To me “cognitohazard” seems like a good term for basilisks and their less exotic brethren—things that can somehow mess up your thinking when you hear them—but not for things more like spoilers. I’m not sure “infohazard” is great for that either but it seems less weird to me. (I don’t think I would ever refer to a spoiler as either an “infohazard” or a “cognitohazard”.)
Separately: Perhaps “infohazard” is, at present, unfixably ambiguous and we should use (say) “cognitohazard” for things that are individually harmful and “sociohazard” for things that are collectively harmful, and “infohazard” not at all.
I find the distinction (even within the personal level) interesting.
“Cognitohazard” to me sounds “this will mess up your thinking”.
But quite often, the hazard is that it will mess up your emotional state, and I’d want a different word for that. I mean with a spoiler, this is just a reduction in excitement and engagement. But a lot of online spaces can be far more intense in what they do to your emotions.
I also find it interesting that the harm can be the information itself (no matter how it is presented), or the presentation, or maybe just repetition with minimal variations? E.g. I have difficulties pinpointing the particular information I gain from reading online spaces occupied by people who are violent or depressed that I would characterise as hazardous (there is no truth that they know that I find inherently compelling; I could point to something like “many people are sad” or “many people hate people like me” or “there are many reasons to despair”, but saying them now, I do not find them that depressing), yet I find it impossible to spend extensive time in such spaces without my mood tanking. I’ve always thought brain washing techniques sounded silly, but I wonder now whether the repetition itself eventually does convince your brain that there is something to it. There was that interesting finding with Facebook content moderators who basically spend their whole workday looking at flagged content, and a lot of them… became conspiracy theorists, or paranoid, or started making ever more edgy jokes, their behaviour and thinking started changing. When they would explain the conspiracy theories, they did not have any particular compelling information. They had just read them repeatedly from all sorts of people, referenced as known and obvious, until their brain began to shift.
To me “cognitohazard” seems like a good term for basilisks and their less exotic brethren—things that can somehow mess up your thinking when you hear them—but not for things more like spoilers. I’m not sure “infohazard” is great for that either but it seems less weird to me. (I don’t think I would ever refer to a spoiler as either an “infohazard” or a “cognitohazard”.)
Separately: Perhaps “infohazard” is, at present, unfixably ambiguous and we should use (say) “cognitohazard” for things that are individually harmful and “sociohazard” for things that are collectively harmful, and “infohazard” not at all.
I find the distinction (even within the personal level) interesting.
“Cognitohazard” to me sounds “this will mess up your thinking”.
But quite often, the hazard is that it will mess up your emotional state, and I’d want a different word for that. I mean with a spoiler, this is just a reduction in excitement and engagement. But a lot of online spaces can be far more intense in what they do to your emotions.
I also find it interesting that the harm can be the information itself (no matter how it is presented), or the presentation, or maybe just repetition with minimal variations? E.g. I have difficulties pinpointing the particular information I gain from reading online spaces occupied by people who are violent or depressed that I would characterise as hazardous (there is no truth that they know that I find inherently compelling; I could point to something like “many people are sad” or “many people hate people like me” or “there are many reasons to despair”, but saying them now, I do not find them that depressing), yet I find it impossible to spend extensive time in such spaces without my mood tanking. I’ve always thought brain washing techniques sounded silly, but I wonder now whether the repetition itself eventually does convince your brain that there is something to it. There was that interesting finding with Facebook content moderators who basically spend their whole workday looking at flagged content, and a lot of them… became conspiracy theorists, or paranoid, or started making ever more edgy jokes, their behaviour and thinking started changing. When they would explain the conspiracy theories, they did not have any particular compelling information. They had just read them repeatedly from all sorts of people, referenced as known and obvious, until their brain began to shift.