The speed of information travel in modern society is truly remarkable. Since humans are incredibly adaptable, the marvel of that speed has quickly worn off, and it is now just part of what we consider normal. So normal that we quickly feel out of sorts when disconnected from it all, whether it be a "dead spot" or forgetting our phones at home. We expect to be able to get answers to our questions in moments.
That information has to originate somewhere. The vast majority of what we seek is legacy information. It got put on the Net some time in the past, and since the Internet is forever, it's there the moment we look for it. New information, however, doesn't fit that model. Some event occurs, such as the Delta "upside down" plane crash in Toronto, and the chaos of the event and its immediate aftermath means that the details and analyses will take time to generate, and more time to be loaded into cyberspace.
That's a very unsatisfying reality for those who are accustomed to near-instant information. Which is most of us, truth be told. Earlier versions of this form of expectation emerged when cable news first came onto the scene. Whereas, before CNN and its cohorts brought to us endless news, we'd have to wait for either the evening/nightly news or the next day's newspaper to learn about an event, we had available to us a running stream of... I hesitate to call it information, because a lot of it was just filler until information actually became available. So, people would sit and watch, and watch, and watch, waiting for something of substance to finally be shared.
Now, we don't just watch. We search, and we scroll, and we refresh, and we go onto social media and chatter.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and our brains abhor the unknown. Since we are conditioned to expect instant answers, our inclinations are to start speculating when we don't get them.
Sometimes, others will speculate similarly.
Sometimes, others will "validate" our speculations with likes and concurrences.
Sometimes, someone's baseless speculation will bubble through the internet, perhaps in meme form, and we might see it and treat it as information rather than speculation.
Sometimes, all this can vest us in our speculations, and thus make us reluctant to let them go if actual information that undermines them emerges. Humans prefer consistency over correctness, and the first ideas that hit our brains tend to be "sticky."
If actual information is slow to come out, another part of our brains kicks in - again, due to our fear of the unknown. "What are they hiding?" questions materialize for no legitimate reason, distrust of the information provided by investigators emerges, and thoughts veer into the conspiracy lanes.
When actual information does come out, and it's unsatisfying or contradicts an earlier speculation or someone else's meme, the stickiness of our speculations makes us doubt it even when there's no justifiable reason for that doubt.
Ever encounter someone who says "I think X but have no proof for it?" Good luck dislodging that thought, even when you have strong refuting evidence. Best you can expect in the moment is for the thinker to go quiet. Best you can hope for in the long term is that the thinker quietly withdraws from that viewpoint, never mentioning it again. It is rare to hear someone say "boy, did I get that wrong."
The answer for each of us is to slow down. Manage our information expectations, and avoid speculating aimlessly. There's no prize for being first, especially if you just made a lucky guess. Do that, and you'll realize just how much "filler" material is thrown out there, and how little that filler material matters.
Get used to waiting, and get used to not knowing right away, and you will probably reduce your stress and anxiety quite a bit.
In regard to the propensity for speculation there is much to suggest that it is just a way in which we feed our curiosity and there is no creature on this planet more curious than a human being. I won't say that is necessarily a negative trait because it's one of the things which triggers the need for learning and invention. However, it isn't curiosity by itself which does it. We have another trait that many authors will attest to and that is our natural ability for storytelling. It's been going on since prehistoric man drew on cave walls. As such those two factors in our makeup cause us to frequently create our own truths before and often after any evidence, official or otherwise, is made public.
Only two weeks ago legendary film actor Gene Hackman was found dead in his Santa Fe home along with his wife, classical pianist Betsy Arakawa, and one of the family dogs. As soon as the news was out a torrent of theories must have swept through all social media, public settings and behind closed doors regarding what had happened. If one made a close examination of those first 72 speculative hours the full gamut of conclusions, ranging from foul play to an accidental carbon monoxide leak, was submitted for one's approval or disapproval as the case might be. I won't deny that I had an idea or two about what might have occured in that 12-acre renovated hilltop mansion.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories,
instead of theories to suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes- A Study In Scarlet
Since then certain facts have been brought to light which give a clearer image of what might have led to the tragedy. Many will accept the publicized statements, I being one, whereas others might still cling to certain theories outside what has been presented by official channels. Curiosity is not easily satisfied when the so-called "truth" falls short of the storyteller's expectations. Human nature causes us to wonder and formulate. It can lead to positive results when kept within certain boundaries of what I dare to call rationality.
I'm an occasional fan of the airplane disasters show on Smithsonian network. It is very well-produced and splices in actual footage with computer-generated imagery and actors and survivors, but the real story is always the investigation - and how long, tedious and painstakingly thorough the investigation is. Numerous false leads and parallel "causes" are explored and tested. They don't stop at "proximate" cause - they ask, "OK, then how did THAT happen?" and "Why did the system not catch THAT?" You eventually get the ultimate conclusion, published in the official, final accident investigation, as well as what they've done to ensure it cannot happen again. This conclusion comes after months and even years of analysis and review, and the answers are sometimes startling. It's a great program and it does a great service to your theme today - we need to be patient and let the experts work it out in all its detail.
But the underlying assumption is that our government shares our interest in getting to the truth and getting that truth out to us. I'm confident that's always (usually) the case in the event of aircraft accidents. However there ARE a number of stories in the media where our government intentionally withholds information - the "we'll probably never know" black holes intentionally perpetrated by federal agencies like the FBI and CIA, that lead to "conspiracy theories" - which, lacking any information to debunk them, we're left questioning our federal agencies' role in either the perpetration or coverup of what really happened. Presidential assassination attempts are not a minor crime, and the public has a right to know what's going on, at least in broad terms, as the investigation is conducted. Instead, we're left with the appearance our government agencies are burying the truth and then burying the shovel. Not a good look!