Comments on: To Win Press, Feign Surprise http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html Overcoming Bias is economist Robin Hanson’s blog, on honesty, signaling, disagreement, forecasting, and the far future. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:23:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Dr. Zeuss http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423673 Dr. Zeuss Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:21:53 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423673 An alternative is that information that forces estimates to be earlier (like finding a new fossil) comes more rarely but changes our estimates drastically, whereas information that force estimates to be later (look, another year without a new fossil) comes more frequently but has smaller effects. If you assume that the media only reports changes in our estimate larger than a given absolute value, then we get the effect you're talking about. An alternative is that information that forces estimates to be earlier (like finding a new fossil) comes more rarely but changes our estimates drastically, whereas information that force estimates to be later (look, another year without a new fossil) comes more frequently but has smaller effects. If you assume that the media only reports changes in our estimate larger than a given absolute value, then we get the effect you’re talking about.

]]> By: Glen Raphael http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423672 Glen Raphael Sun, 24 Dec 2006 05:52:03 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423672 It works in climatology too, with the tendency to feign surprise at findings that it's now "the hottest decade" since various earlier times. Whatever date you come up with, play it up in the press release as if you find it surprising and you'll get headlines. An amusing recent example was when the National Academy of Sciences examined the "hockey stick" controversy and decided to /reject/ earlier controversial claims in the published literature that it's recently "been the hottest in 1000 years" in favor of finding that one could only claim with confidence that it's now the hottest it's been in 400 years, which is to say that we've been on a warming trend since the Little Ice Age. Following the press release, headlines read "HOTTEST IN 400 YEARS"; you had to read the articles carefully to realize this was a backpedalling from earlier, much larger, estimates. (for instance: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/ ) It works in climatology too, with the tendency to feign surprise at findings that it’s now “the hottest decade” since various earlier times. Whatever date you come up with, play it up in the press release as if you find it surprising and you’ll get headlines.

An amusing recent example was when the National Academy of Sciences examined the “hockey stick” controversy and decided to /reject/ earlier controversial claims in the published literature that it’s recently “been the hottest in 1000 years” in favor of finding that one could only claim with confidence that it’s now the hottest it’s been in 400 years, which is to say that we’ve been on a warming trend since the Little Ice Age. Following the press release, headlines read “HOTTEST IN 400 YEARS”; you had to read the articles carefully to realize this was a backpedalling from earlier, much larger, estimates.

(for instance: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/ )

]]> By: David J. Balan http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423671 David J. Balan Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:16:14 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423671 The same phenomenon appears to work in reverse in Biblical Studies, where the way to make a splash is to find that some text was really written way later than anyone had previously thought. The same phenomenon appears to work in reverse in Biblical Studies, where the way to make a splash is to find that some text was really written way later than anyone had previously thought.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423670 Robin Hanson Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:27:04 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423670 Douglas, I'll admit that is theoretically possible, but I question whether that is what is actually going on. Douglas, I’ll admit that is theoretically possible, but I question whether that is what is actually going on.

]]> By: Douglas Knight http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423669 Douglas Knight Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:02:55 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423669 Current theories should not follow a symmetric random walk--there is skew. It's easier for a single find to push the date back a lot in one step. Moreover, such a dramatic find is more likely to get media attention. Pushing the date forward would be more likely the result of a failure of evidence to show up, incremental and not newsworthy. Current theories should not follow a symmetric random walk–there is skew. It’s easier for a single find to push the date back a lot in one step. Moreover, such a dramatic find is more likely to get media attention. Pushing the date forward would be more likely the result of a failure of evidence to show up, incremental and not newsworthy.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423668 Robin Hanson Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:18:52 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423668 Chris and pdf, this is such a regular pattern that I don't think it makes much sense to call it a misunderstanding. A fossil hunter who has seen a sequence of articles like this and is being interviewed is quite capable of making this point clear if he wants to. So either they choose not to make this point clear, or reporters pointedly ignore them when they do. I find the first theory more plausible than the second. (I've now had 160 media articles mention or quote me, so I know a bit about the reporter-reportee relation.) Chris and pdf, this is such a regular pattern that I don’t think it makes much sense to call it a misunderstanding. A fossil hunter who has seen a sequence of articles like this and is being interviewed is quite capable of making this point clear if he wants to. So either they choose not to make this point clear, or reporters pointedly ignore them when they do. I find the first theory more plausible than the second. (I’ve now had 160 media articles mention or quote me, so I know a bit about the reporter-reportee relation.)

]]> By: EconLog http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423674 EconLog Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:12:28 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423674 <strong>Robin Hanson's Intelligence Continues to Amaze Me</strong> Well, it shouldn't, explains Robin. Consider the foolish way that the world reacts to new fossils: Fossil hunters have found... Robin Hanson’s Intelligence Continues to Amaze Me

Well, it shouldn’t, explains Robin. Consider the foolish way that the world reacts to new fossils: Fossil hunters have found…

]]> By: Chris Hibbert http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423667 Chris Hibbert Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:47:21 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423667 Another possibility is that the reporters are misinterpreting "earliest date we have evidence for" as "earliest date we believe". And some scientists (predominately the field workers, right) would stick scrupulously to "earliest date we have evidence for." Those doing the speculating would be less likely to be present at the dig site, or the ensuing press conference. In order to track the bias, we need to dig up what they said last week and last year, not what they're currently saying they thought last week or last year. Another possibility is that the reporters are misinterpreting “earliest date we have evidence for” as “earliest date we believe”. And some scientists (predominately the field workers, right) would stick scrupulously to “earliest date we have evidence for.” Those doing the speculating would be less likely to be present at the dig site, or the ensuing press conference.

In order to track the bias, we need to dig up what they said last week and last year, not what they’re currently saying they thought last week or last year.

]]> By: pdf23ds http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423666 pdf23ds Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:38:28 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423666 Well, what I'm suspecting is that the bias is in the reporting instead of the science. For instance, say that before a find of artifact X, scientists thought that X's began to be produced between 80,000 and 20,000 years ago (as a 90% confidence interval). X is discovered to be 30,000 years old, and scientists revise their estimates to 70,000 - 35,000. (70,000 because with each additional find close to the recent end of the range, it becomes less likely that anything older would be found.) I would not be at all surprised if, in general news reports on the matter, the far end of the range were elided, giving the false impression of bias you write about. In other words, never trust science reporting. Well, what I’m suspecting is that the bias is in the reporting instead of the science. For instance, say that before a find of artifact X, scientists thought that X’s began to be produced between 80,000 and 20,000 years ago (as a 90% confidence interval). X is discovered to be 30,000 years old, and scientists revise their estimates to 70,000 – 35,000. (70,000 because with each additional find close to the recent end of the range, it becomes less likely that anything older would be found.) I would not be at all surprised if, in general news reports on the matter, the far end of the range were elided, giving the false impression of bias you write about.

In other words, never trust science reporting.

]]> By: Robin Hanson http://www.overcomingbias.com/2006/12/to_win_press_fe.html#comment-423665 Robin Hanson Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:53:45 +0000 http://prod.ob.trike.com.au/2006/12/to-win-press-feign-surprise.html#comment-423665 pdf, yes of course these are not situations where you have enough data to estimate "accurately." But estimate they do, which is not in itself unreasonable. The unreasonable thing is to have bias in the estimates. pdf, yes of course these are not situations where you have enough data to estimate “accurately.” But estimate they do, which is not in itself unreasonable. The unreasonable thing is to have bias in the estimates.

]]>