Bad Advice: How to Survive and Thrive in an Age of Bullshit

Product Information

Then there is the misleading biases in data visualization. After the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law was enacted, a figure seemed to show at first glance, a drop in homicides. A close look at the vertical axis shows that it was inverted, giving the wrong impression. It turns out that the author of the figure did not intend to mislead, but used an unfortunate representation of the truth. At first I thought this was going to be a rehash of all the other books out there on cognitive biases, but it turned out to include quite a few things I haven't heard articulated very well, like how the scientific process and publishing industry work, and about AI and big data (this section was excellent). This is a book I could happily recommend to others as a primer on critical thinking and spotting, ahem, bullshit, especially on the internet. The authors did a really good job of not making it (much) about pet theories, but about general principles that can be applied to all theories. They also avoided taking political sides which, in this day and age, is amazing. Disinformation relies on trusted people in your social circle spreading bullshit. The bullshit propagates because people have emotion over a headline and repost without doing any vetting whatsoever. Computer generated faces are created now as profile pics for fake accounts and they can be very convincing. Bots are in fake real people with fake identities with a very real agenda who get retweeted by the likes of The New York Times.

Technology has made the bullshit problem much worse. Forget the all-seeing eye of AI and tech, if you start out with garbage training programs for the algorithm, you will get garbage out. Is it any wonder that a paper claiming to recognize criminality from a picture would produce nothing but utter bullshit if the input data was headshots of non-criminals and MUGSHOTS of convicted criminals? Of course there is never complete concensus about a topic, but how can a field be considered ‘debunked’ when a paper published in the journal Nature showing positive results in a randomized controlled trial of several thousand people (1). How can this and several other complex fields with inevitably mixed results be so lazily dismissed? If that person is trying to infect the listener with that confidence, or positive thinking,or belief – typically a politician communicating to concerned voters or a surgeon to a concerned patient) – I contend we’re still in the area of deception or deliberate exaggeration justified as for a good cause. This, I would say, goes in particular for the self-discipline part of self-confidence. Do you have confidence in your self-discipline? Do you take your decisions seriously after AND BEFORE you have taken them?The authors then take the reader on a tour of quantitative fallacies with several examples, all explained clearly and with humor. The reader will learn how to differentiate between correlation and causation, spot biased and unrepresentative data and small sample sizes, identify selection biases in samples, understand how data can be manipulated visually, and more. The reader will also learn how to properly evaluate scientific claims, and how the anti-vaxx movement is based on a single, thoroughly-debunked scientific study that massively confuses correlation with causation, among many other problems.

There is increasing concern that such fictions risk eclipsing reputable information. Macmillan Cancer Support recently appointed a nurse specifically to debunk online stories, prompting the Lancet Oncology to comment: “How has society got to this point, where unproven interventions are being chosen in preference to evidence-based, effective treatments? Unfortunately, disinformation and – frankly – lies are widely propagated and with the same magnitude as verified evidence.” Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are dismissed by charlatans as poisons, imperilling lives Who amongst us is without sin? And I’m not just asking for a friend. We’ve all shared something on the internet that we regret. Especially when we realise with a rush of all-too-rare self-awareness, that the reason we posted it was because it appealed more to our prejudices than to our reason. This is inevitable. And this is also one of the things the authors repeatedly warn us we need to worry about. They quote Neil Postman saying that the person most likely to fool you is yourself. Confirmation bias is our number one, very favourite flavour of bias. So, finding ways to trip ourselves up before we start accepting as true the latest factoid that proves that all those bastards from the other side are selfish, nasty hypocrites is essential. We need to take time to pause. Although, that is easier said than done, obviously. But I’ve said it now, so, all good. When you’re heartbroken, what do you hear? You can’t love anyone until you love yourself. When someone’s hurt you? Nobody can make you feel bad without your permission. When you’re just a little too positive? Expectations lead to disappointment. Which is a shame. There is a fascinating book to be written by someone with a bit more self-reflection — someone a bit less confident, perhaps, in their thesis. Robertson divides confidence into two constituent parts: a “can happen” attitude and a “can do” attitude. If we’re trying to lose weight, say, someone might tell us to eat a healthier diet and take more exercise.

If Unherd starts having a golf column, I do not think employing Tom as the golf correspondent would be advisable. I do not follow golf closely these days, but I did know enough to think it unlikely that events had proceeded as above.