James Ball (6)

The objectives of D'Efilippo and Ball in writing The Infographic History of the World were to use advanced techniques of graphical data to succinctly summarise and present the entire history of the world. Just a tad ambitious.

The book is certainly a graphical feast, but I think in the end it becomes self-defeating. Towards the end I just wanted to scan the text to pick up the cogent facts and move on; not at all what the authors had in mind, I'm sure. The complexity of some of the diagrams is bewildering and sometimes far too much information is included, at the expense of clarity. It seemed to me also that the authors often chose what they thought would be a cool graphical shape for the subject under discussion and then shoe-horned their data to conform to that shape. In my view the best graphical design uses the form that best represents the data, not the other way round.

I also wished for a somewhat less glib and smart-arse commentary. I feel that the authors were conflicted over their need to inform and the need to entertain but, to be true to their objective, they should have erred on the side of information, which they do not do. The book is also far too UK-centric; the frequent use of "we" to refer to the UK seems somewhat out of place in a supposed history of the world.

Still there is some very interesting information here, and some of the graphical devices used are excellent. I think overall this is not a book to read cover-to-cover, but rather something to dip into occasionally for a bit of arcane trivia and some idle amusement.… (mais)

First, I must confess my biases. I develop software (browser- and mobile-based) for a living. I have committed my career to bettering the US healthcare system, both research and medical. I understand how the Internet works, in highly technical (and boring) detail. I work in a non-profit research university lab but willingly work with for-profit products.

I mention this because Ball’s main audience in this work seems to be the general public and not me. A journalist by trade, he seeks to educate us on how the “network of networks” works and how businesses reap profits from it. Since I received a quality technical education, this exposé is not news to me. I wish more people would pay attention to how technology works. There is a need for the public (especially people of societal influence) to take heed of mobile, desktop, and Internet technologies. In our age, every educated citizen should be at least literate in how these impactful devices work. Therefore, I appreciate Bell’s contribution to the discussion and sincerely hope that a few social leaders would increase their literacy by reading this work.

At times, Bell seems to fall into an anti-capitalist bias by contending that business veers to the bad. I personally trust Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” to correct unhealthy situations more than Ball does. Nonetheless, I know enough to know that the threats the author alerts us to are real. The question is not whether governmental regulation is needed but is, what sort of regulation is needed. I am grateful for the economic investment the big Internet companies have made (a topic Ball remains relatively silent on) and do not begrudge them as they seek to reap a profit from this investment. That said, monopolies and oligopolies help no one in the long run. As you can see, this complex issue deserves an entire book, if not more, to address.

I write this two days before the US elections in 2020. I believe that at present, the American government lacks the seriousness and workableness to tackle this issue. (I hope to be proven wrong.) Nonetheless, Ball’s work, out one month before this election, will leave such a discussion in a better place. It is balanced in the main and identifies the key issues. One does not have to buy into all of his advised remedies fully in order to appreciate his analysis.

All our lives these days are touched by technology; thus, any decision-maker could benefit from this work. Many groups stand to benefit from this work: academics, policymakers, lawyers, business-folk, or software developers (like me). Further, this book has global reach – extending from the West to the East, from the US and Europe to China and Japan. The African continent, whose Internet capabilities I know to be rapidly expanding, is even addressed. Ball’s work stands to advance the conversation about technology and our lives; the presumed next question becomes, Are we willing to engage in the dialogue?… (mais)

Too many people are far too lazy to put the work into IDing bullshit in all its forms.

So if a politician argues that we need greater equality, or another argues that the free market can solve all problems, or that Britain is a great nation, how would your bullshit detector work then?

Surely, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, et al. have repeatedly and excruciatingly demonstrated that even multi-billion dollar tech companies are incapable of writing algorithms that can actually do this--that human moderators are absolutely necessary for the foreseeable future.

Of course, it remains questionable whether or not these companies can actually avoid bankruptcy if they hired the number of moderators required to really do job. Hence the fobbing off of responsibility to algorithms that work X% of the time, or end user reporting.

There were live fact checks on the US Presidential debates in 2016, as Trump had already built up a prodigious reputation for Bullshit. Trump carried on lying his head off and was called out for Bullshit repeatedly but, if they noticed at all, his supporters didn't care in the slightest. Moreover, is there a difference between the 2016 US election and the one in 2020? Nope! Same old, same old!

There are large groups of people who prioritise having their prejudices confirmed over getting objective facts about current affairs. They're increasingly found on the left and the right, but the political right has been subsumed by simplistic and prejudiced arguments at a faster rate.

The Bullshit meter doesn't have to be 100%. It could make its assessment using probabilities, i.e., the probability of this being pure bullshit is 70%. That still leaves room for the human to make their own judgment based on this. It would make an interesting research project comparing the famous speeches throughout history (Churchill, Lincoln's Gettysburg address et al compared with the current BS spouted by politicians.

Part of the problem is we all have some sort of confirmation bias we can't see, and we're scanning for it in most of what we read or view. We also have a constant search for meaning, which is entangled in that bias. Even with a relatively high level of critical thinking these tend to be buzzing away beneath the surface impacting our interaction with and judgement of what we see. Add to that the increasing difficulty in accessing verified facts which aren't buried so deep in algorithms it's impossible to find them. Google has a lot to answer for in this respect. Searching for basic information is now rarely successful, as you have those who have paid or wangled their way to the top of the list for pages. Profit is the biggest feeder of bullshit.

Humanity has this constant battle but we shouldn’t despair. The history of philosophy is littered with attempts to help mankind think straight, but we often fall of the horse.

What about Google? Google is problematic but to be honest, the history of the world is one big battle. There was an article on 'smash rooms' a few years ago where someone reported that they feel less aggression after smashing things up. This was researched in the 60's and 70's and found to be wrong. However, ideas seem to get recycled every generation and hey, fiction becomes fact again. Especially when such fiction is published in non-peer reviewed publications - i.e., mainstream media. Everybody has biases, but you can train yourself to reduce them, and to question reporting, even when it conforms to your political point of view. I know I've got better about spotting bogus stories over the last few years, and have generally got a bit more sceptical about things I see in all media outlets.

In fact, if a news story seems to neatly conform to the world view presented by any political viewpoint that should at least ring a few alarm bells. Real life is messy and short on outright heroes and villains.

That is not to say that all media outlets are equally biased. That idea in itself is part of the Bullshit agenda- the reasoning goes that partisan sources can be justified in publishing any old shit because everybody else is doing it. Actually some are a lot, lot worse than others between rationality and irrationality so I don’t think we can blame them for everything!

The biggest problem with Google as a search engine isn't its own ideological agenda (to sell things and your own personal information) but that it 'personalises' your searches so that confirmation bias (and your own ideological bias) is almost inevitable the longer you use it. Its predecessors (remember Netscape?) didn't work that way - they weren't any more accurate but they gave you (and everyone else) the same set of search results. Google doesn't do that.

We tested this at my workplace a few years ago, when, in water cooler discussion, several of us noticed that when we did searches on climate change we didn't (at least on the first 2 pages) bring up any denialist/sceptical sites - yet clearly there were many people out there reading little else. Back then all we did was go to another agency (with different interests) and use their already logged in PCs to do the same searches. Most of those first two pages were completely different (Ian Plimer was everywhere!). Since then I've used Duck Duck Go.

We have become so accustomed to bullshit that we don't even notice it anymore. The avalanche of information in our society today makes bullshit detection a challenge. One must carefully distinguish fact from opinion. Many opinions today are presented as facts. Add on top of that we now live in a world of alternative facts. Rule of thumb is to always be skeptical. Don't repeat what you hear unless you have clear evidence.

All I notice is bullshit piling up. Scientific literacy and a body of historical knowledge and background is human behavior aid a lot in quickly detecting bullshit without being taxing.

Benjamin Disraeli, ahead of his time when he identified three kinds of falsehood:

“Lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

You go, Ben!… (mais)