11 ms·

The man who studies the spread of ignorance

134 points by lnguyen 11y ago

pizza 11y ago
Perhaps relevant: Predicting Successful Memes using Network and Community Structure. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6199 http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6199
fffrad 11y ago
One of the problems is that facts are usually presented in the most boring ways, think lectures. Facts, should be spread the same way. Using propaganda, using sex, using means as creative as those who decide to spread false information. Next time you watch a speech by Donald Trump, don't look at him, look at the faces of the people behind him. He is winning them emotionally, not factually. Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.
- Swizec 11y ago
  As many people have said: Good stories are true, not factual. True. Not factual. A lot of us in the sciences forget that the distinction exist. Or worse, want to pretend it doesn't.
  - davidwihl 11y ago
    As Farley Mowat, the Canadian novelist, said: "I never let the facts get in the way of the truth!" Also relevant: Lee McIntyre's book on willful ignorance in the Internet age. With so many facts readily at hand, the flip side of agnotology is an audience who decides to stay ignorant in the face of contrary facts. http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Internet/dp/1138888818 http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Int...
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I'd like to think of it as general population operating under a different definition of the word "truth".
    - Swizec 11y ago
      No, it's deeper than that. For instance: the fact is that 32,727 people died from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014. The truth is that this is number is insignificant. Over 55 million people died in 2014. The truth is also that we fear what we feel is random more than what we feel is the result of our actions. We are disproportionately afraid of black swan events. This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp. Facts are just facts. Truth is the interpretation of facts.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        I see your point and I agree. I understood your wrongly. Thanks for the clarification. So another example would be relative effects in medical and nutritional studies. That the red meat was correlated with 3-fold increase of cancer in some tests is absolutely meaningless. What matters is the absolute size, because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.
        trhway 11y ago
        >because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about. you must be kidding - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probabili... The risk of getting only colorectal cancer is almost 5% and dying from that cancer - 2%. The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc.. I'd say your post is a perfect example of spreading of ignorance even when the Google is just one click away. To the comment below: it seems you again ignored the chance to google for the info, in particular for the link between prostate cancer and red meat/obesity/etc. The same goes for breast cancer too. Even when specifically pointed out to easy available source of clear info, you still continue to spread ignorance.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
  - mobiuscog 11y ago
    The film 'Big Fish' is a great example of this.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  That's why I think Gravity, Interstellar and The Martian are the best things that happened for space popularization since 1987 (Star Trek: The Next Generation). They cleared out tons of misconceptions people have about space, while introducing very little of their own (Gravity being the biggest offender) - and they did it in a way that captured the interest of general population. I like the trend of making realistic science fiction, and I hope it continues. > Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech. There's a risk with going too far with that though. A scientist who makes their writing too creative can do more harm than good to the domain, and to public perception of science. The risk increases exponentially if the work is being managed by a creative director - they'll likely take liberties with accuracy in order to make the work more general-population-friendly. Science is a hard thing to explain right. Yes, quite a lot of even the most advanced concepts can be presented simply, but it's a very delicate and precise work, if you want the simplification to be right, and not misleading. -- As for space education, Kerbal Space Program is absolutely the best thing ever. It's hard to even count the number of people 12 y.o. and less who are proficient in basic orbital mechanics, math included, thanks to this game. Seeing kids talking about Δv budgets and orbital transfers really warms my heart. The game's realism, combined with fun setting and identifiable characters, makes it a perfect vehicle for teaching physics intuition that is hard to acquire even for professionals. And the best thing? It even teaches hard math the right way! You don't have to know or learn any math to play KSP and have fun. You can literally eyeball your Mun mission. But as you play you quickly discover the benefits of learning a bit of theory. It makes your rockets more efficient. It makes your maneuvers better. It helps you understand why your ship seems to go away from your space station when you accelerate towards it. Soon, your game turns from this[0] to this[1] (via mods, and yes, all those numbers and plots mean something to you). [0] - http://i.imgur.com/72XNY9q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/72XNY9q.jpg [1] - http://i.imgur.com/AcpcCqS.png http://i.imgur.com/AcpcCqS.png
ageofwant 11y ago
So a agnotologist is basically a evil troll ? I propose a new word: "agnotroll" "He is a well know agnotroll, you should just ignore his agitprop."
cconcepts 11y ago
Is there a name for the effect, or at least percieved effect, that people are becoming less "teachable" because we're so used to just googling stuff that we sometimes percieve ourselves as a fount of knowledge because we mistakenly attribute all the answers to ourselves and not the little gadget in our pocket? I don't think the Flynn effect is applicable.
- SFLemonade 11y ago
  I would love to know if any research is being done on this. On a comedic note, Bill Burr refers to it as the "www.IAmRight.com effect", where people develop absurd opinions and then just Google sources to support their opinions (rather than the other way around, where they would begin with sources and form a logical opinion from there).
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    This remind me of something I learned in high school while doing my math homework. An assignment becomes much easier when you first look at the answer in the back. When you know what to aim for, it's easier to weave the right path from the data to results. You aren't learning much in the process, but technically, you've done the job.
    - kaybe 11y ago
      Even better, when you're doing particularly 'wordy' calculations with many many greek letters where one line goes over two actual lines one the paper, you can start from both ends and just drop a little here and add a little there until you have woven them together (if you cannot get it done properly). Chances are good that whoever corrects it won't notice..
tomp 11y ago
I know it's popular in certain circles to oppose, shame and attack Trump, but when you really think about it, all politicians do this, none of them is using facts in their campaign.
- gadders 11y ago
  Yeah. I would have used more sympathy for the article if he had used left and right wing examples. As it is, it just comes across as politically motivated (or at least slanted).
  - ACow_Adonis 11y ago
    From the article: "Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion." So i'm not sure if you're serious, or being ironic... Either way, that articles have to be "even handed" or present "both sides of the story" is a technique often used by spreaders of ignorance or partisans to deny rational points or treatments of information.
    - tomp 11y ago
      Conversely, pointing this out (as you and another commenter did) is a convenient (but falacious) way of justifiying one-sided views/articles.
    - Nursie 11y ago
      False Balance. You see it on news reports all the time. Here we have a scientist talking about the latest meta-study, well reviewed, on the safety profile of a certain type of vaccine. And now we need to balance that out with a crackpot who thinks vaccines are a form of government mind control.
    - gadders 11y ago
      Well, here's the thing. People can spread ignorance, I agree. However, if someone gives a list of examples and 2/3 or them could be described as "right wing" you begin to wonder as to his motivations. However, if you think that the spread of ignorance is purely a right-wing phenomonon and that left-wing politicians are scrupulously truthful in all they do, then I don't know what to say to you.
amelius 11y ago
The biggest problem we have today is that uninformed people form such a large percentage of the voting pool. The best solution I've heard so far: on the age of 18, you will be given the following choice: a free scooter, or voting rights.
- tomp 11y ago
  Wasn't this always the case? (Well, as long as there was democracy)
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    It probably was, but the world was less complex back then (both because of the technological progress of the last two centuries, and because politics has layered tons upon tons of bullshit on every issue imaginable).
  - golergka 11y ago
    When democracy wasn't available to everyone because of discrimination, the same discrimination was also in effect in access to education — so those who voted had better education than those who didn't. Just to clarify, in case this comment will be read by idiots: discrimination is bad. Votings rights are good. Access to education for everyone is good. If you're thinking that I argue for return to "good old times of racism and sexism", you're a moron. (You would think that people aren't as stupid as to misunderstand such comment. Unfortunately, you would be mistaken).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    No, the problem back then was more often that a small group of people were relatively well informed and voting in their own narrow interests, but not in the interests of those who didn't yet have the vote. Once people rioted etc. to actually win the vote, more subtle approaches had to be found to continue doing whatever was in the interests of the well connected few. Having lots of uninformed voters distracted by fluff is one of those tactics.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
I would say that the ignorance comes from unverified 3rd party sources. But isn't that where actual knowledge comes from? In the end we all put faith on other experts and choose to believe what they tell us is true. To this day I cannot for the life of me prove that we went to the moon or that global warming is real without citing sources created by other "experts." So really I can't blame ignorant people. I only believe in global warming over the other opposing claims made by corporate sponsored studies only because one conclusion seems more likely then the other. I cannot definitively say that I believe in global warming because the logic categorically says it is true. There rarely exists any logic that tells me a=c because b=a and b=c, if you catch my drift. I've only found such logic to exist for atheism. Yet a good number of people in this world are still ignorant in that regard.
dawnbreez 11y ago
Given the position these people take, it's easy to assume that you can solve this by taking away the right of certain people to vote. The problem is that this concentrates the power in the hands of a few, who can be manipulated by more traditional means.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

134 points by lnguyen 11y ago

pizza 11y ago

Perhaps relevant: Predicting Successful Memes using Network and Community Structure. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6199 http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6199

fffrad 11y ago

One of the problems is that facts are usually presented in the most boring ways, think lectures. Facts, should be spread the same way. Using propaganda, using sex, using means as creative as those who decide to spread false information. Next time you watch a speech by Donald Trump, don't look at him, look at the faces of the people behind him. He is winning them emotionally, not factually. Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech.

Swizec 11y ago
As many people have said: Good stories are true, not factual. True. Not factual. A lot of us in the sciences forget that the distinction exist. Or worse, want to pretend it doesn't.
- davidwihl 11y ago
  As Farley Mowat, the Canadian novelist, said: "I never let the facts get in the way of the truth!" Also relevant: Lee McIntyre's book on willful ignorance in the Internet age. With so many facts readily at hand, the flip side of agnotology is an audience who decides to stay ignorant in the face of contrary facts. http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Internet/dp/1138888818 http://www.amazon.com/Respecting-Truth-Willful-Ignorance-Int...
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  I'd like to think of it as general population operating under a different definition of the word "truth".
  - Swizec 11y ago
    No, it's deeper than that. For instance: the fact is that 32,727 people died from terrorist attacks worldwide in 2014. The truth is that this is number is insignificant. Over 55 million people died in 2014. The truth is also that we fear what we feel is random more than what we feel is the result of our actions. We are disproportionately afraid of black swan events. This is why terrorism is so effective despite being an irrelevant statistical blimp. Facts are just facts. Truth is the interpretation of facts.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I see your point and I agree. I understood your wrongly. Thanks for the clarification. So another example would be relative effects in medical and nutritional studies. That the red meat was correlated with 3-fold increase of cancer in some tests is absolutely meaningless. What matters is the absolute size, because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about.
      - trhway 11y ago
        >because the 3x increase from 0.0001% chance to 0.0003% is something not worth even pausing a breath about. you must be kidding - http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probabili... The risk of getting only colorectal cancer is almost 5% and dying from that cancer - 2%. The total risk of getting any cancer is about 40% and dying from a cancer - 20%. Many of the cancers are significantly affected by healthy (or not) lifestyle/eating/drinking/etc.. I'd say your post is a perfect example of spreading of ignorance even when the Google is just one click away. To the comment below: it seems you again ignored the chance to google for the info, in particular for the link between prostate cancer and red meat/obesity/etc. The same goes for breast cancer too. Even when specifically pointed out to easy available source of clear info, you still continue to spread ignorance.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
- mobiuscog 11y ago
  The film 'Big Fish' is a great example of this.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's why I think Gravity, Interstellar and The Martian are the best things that happened for space popularization since 1987 (Star Trek: The Next Generation). They cleared out tons of misconceptions people have about space, while introducing very little of their own (Gravity being the biggest offender) - and they did it in a way that captured the interest of general population. I like the trend of making realistic science fiction, and I hope it continues. > Maybe all scientists and researchers should take classes in creative writing, fiction, and speech. There's a risk with going too far with that though. A scientist who makes their writing too creative can do more harm than good to the domain, and to public perception of science. The risk increases exponentially if the work is being managed by a creative director - they'll likely take liberties with accuracy in order to make the work more general-population-friendly. Science is a hard thing to explain right. Yes, quite a lot of even the most advanced concepts can be presented simply, but it's a very delicate and precise work, if you want the simplification to be right, and not misleading. -- As for space education, Kerbal Space Program is absolutely the best thing ever. It's hard to even count the number of people 12 y.o. and less who are proficient in basic orbital mechanics, math included, thanks to this game. Seeing kids talking about Δv budgets and orbital transfers really warms my heart. The game's realism, combined with fun setting and identifiable characters, makes it a perfect vehicle for teaching physics intuition that is hard to acquire even for professionals. And the best thing? It even teaches hard math the right way! You don't have to know or learn any math to play KSP and have fun. You can literally eyeball your Mun mission. But as you play you quickly discover the benefits of learning a bit of theory. It makes your rockets more efficient. It makes your maneuvers better. It helps you understand why your ship seems to go away from your space station when you accelerate towards it. Soon, your game turns from this[0] to this[1] (via mods, and yes, all those numbers and plots mean something to you). [0] - http://i.imgur.com/72XNY9q.jpg http://i.imgur.com/72XNY9q.jpg [1] - http://i.imgur.com/AcpcCqS.png http://i.imgur.com/AcpcCqS.png

ageofwant 11y ago

So a agnotologist is basically a evil troll ? I propose a new word: "agnotroll" "He is a well know agnotroll, you should just ignore his agitprop."

cconcepts 11y ago

Is there a name for the effect, or at least percieved effect, that people are becoming less "teachable" because we're so used to just googling stuff that we sometimes percieve ourselves as a fount of knowledge because we mistakenly attribute all the answers to ourselves and not the little gadget in our pocket? I don't think the Flynn effect is applicable.

SFLemonade 11y ago
I would love to know if any research is being done on this. On a comedic note, Bill Burr refers to it as the "www.IAmRight.com effect", where people develop absurd opinions and then just Google sources to support their opinions (rather than the other way around, where they would begin with sources and form a logical opinion from there).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  This remind me of something I learned in high school while doing my math homework. An assignment becomes much easier when you first look at the answer in the back. When you know what to aim for, it's easier to weave the right path from the data to results. You aren't learning much in the process, but technically, you've done the job.
  - kaybe 11y ago
    Even better, when you're doing particularly 'wordy' calculations with many many greek letters where one line goes over two actual lines one the paper, you can start from both ends and just drop a little here and add a little there until you have woven them together (if you cannot get it done properly). Chances are good that whoever corrects it won't notice..

tomp 11y ago

I know it's popular in certain circles to oppose, shame and attack Trump, but when you really think about it, all politicians do this, none of them is using facts in their campaign.

gadders 11y ago
Yeah. I would have used more sympathy for the article if he had used left and right wing examples. As it is, it just comes across as politically motivated (or at least slanted).
- ACow_Adonis 11y ago
  From the article: "Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion." So i'm not sure if you're serious, or being ironic... Either way, that articles have to be "even handed" or present "both sides of the story" is a technique often used by spreaders of ignorance or partisans to deny rational points or treatments of information.
  - tomp 11y ago
    Conversely, pointing this out (as you and another commenter did) is a convenient (but falacious) way of justifiying one-sided views/articles.
  - Nursie 11y ago
    False Balance. You see it on news reports all the time. Here we have a scientist talking about the latest meta-study, well reviewed, on the safety profile of a certain type of vaccine. And now we need to balance that out with a crackpot who thinks vaccines are a form of government mind control.
  - gadders 11y ago
    Well, here's the thing. People can spread ignorance, I agree. However, if someone gives a list of examples and 2/3 or them could be described as "right wing" you begin to wonder as to his motivations. However, if you think that the spread of ignorance is purely a right-wing phenomonon and that left-wing politicians are scrupulously truthful in all they do, then I don't know what to say to you.

amelius 11y ago

The biggest problem we have today is that uninformed people form such a large percentage of the voting pool. The best solution I've heard so far: on the age of 18, you will be given the following choice: a free scooter, or voting rights.

tomp 11y ago
Wasn't this always the case? (Well, as long as there was democracy)
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It probably was, but the world was less complex back then (both because of the technological progress of the last two centuries, and because politics has layered tons upon tons of bullshit on every issue imaginable).
- golergka 11y ago
  When democracy wasn't available to everyone because of discrimination, the same discrimination was also in effect in access to education — so those who voted had better education than those who didn't. Just to clarify, in case this comment will be read by idiots: discrimination is bad. Votings rights are good. Access to education for everyone is good. If you're thinking that I argue for return to "good old times of racism and sexism", you're a moron. (You would think that people aren't as stupid as to misunderstand such comment. Unfortunately, you would be mistaken).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  No, the problem back then was more often that a small group of people were relatively well informed and voting in their own narrow interests, but not in the interests of those who didn't yet have the vote. Once people rioted etc. to actually win the vote, more subtle approaches had to be found to continue doing whatever was in the interests of the well connected few. Having lots of uninformed voters distracted by fluff is one of those tactics.

crimsonalucard 11y ago

I would say that the ignorance comes from unverified 3rd party sources. But isn't that where actual knowledge comes from? In the end we all put faith on other experts and choose to believe what they tell us is true. To this day I cannot for the life of me prove that we went to the moon or that global warming is real without citing sources created by other "experts." So really I can't blame ignorant people. I only believe in global warming over the other opposing claims made by corporate sponsored studies only because one conclusion seems more likely then the other. I cannot definitively say that I believe in global warming because the logic categorically says it is true. There rarely exists any logic that tells me a=c because b=a and b=c, if you catch my drift. I've only found such logic to exist for atheism. Yet a good number of people in this world are still ignorant in that regard.

dawnbreez 11y ago

Given the position these people take, it's easy to assume that you can solve this by taking away the right of certain people to vote. The problem is that this concentrates the power in the hands of a few, who can be manipulated by more traditional means.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]