Group items tagged

A BBC episode (30 mins) on changing minds. There's a widespread belief that there's no point talking to people you disagree with because they will never change their minds. Everyone is too polarized and attempts to discuss will merely result in greater polarization. But the history of the world is defined by changes of mind -that's how progress (or even regress) is made: shifts in political, cultural, scientific beliefs and paradigms. So how do we ever change our minds about something? What are the perspectives that foster constructive discussion and what conditions destroy it? Margaret Heffernan talks to international academics at the forefront of research into new forms of democratic discourse, to journalists involved in facilitating national conversations and to members of the public who seized the opportunity to talk to a stranger with opposing political views:

How are your intuitions shaped by the immediate world around you? The importance of evidence over anecdote and considering the bigger picture! If it's hot outside, you're more likely to believe in climate change. The public perception of climate change is shaped by the weather that people experience, according to a study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

This is an example of imprecise communication - it's right to talk about percentage increase (rather than percentage point change) but it isn't clear what the baseline was which makes it a bit confusing (475,000/120*100 will give you the median price 3 months ago of 395833.33). Note the use of the median rather than the mean - remember why that's a sensible idea in this context! Home prices have risen by more than 20 per cent to a $475,000 median. The change in median price over the past year was up by 26.7 per cent. And compared to three years ago Cremorne prices have grown by almost 40 per cent. Look back five years and prices have increased by a mighty 70 per cent, the report revealed.

how could two groups of 'experts' come up with such different conclusions, given they broadly agree of the evidence? David Aaronovitch in the Times identified the critical underlying issue behind the ensuing conflict: whether we take an individual- or a population-based approach. Essentially, the authors point out that any absolute risks are small from an individual perspective, and may generally be cancelled out by the enjoyment of eating, and the bother of changing habits. But these small benefits can be important from a public-health, population-wide perspective, since a lot of people making a small change, that only reduces their risk by a personally-negligible amount, can add up to thousands fewer cases of disease. That's what has generated the disagreement. It can be perfectly reasonable for guidance to be given by authorities, and it can also be perfectly reasonable for individuals to ignore it. Both can be 'right'.

Last Week Tonight clip: John Oliver hosts a mathematically representative climate change debate, with the help of special guest Bill Nye the Science Guy, of course. Using performence & comedy to communicate a scientific point

Why do arguments change people's minds in some cases and backfire in others? Hugo Mercier explains how arguments are more convincing when they rest on a good knowledge of the audience, taking into account what the audience believes, who they trust, and what they value.

Washington Post video discussing changes to Medicaid in the US. Republicans say they're not cutting Medicaid, they're increasing funding (just by less), others say this is a cut. The White House includes misleading and incomplete information in its video explaining Obamacare's failures.

While shark attacks are very rare, reports of shark attacks are on the rise. They have more than tripled in recent decades - from a total of 157 reports worldwide between 1970 and 1979 to a combined 661 reports from 2000 to 2009, according to the Florida Program for Shark Research (FPSR), which maintains a database of known attacks dating back to the mid-1500s. It's important to note that the increase is partly the result of an improved reporting system. But research also indicates that human population growth, increased interest in aquatic recreational activities and changes in weather and water quality play a role.

A great visualisation of the income distribution (using a frequency distribution) to illustrate the change over time.

Ocean acidification is an inevitable consequence of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's a matter of fact. We don't know exactly what will happen to complex marine ecosystems when faced with the additional stress of falling pH, but we do know those changes are happening and that they won't be good news.Freedom of speech, and of the press, is, of course, precious. Yet that freedom also brings responsibility. The Editors' Code of Practice - which IPSO says it upholds - requires the "highest professional standards". This includes taking care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. In addition, a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.Is this just an honest opinion, a statement of fact or wilfully misleading and clever rhetoric? That depends on what is meant by "evidence". If it means quality research carried out by scientists with expertise in the field, the statement is factually incorrect. But if evidence includes anything said by non-experts, such as Delingpole, then that's an increase, right?

Where else have you seen risk claims like "x causes 50% increase in health-problem y"? Do you tend to trust these claims? Do you understand what they mean? Would they change your behaviour? "Interpreting health (or any other) risk estimates reported in the media is not straightforward. Even health professionals can get tripped up trying to make sense of these statistics, so it is no wonder the public can easily be confused or misled. Often there is tendency to overreact to risk estimates, so it's worth unpacking what these really mean."

How statistics, and research-design have changed the face of medicine. We tend to think of medicine as a science, but for most of human history it has been scientific-ish at best. In the first episode of a three-part series, we look at the grotesque mistakes produced by centuries of trial-and-error, and ask whether the new era of evidence-based medicine is the solution.

'Killer facts' are those punchy, memorable, headline-grabbing statistics that make reports special. They cut through the technicalities to fire people up about changing the world. They are picked up and repeated endlessly by the media and politicians. They are known as 'killer' facts because if they are really effective, they 'kill off' the opposition's arguments. The right killer fact can have more impact than the whole of a well-researched report.

Have you ever noticed that when you present people with facts that are contrary to their deepest held beliefs they always change their minds? Me neither. In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them. The reason is related to the worldview perceived to be under threat by the conflicting data.

Many public conversations we have about science-related issues involve communicating risks: describing them, comparing them and trying to inspire action to avoid or mitigate them. Just think about the ongoing stream of news and commentary on health, alternative energy, food security and climate change. Good risk communication points out where we are doing hazardous things. It helps us better navigate crises. It also allows us to pre-empt and avoid danger and destruction. But poor risk communication does the opposite. It creates confusion, helplessness and, worst of all, pushes us to actively work against each other even when it's against our best interests to do so. So what's happening when risk communications go wrong?

To communicate uncertainty in climate change models and predictions, the IPCC uses a range of expressions to describe the probability that a particular event will occur. For example, in the phrase: "It is very likely that heat extremes will become more frequent in the future," the phrase 'very likely' is used to describe a likelihood of more than 90 per cent, says Smithson.

Interesting perspective on communicating evidence. With controversy about science communication, facts and alternative facts hitting the headlines recently, I've been having a number of conversations with colleagues from all over the world about why science seems to be losing in the current war on reason. This isn't in the usual fringe battle fronts like creationism or flat-Earthers. It's on topics deep behind our lines, in areas like whether climate change exists or not, how many people were present at a given time at a given place and whether one man with a questionable grasp on reality should be the only source people get their news from.

For decades, researchers and physicians tended to think about pregnancies as either planned or unplanned. But new data reveals that for a significant group of women, their feelings don't neatly fit into one category or another. As many as one-fifth of women who become pregnant aren't sure whether they want a baby. This fact may reshape how doctors and policymakers think about family planning. For women who are unsure, it doesn't seem enough for physicians to counsel them on pregnancy prevention or prenatal care. "In the past we thought of it as binary, you want to be pregnant or not, so you need contraception or a prenatal vitamin," said Maria Isabel Rodriguez, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Oregon Health and Science University whose research focuses on family planning and contraceptive policy. "But it's more of a continuum." The new data comes from a recent change in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's big survey of new mothers, now allowing them to answer a question about their pregnancy desires by saying "I wasn't sure." It shows that some women want to avoid making a decision about becoming pregnant, or have strong but mixed feelings about it.

Whether it's quitting smoking, reducing alcohol intake or making healthier dietary choices, many of us have habits we'd like to change. But it's really hard to know which treatment path to take. To advise their patients on the best of course of action, doctors sometimes compare treatments using something called the "number needed to treat" (NNT). In deciding whether to embark on a course of treatment, NNT can help. But the term is easily misunderstood by patients, and doctors as well. So it's useful to break down what NNT means.

Is income inequality growing (in America)? This article discusses the issue, and uses a chart from the Financial Times (and Pew research data) to demonstrate the change since 1971. Great visualisation and great discussion of what it shows.