has no links or original text, and only the phrasing 'according to XX' is floating there. Imagine a cooking article that only has a photo of a famous chef's face but no actual cooking process at all.

Also, information that jumps from the basis to the conclusion is a danger signal. In cooking terms, it is a lack of process where 'it somehow jumps from preparation to the finished product.' A typical example is talking about correlation as if it were causation, which happens particularly frequently with medical information.

Even more troublesome is information that tells you 'do not doubt'. If words like 'everyone knows' or 'it's not showing up in searches because it's being censored' appear, it is a state in cooking where 'tasting is prohibited.' The answer lies in why they won't let you check it.

And finally, a sender who never makes corrections is also someone to be careful of. Whether or not they can properly make corrections or additions when a mistake is pointed out is an indicator of the integrity of the information itself.

'Tasting' before sharing, 5 minutes in 6 steps

It is not realistic to 'verify everything perfectly before sharing.' However, a habit like 'tasting a bite' in cooking can be done in five minutes.

The first 30 secondsis the 'scent check.' Check if the headline is filled with words like 'astonishing,' 'shocking,' or 'hidden truth.' Check if it frames the government, media, and pharmaceutical companies collectively as the 'enemy.' And above all, check if you are about to act out of anger, anxiety, or excitement. In cooking terms, this is the 'smell of burning' sign. If you catch this, put it down for a moment. That alone makes a big difference.

The next minute is the 'ingredient check.'Does a primary source (official agency, research paper, official announcement, or full-length original video) exist? Is the information outdated? (Always check the date.) Is it just someone else's summary?

The following minute is the 'quantity check' for numbers.If it says '10% increase,' ask, 'Of what? Out of how many? Over what period?' Also, check if the comparison group is appropriate.

Then, as a'heat control check,'look at the conditions under which the information is being presented. Are the country, region, age group, or disease definitions omitted? Are the numbers taken out of context?

The next minute is the 'reproduction check,'where you investigate whether the same conclusion can be confirmed by another reliable source. If multiple sources are saying the same thing, you can feel a little more at ease.

The final 30 seconds is the 'plating check.'Are there units on the graph axes? Are they cut off? Are there too many definitive statements? Scientific and medical information is inherently 'conditional,' so the more words like 'absolutely' or 'certainly' are used, the more cautious you should be.

Let's try it out—'Eating XX cures cancer. Doctors are hiding it!'

As an easy-to-understand example, let's break down a common post as if it were a dish.

At the scent check stage, there is already a 'smell of conspiracy' and 'emotional manipulation.' Looking at the ingredients, there is no primary source, only personal anecdotes or clips. Regarding quantities, it is unclear 'out of how many people who were cured,' and the stage of the disease is not written. As for heat control, there is no information on 'treatment details,' 'confirmed diagnosis,' or 'follow-up period.' In the reproduction check, it is not supported by other sources (in fact, there are many warnings). Finally, as for the plating, the assertions are extremely strong, with zero exceptions or limitations.

If we compare it to cooking, it is a 'miracle stew' with no instructions or temperatures written down. A dish you cannot make—that is, cannot verify—is the same as something you should not eat.

In conclusion—Keep your information kitchen clean

I would like to summarize what I wanted to convey today into three points.

First,information for which you cannot write a recipe is basically impossible to reproduce.Information that lacks a primary source, omits conditions, and forbids verification is the same as a flawed recipe.

Next,it is more important to find fatal flaws at an early stage than to perform perfect verification.The sooner you discover 'undercooked' information, the more you can prevent damage caused by sharing it.

And finally,a quick taste test before pressing the share button breaks the chain of misinformation.If each person's kitchen is clean, the quality of information as a whole will improve.

The ability to engage well with information can be acquired to some extent without special knowledge. Please lend the judgment you already use in cooking to the information you encounter.

Thank you very much for staying with me until the end. I hope today's article will be a catalyst for you to think about your next steps starting tomorrow.

#FactCheck #MediaLiteracy #InformationLiteracy #MisinformationCountermeasures #MedicalInformation