In a World of Fragmented Truths, What Happens to Conventional Wisdom?

It’s 3AM on Sunday morning as I type this (still Saturday night for me). I’ve spent the last 2 hours in bed reading Freakonomics, (I was supposed to be out partying but all my friends ditched - people in their 20s these days are too lazy).

For anyone unfamiliar with the title, Freakonomics is a book that was released in 2005 by legendary economist Steven D. Levitt that explores how hidden incentives and economic principles drive unexpected human behaviour. The ideas he presents are genuinely fascinating, and I probably wouldn’t have put the book down for another 2 hours, if not for something I read that stuck with me, in a chapter that explores John Kenneth Galbraith’s idea of conventional wisdom and the media’s role in it’s distribution. The author writes:

”Working together, journalists and experts are the architects of much conventional wisdom.”

Huh…

I’m pretty sure everyone I know gets their news from Twitter, Instagram or Joe Rogan…

So what happens, then, to “conventional wisdom” in a world where technology has supercharged the creation and distribution of information? What would it mean if we were to lose “conventional wisdom”?

3AM thoughts amirite? I should just go to sleep. But if you’ve got this far, you probably agree that this could be a fun train of thought to explore.

Screw it, I’ve decided to head down the rabbit hole, and for those of you who choose to follow along, I promise a well researched and hopefully thought provoking journey ahead. Let’s begin by catching you up on what I read in Freakonomics, starting with our man John Kenneth Galbraith.

John Kenneth Galbraith was a renowned economist, best known for his critique of economic orthodoxies and his theory of conventional wisdom, which he laid out in The Affluent Society in 1958. In his view, conventional wisdom consists of ideas and beliefs that persist not because they are true, but because they are convenient and comforting. People tend to accept these ideas because they support the status quo and fit comfortably within the existing social and political order. Galbraith argued that conventional wisdom resists change, even when reality demands new approaches. This resistance, he suggested, is often driven by those in power, who benefit from maintaining a familiar narrative.

In Freakonomics, the author builds on this idea, noting that conventional wisdom is shaped by journalists and experts working together to create the narratives that most of society accepts as fact.

This may have been the case in 2005, but it is no longer true. Today, it feels like those gatekeepers no longer control the flow of information.

Okay, I need to look this up.

Yup. Not surprised. Traditional media viewership is plummeting—prime-time viewership for networks like CNN dropped by 38% in 2021, and traffic to major newspaper websites fell by 20% in 2022.

Bruh. Statista says: “A 2020 survey revealed that over 80 percent of respondents in India aged 16 to 70 years old used social networks as their main news outlet”!

(Things I read: 1, 2, 3, 4)

The gatekeepers of information are no longer just journalists and experts; now, it’s influencers, your uncle on Facebook, AI generated content and that random thread you found on Reddit at 2 AM.

So, what does this mean for us? Are we on the verge of societal collapse because we can’t agree on basic facts? In history, societies have always had unifying narratives—whether religious, political, or social—that allowed people to rally around common causes. But now, with everyone forming their own “realities” based on the media they consume, it’s harder to find common ground. Without shared truths, the very foundation of collective decision-making becomes shaky. This fragmentation could make it harder for societies to address crises, pass legislation, or even maintain civil discourse.

I’m not ready to throw in the towel just yet, but it’s clear that this fragmentation of information poses some serious challenges. When everyone is living in their own echo chamber, it’s harder to find common ground on important issues. We've seen how this plays out in real-time—whether it’s debates on climate change, vaccines, or even elections, the lack of a shared reality has fuelled division.

Looking at the numbers, you also see how different platforms attract different audiences, further reinforcing these bubbles. For instance, while more than half of X (formerly Twitter) users get their news from the site, the platform's demographic leans heavily toward younger, male audiences, while Facebook’s news consumers are more likely to be women. No wonder we’re not all on the same page.

But here’s where I think things get interesting—and maybe even hopeful. While the decentralisation of information has disrupted the status quo, it’s also empowering. Think about it: we no longer have to rely on a handful of experts or media outlets to tell us what’s true. There’s a democratising effect to this, where more voices get heard, and new ideas can spread quickly. Yes, misinformation is a problem, but so is being stuck in the past. Galbraith himself might not have anticipated how technology would amplify this dynamic, but it’s clear that the erosion of conventional wisdom can allow for more diverse perspectives and new ways of thinking. We’ve seen movements for climate action, social justice, and more that have mobilised globally, thanks to the same social media platforms that spread conspiracy theories.

The real challenge, then, is not whether society will fall apart because we can't agree, but whether we can learn to manage this new reality. Maybe instead of returning to a time when conventional wisdom reigned supreme, we’ll create new mechanisms for building consensus—ones that account for a wider diversity of perspectives. I guess things like media literacy education and algorithmic tweaks to limit the spread of false information are steps in the right direction. It’s not perfect, but it’s progress.

Ultimately, while the apparent impending disappearance of conventional wisdom might feel unsettling, I don’t believe it’s a harbinger of societal collapse. Instead, it could signal a transformation—a shift toward a more dynamic way of understanding the world, where multiple perspectives coexist.

Sure, we’re navigating some turbulence as the old systems of information crumble, but we’re also seeing new opportunities for dialogue and innovation. The fact that we’re no longer confined to a few authoritative voices means more ideas, more creativity, and more room for change. It might be messy and imperfect, but that’s how progress often works. If we can harness the power of this new landscape—through better media literacy, smarter use of AI, and open-mindedness—we might just find ourselves in a society that’s not falling apart but learning to thrive in its intellectual diversity.

Change is such an interesting thing.

Okay, I'm falling asleep now... Good night.