Dine and Debate: Can we still make informed decisions in a world where algorithms shape what we see and data is used to influence what we do?

The modern era is defined by our connection with and reliance on the digital world. How we learn, work, interact, and even present ourselves has been completely changed by our access to the internet. I can’t even remember a time when we didn’t turn to a search engine for every question, curiosity, or need.

At the heart of this new reality we find ourselves in are algorithms, the invisible rules on our platform of choice deciding what we see and in what order. They analyse what we click, like, and scroll past, not just to personalise our experience but to keep us engaged in the digital social media marketplace of attention.

But this opens the door to manipulation. Rather than ideas competing on their merit on the online trading floor of ideas, algorithms amplify or suppress messages, creating unprecedented interference. We’ve seen it go wrong: from the Cambridge Analytica scandal to the viral Brexit bus promise. And not to catastrophise, but now we have AI. How can we even tell what’s real anymore?

So, at our recent Dine & Debate, we put the question on the table: In a world where algorithms shape what we see and data is used to influence what we do, can we still make informed decisions?

Who is the real enemy in our pursuit of informed decision-making?

Initially, the conversation centred on the overwhelming nature of the problem. With the sheer volume of content, our brains, as Selina noted, "are not evolved to process that much information." This has led to the rise of soundbites and short-form content designed to "stop people from having a think." 

The room initially leaned towards a consensus of digital despair: No, we can’t make informed decisions. But then the debate pivoted. We realised the core problem isn't just "new tech." It's an old human challenge, now on a terrifying new scale.

As Shilpa pointed out, an 85-year-old father who believes everything on Facebook isn't so different from an 86-year-old who, for decades, has trusted every word in his preferred newspaper. The human need for an anchor is constant; the medium changes, but the tendency to trust a chosen source remains.

Therefore, manipulation by information providers as a phenomenon isn't new, but the volume of sources, the velocity at which information comes at us and its personalisation are. The algorithm isn't completely the puppet master. It's an amplifier. It magnifies a litany of corporate interests, ideological agendas, and societal biases, working with our innate craving for simple answers. Capitalism has simply given it the ultimate goal: to grab attention at all costs.

This led to a crucial insight. In the uphill battle to stay informed, the real work is to re-evaluate what we consider a valuable source of information in the first place.

Finding an anchor in the storm of information

If we can’t trust the firehose of content, where do we turn? The conversation shifted towards how we find more reliable anchors. Three themes became clear:

1. The Power of Lived Experience: The discussion turned to vital decisions, particularly around health. A member of the team shared her experience of challenging a doctor's initial "all clear," armed only with an awareness of medical racism gleaned from the stories of peers and their families. This persistence, rooted in community knowledge, uncovered a real health issue. It was a stark reminder that official expertise is not infallible, and that the lived experience of a community is its own form of powerful evidence, in this case, a life-saving one.

   
   

2. The Trust of Community:  Going further into this idea of community knowledge, we discussed the value of our circles of trust in our decision-making. Selina shared a study showing that for women from minoritised backgrounds, the biggest factor in their decision to start investing wasn't a bank's ad campaign; it was having a mum, sister, or auntie who was already doing it. The group agreed that the authentic voice of a trusted person, even if anecdotal, in practice often carries more ‘informed’ weight than the formal research we undertake online ever could.

   
   

3. The Humility in Generational Wisdom: This trust extends to our elders/heritage. Selina (Principal Consultant) recounted her initial dismissal of her grandmother's "unscientific" health advice, which she had associated with outdated cultural tradition. Years later, she realised her grandmother’s wisdom about pure, unprocessed foods was incredibly sound. It became a powerful case for intellectual humility, valuing different forms of knowledge and appreciating that truth can be rooted in experience, tradition and culture, not just formal education and research.

   
   

This isn't to say we abandon the internet. We recognised that its accessibility makes it a necessary tool, especially when other resources are scarce (particularly in the context of health). Sometimes, a quick search is all that's needed to feel sufficiently informed for a specific task or scenario.

But we made a distinction between this practical level of information-gathering and the deeper understanding that comes from weaving together multiple sources over time. The key is knowing which approach the situation demands. Ultimately, the value of any information depends on the context, the stakes, and the reasoning skills we bring to the table.

The Final Verdict

So, can we still make informed decisions? The final verdict from the room was a qualified, and surprisingly hopeful, yes.

This hopeful answer, however, requires a conscious shift away from the hunt for a single, objective "truth" (which we doubted existed anyway, an existential debate for another time!). Instead, it’s about building a more resilient, well-rounded understanding by layering different sources: data, expert opinion, and the lived experiences of the people and communities we trust.

The conclusion wasn’t a neat formula, but a human one. In an age of overwhelming information, perhaps our most reliable filter might just be each other.