Skip to main content

May Contain Lies - Alex Edmans ****

If we are to believe the media we are bombarded with misinformation and disinformation - there's certainly a lot of it out there and Alex Edmans sets out to give a guide to the many ways that information can be badly or misleadingly presented, and how we can defend ourselves from it.

At the heart of his argument are two biases. I'm so glad he limits it to two - I get totally lost trying to keep on top of all the biases that psychologists introduce, so sticking to confirmation bias plus black and white thinking as the key errors to look out for, both in how we receive information ourselves and how others present it, is very helpful.

At the heart of the book is a ladder of levels of something like quality of information. These are statement, fact, data, evidence and proof. Edmans goes into plenty of detail on each rung - how we get, for example, from statement to fact, or data to evidence. Most of all, he demonstrates brilliantly how both those undertaking studies and those interpreting them and making use of them fail to make the leap from one rung to the next. Some of the examples are horrific - where, for instance, politicians make use of a totally opposite finding to the one in a paper, or where there is no finding at all in the study itself, yet the authors claim there is one. It's a catalogue of errors, both conscious (fraudulent) and unconscious (often dues to the biases mentioned above).

Although Edmans avoids getting over-technical I found the way he presented the content wasn't always easily approached - for instance, the way he breaks down the shades of grey that are the alternative to black and white thinking into moderate, granular and marbled is hard to get your head around. Similarly, when he is talking in details about various kinds of error he introduces, for example, the concept of an 'instrument' which 'causes the input to change, but for random reasons that having nothing to do with the output' - this isn't well introduced and needs better handling.

Edmans does a really good job in identifying all the problems in that ladder from statement to proof. I think he's less effective on giving ordinary people tools to deal with them. He accepts we can't all go into detail on the what a study really says, but his 'checklist for smart thinking' requires answers to about 17 questions, though admittedly he does then condense this into around four shortcuts. For me, a focus on source, evidence and quality is about the most we can expect most to manage. Edmans also covers studies and books/articles as key sources of information/misinformation but misses university press releases, which often employ hyperbole. Similarly, he could have made more of the replication crisis.

Despite these relatively minor negatives, this is a fascinating book that really does make it clear not only how difficult it is to be sure what a study shows, but also how difficult it is for those undertaking studies to get it all right. Recommended.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more