Rob, can we form a support group?

Conversely, if I told you my girlfriend didn’t find Mark attractive, you might wonder whether this denial was evidence of some secret liaison going on. In this case I would be better to say my girlfriend thinks Mark is average in his looks, or even that she doesn’t have an opinion.

When putting together any communication, it is important to use the words we want our audience to remember. As a starting point, we should avoid using negatives like, “I do not find him attractive.” Sadly, a piece about how there is no association between autism and MMR vaccines, in the wider public context, tends to communicate the opposite.

Then, some words are so over-used in inappropriate ways that they start to convey the opposite meanings. If a politician says that beef is safe, then it probably isn’t, because things rarely are safe when a politician uses that word.

It’s a tricky subject.

Anders is scrupulously fair in not attributing ulterior motives to any side in this, however I would like to point out that there are sources of ulterior motives. Firstly, in the media, fear sells, simple as that. “If it bleeds, it leads” is trite but – sadly – true. Secondly, this fact is known, such that any group with an agenda need only start the boil rolling with a publication detailing a risk to create the impression that it is real. It then becomes much harder to counter with balanced data.

I have heard it described as there being two groups: the well-intentioned, but ill-informed who make up the majority of the population; and the well-informed, but ill-intentioned who prey on the former.

Forgive me if I sound cynical and jaded, but personal experience has left me somewhat scarred by the “well-informed, but ill-intentioned” set!

Anders is scrupulously fair in not attributing ulterior motives to any side in this, however I would like to point out that there are sources of ulterior motives. Firstly, in the media, fear sells, simple as that. “If it bleeds, it leads” is trite but – sadly – true. Secondly, this fact is known, such that any group with an agenda need only start the boil rolling with a publication detailing a risk to create the impression that it is real. It then becomes much harder to counter with balanced data.

I have heard it described as there being two groups: the well-intentioned, but ill-informed who make up the majority of the population; and the well-informed, but ill-intentioned who prey on the former.

Forgive me if I sound cynical and jaded, but personal experience has left me somewhat scarred by the “well-informed, but ill-intentioned” set!

2) If the biases are known, introduce biases early on in the chain to get the desired result at the end.
Very hard to estimate the final biases reliably ahead of time. And this would involve either journalists or scientists deliberately distorting the evidence in the hope of acheiving an unbiased result somewhere down the line. This goes against all thier training, and is probably unwise.

3) Consolidate the source.
This is the equivalent of the starting player in Chinese whispers announcing “ha! you got it wrong! the real mesage is…”. This might be possible; we need to get the basic science to speak with one voice (without enforcing an establishment view). It could proceed by getting anyone involved in a particular study to sign promises that they will only quote their own results if they mention all the other results in the field as well. That they will never accept an interview without informing all those doing similar research, and giving the right to take part in some capacity (video link, for instance). Every paper published on a particular domain should start with the message: Unless you also read ‘this paper, this paper, and this paper too’, your understanding of this subject will be distorted. Modern technology may allow the results of other papers in the same domain to appear as brief summaries, in the introduction of every paper.

May be tricky to do, but sounds like a worthwhile idea even if its partially implemented…

I also think Anders is spot on again. It is very rare that I see anyone not jump up and shout “That study which concludes there is little or no risk from X is not funded and therefore biased by the producers of X!” Usually it’s quite the opposite. Personally I think it has to do with a general lack of trust of corporations (nearly every time I see people talk about the Sinister Conspiracy it is a corporation behind it, seeking only one thing, profit and the deaths of the innocent). Not that all producers of things like cellphones or aspartame should be trusted, but I believe in America at least there is a strong biase against them.

fnord

Maybe we have two kinds of bias here. One is the above attribution bias, where the presence of some interest is enough to devaluate all arguments and evidence. Then there is the “underdog bias”: we tend to cheer for the underdog in western culture, and that means that the apparently weaker part gets a bit of benefit of the doubt.

I guess this is why so many people trust Greenpeace on GMOs. They look like an underdog and they have a Sinister Conspiracy on the opposing side. Of course, to people who doesn’t agree with them and like GMOs the situation is the reverse. But if warnings of risk have a high salience and people tend to assume that the Sinister Conspiracy is on the no-risk claim side, it could explain the advantage of the fearmongers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red-Headed_League