How fake trend pieces are born 5

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Andrew Dessler Posted 5:42 am
   25 Jan 2008

   That's possibly the dumbest article I've ever readI have a suggestion for the reporter: "bad reporting" is the new "good reporting"
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   Sean Casten Posted 6:07 am
   25 Jan 2008

   A good example of confirmation biasTo wit: the same stuff that causes people like Mike Huckabee to notice the cold weather of an Iowa ice storm and conclude that global warming isn't happening.  Or, for that matter to convince a gambler who sees the roulette wheel come up red three times in a row that he's got a good reason to bet on the next spin.
   My guess is that the journalist actually believes she's spotted a trend.  Bluetec!  Blue Nobel committee!  Blue Clean Cities!  Must be a trend right?  But our brains are hard-wired to spot trends, even when they don't exist and to confuse correlation with causality.  (I presume that Bluetooth, Blue UN helmets, Blue Man Group and Coltrane's Blue Train were not considered as part of her set, or even as evidence that there may in fact be no logical thread that links all things which happen to have the word "blue" in their title.)
   The Skeptical Inquirer has written a ton of interesting stuff about the psychology of this if you're interested.  Some interesting stuff I found just now when I searched the site for "confirmation bias":
   Specifically, we typically do not seek out discrediting evidence for our current beliefs with the same vigor that we look for supportive evidence (Gilovich 1991). Psychologists call this a confirmation bias (see Nickerson 1998 for a review). Confirmation bias has been demonstrated in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., stereotypes, political beliefs, financial decisions, beliefs in psychic abilities), and serves to strengthen current beliefs. Furthermore, the confirmation bias generates additional collateral "evidence," allowing beliefs to persist even when the initial evidence is discredited, because we can draw on evidence obtained from a variety of sources. As a quick test of the confirmation bias, readers can look through their personal collections of books. Do you have an equal number of books that are both consistent and inconsistent with your beliefs? Do you subscribe to or read periodicals, newspapers, etc. that present perspectives contrary to your political beliefs? ... Likewise, how do you feel about opposing political perspectives, especially concerning issues you are keenly interested in (e.g., the current Iraq war, school vouchers, privatization of Social Security accounts)? Do your feelings influence your assessment of the correctness of different perspectives? Likewise, are you surrounded primarily by others that share your views, which in turn strengthens your beliefs (i.e., group polarization)? A consistent skeptic would not be biased toward confirmatory evidence.
   Second, we are biased in assimilating information into our belief systems. Not only do we seek out information that supports our beliefs, but we also apply differing standards of evidence. As research has demonstrated, "People who hold strong opinions on complex social issues are likely to examine relevant empirical evidence in a biased manner. They are apt to accept `confirming' evidence at face value while subjecting `disconfirming' evidence to critical evaluation, and as a result to draw undue support for their initial positions from mixed or random empirical findings" (Lord, Ross, and Lepper 1979, p. 2098). A consistent skeptic would apply the methods of skepticism to all claims consistently and evaluate the evidence in an unbiased manner (i.e., without double standards).
   Finally, many studies have demonstrated that it can be difficult to change a belief even when substantial discrediting information is provided (i.e., belief perseverance; see Anderson and Kellam 1992). This is especially true when we have constructed a rationale supporting the belief, or for strongly held emotional beliefs (Edwards 1990). Belief perseverance explains why a "true believer" (e.g., Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who believed that mediums could communicate with spirits) continues to maintain beliefs despite powerful discrediting evidence (e.g., Harry Houdini's exposure of mediums as frauds or confessions by the mediums). Furthermore, research by Tetlock (1998, 1999) has shown that experts also go to great lengths to maintain belief systems, even in the face of strong evidence that should force them to reconsider viewpoints. A consistent skeptic should obviously use discrediting information to modify beliefs.
   Not only do we lack the time and universal expertise to be consistent skeptics, but our minds have a variety of built-in biases that directly hinder nonselective skepticism. These biases are especially powerful in defending long-held beliefs in which we have a strong emotional investment. Even the most ardent skeptic does not like to have his or her most cherished beliefs subjected to rigorous skeptical inquiry.
   Anyone not guilty of that?

   Permalink

3. 

   William Bert Posted 7:07 am
   25 Jan 2008

   No green hereGrist's own design is light on green.  I find it refreshing.  After looking at dozens of environmental sites all day my cones are aching for a break.

   Permalink

4. 

   caniscandida Posted 10:13 pm
   25 Jan 2008

   aesthetics countThe problem is, for many applications in designing our social environment, the color green is difficult to work with.  Human beings are not naturally green-colored.  They do not tend to look their best in green-colored clothes, and only very few remarkably good-looking individuals can get away with wearing such clothes.  Nobody looks good in green light.  And when asked about our color preference (which is a rather stupid question, actually), most of us say something other than green.
   So it is odd that green should have become the heraldic color of the environmental movement.  Sure, plants are green.  There are some green animals, e.g. some parrots, some snakes, some frogs, some bugs; but relatively not all that many.  And so far as human physiology and health go, the color green has definitely negative associations.
   Blue, by contrast, has much more pleasant associations.  True, there are probably no more animals colored blue than green (the blue-footed booby, though, is a lovely bird).  And blue lighting is at least as bad as green lighting.  But, as the much criticized "culture reporter" has written, blue can be associated with sea and sky, which sort of count high with environmentalists.  And designers have been working comfortably with blue for a very long time.
   Now, whether there is an environmentalist trend away from green and toward blue, I would not know.  Should there be such a trend?; well, I would have to say, yes, there should.
   
   Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 12:44 am
   26 Jan 2008

   Useless?Maybe not, think green.  Think recycling.
   http://www.jwtintelligence.com/news.html
   On the bright side, "Soylent green is made from PEOPLE! It's PEOPLE!"
   Maybe the JWT staff could volunteer and start this green trend?  They could be told that the name will be changed to soylent blue if they become a personal part of this trend?
   JWT meet Adbusters.
   http://www.adbusters.org/home/
   And if you really want to get trendy, try this blogger, who didn't need a global ad agency.
   http://www.joshspear.com/
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink