What a bullshit, blaze statement to have as a section header. Just because we have improved in some areas, we should be complacent and not fight for any further advancements? We should feel...
"Knowledge about what we have achieved leaves no place for cynicism"
What a bullshit, blaze statement to have as a section header. Just because we have improved in some areas, we should be complacent and not fight for any further advancements? We should feel optimistic that children are being caged and separated from their parents, that drug overdoses are increasing exponentially across US cities, or that Flint, MI doesn't have clean drinking water? Hard pass.
I realize this feels like I'm taking one idea and only attacking that one, but I have a lot of issues with data like this, as it just seems too cherry-picked. I study public health and ethics. I know of a lot of the increases in global GDP and health advancements. That doesn't mean I can't be pessimistic about the many other physical, mental, and social injustices that continue to persist and get worse. Like u/Kat mentions, many of the answers to the survey are just the most optimistic answers without any kind of operant definitions the terms/measures talked about in the questions. Edit: I just read your reply to u/Kat. I am happy that there are some kind of definitions used, but I think your validity of the survey really comes into question by not providing definitions in the test.
I also feel like data falls into a lot of a same fallacies that Steven Pinker's Enlightment Now falls in, and here are two fantastic critiques about similar sentiments expressed by both Pinker's and this current statistics, who can express these kinds of flaws much more eloquently than I can:
If your primary goal is to celebrate how far progress has come and to point out that people inaccurately predict the gains in global poverty or child mortality - then yeah, I absolutely agree and...
If your primary goal is to celebrate how far progress has come and to point out that people inaccurately predict the gains in global poverty or child mortality - then yeah, I absolutely agree and am on board. People are filled everyday with misinformation and, as a generality, many don't follow macro trends on SDGs.
What I specifically take issue with is the overall positivity that comes with patting ourselves on the back for saving a few people from a building fire while plenty more are still inside. The specific statement I quoted, which is one of your headers, is an absolute statement, already a logical fallacy. To point it out, then extend your own metaphor doesn't constitute as strawman in my eyes as it's one of your main points. The progress we have made is good, but we've got plenty more to go.
The linked article goes from recognizing informed pessimists exist, to saying "better informed people are more optimistic about the future" which I don't believe is fair or valid. As I said in my initial post and as u/Kat pointed out, when you have a survey which primarily collects information about improvements, without operant definitions of what you're asking about, you're going to have a skewed sample. I think you'd do a lot better by including metrics which we have made little societal progress on, or have regressed on (ex. US African American women dying while giving birth) to your existing survey. I'd say not recognizing where we are lacking more, while celebrating our successes, is where the naivete comes in.
Very well said -- thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I didn't realize that the data was coming from two different surveys. I'm also not entirely familiar with the work of Max Roser,...
Very well said -- thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I didn't realize that the data was coming from two different surveys. I'm also not entirely familiar with the work of Max Roser, so I can't say if they do or do not report on a wide use of data or not, so thanks, also for the clarifying statement.
Data should be reported regardless of whether it is about something improving or worsening, as long as the data analysis is rigorous. Both positive and negative data is important for decision making.
I wholeheartedly agree!
To me, leaving no place for cynicism is quite a different thing. What does being a cynic means in this context? Maybe we understand it differently. To me it means being hopeless, believing that we can not improve things. Knowing that some things do in fact improve right now implies that you can not be cynic in this sense. I don't understand how you equate not being cynic with being complacent, they're fairly unrelated things. When I'm optimistic for something, it's not because I think it will solve itself, it is because I know we are working hard to solve it and will keep doing it, this is not complacency.
I think this is a pretty fair reflection in that we have different definitions. I would say that, to me, cynicism often fall into the category of complaining about things, but the essence of it is that cynics complain that things are bad because they have ideas as to how they could be better (even if they're not fully formed ideas or if they're not explicit thoughts) or an overall longing for things to be better. I think for me, cynicism absolutely means not giving myself a job well done until it's completely done, whereas you see optimism as rewarding goals towards that progress. I feel like, we're not too far off from each other, really.
I can also speak for only myself in saying this, but my overarching cynicism comes from the mass amounts of inequalities and injustices I see in the many different communities around me today. My cynicism allows me to be critical of half-hearted attempts at progress, while remaining hopeful that real change can happen some day.
I really appreciated taking the time out to talk with you here today, by the way. Thanks!
Progress is not a straight line, there are always set backs. But it is disingenuous to say we will always progress forward because we have done so in the past. This does two things, it diminishes...
Progress is not a straight line, there are always set backs.
But it is disingenuous to say we will always progress forward because we have done so in the past. This does two things, it diminishes the sacrifices that those before us made because it presume that the current outcome was inevitable. It also disincentivizes and marginalizes any sacrifices made today because tomorrows progress is assured.
this outlook is very technocratic, "the data shows that our lives are better in some ways, therefore we should feel optimistic." there's a reason most people (in the US) are discouraged -...
this outlook is very technocratic, "the data shows that our lives are better in some ways, therefore we should feel optimistic." there's a reason most people (in the US) are discouraged - politically they feel defeated, personally they feel isolated. our upward trending suicide rate, depression and anxiety rates, and huge heroin problem reflect a much more grim reality.
I feel like the main problem with these neoliberal, data-oriented analyses is they never consider the broader socioeconomic context the data exists in. For example, it's great that "extreme...
I feel like the main problem with these neoliberal, data-oriented analyses is they never consider the broader socioeconomic context the data exists in. For example, it's great that "extreme poverty" is decreasing, but how is it decreasing? It's not clear to me that we should be celebrating people switching from subsistence agriculture to sweatshop labor, beyond maybe being glad that peoples' short-term material outlook has slightly improved. Is quick development worth it if it comes at the cost of neocolonialism and expanding capitalist hegemony? It feels to me like it's just kicking the bucket down the road.
Also, it's very disingenuous to implicitly conflate "is the world getting better?" with "are material conditions improving globally?", it's a presupposition of some kind of utilitarianism.
Simple fact underlying all of this: most people are bad at statistics. Most people looked at the poll data as certain in the 2016 votes in the UK for brexit (which were literally tied, with maybe...
Simple fact underlying all of this: most people are bad at statistics. Most people looked at the poll data as certain in the 2016 votes in the UK for brexit (which were literally tied, with maybe a one point edge for remain--well within the margin of error where complacency would make the difference), and for the US election (where there were many "battleground states" that had similar demographics and could swing the same way, and most were close in pre-election polling, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania for the midwest, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado in the west, and North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire on the east coast--in other words, people couldn't either understand what the polls were saying and/or the uncertainty with what the polls could say).
Then you have crime statistics ... anywhere. Most people everywhere believe crime happens more often than it does, and they have for decades. They might be vaguely aware of where the "most" crime happens, but they have no idea about how likely the crime is to happen on a per-person basis. That question makes no obvious sense to most people.
So why should I be optimistic about a future in which most people are so hopelessly bad at numbers to maintain a reasonably accurate view of any statistical fact? This isn't just an education question. To leave it at that suggests the people writing this hogwash have no idea how pervasive this problem is, or they arrogantly believe it is unique to how the world has changed and doesn't show up in a more general way.
A small but I think important point while I'm here: the headline of this article is factually unproven. There is no special mismatch that is shown among the cross section of people who are...
A small but I think important point while I'm here: the headline of this article is factually unproven. There is no special mismatch that is shown among the cross section of people who are pessimistic about the future and their accuracy in these other questions compared to the optimistic crowd or the people who are more neutral. That failure is maddeningly irresponsible. No one should take this article at face value and believe it. (But thank you for sharing something that proves my point about how bad people are at statistics.)
I'm not dismissing that last chart at all. It shows that the information that could potentially prove the author's statement is available, but they for whatever reason decided AGAINST using it....
I'm not dismissing that last chart at all. It shows that the information that could potentially prove the author's statement is available, but they for whatever reason decided AGAINST using it.
There is no cross-section between THAT chart and any of the other charts, which is necessary to prove the statement "people who are most pessimistic about the future are least likely to accurately understand these specific facts about the world." In other words, they show with that last chart they could potentially prove the claim they labeled their entire article around, yet they decided not to bring that information forward. Why is that? What, as a reader, am I supposed to think when someone says something like that, shows they have the information that would be needed to prove it, and then doesn't bring that information forward?
That's why I think the author of this article is irresponsible. It's not on you. It's on whoever wrote this.
What a bullshit, blaze statement to have as a section header. Just because we have improved in some areas, we should be complacent and not fight for any further advancements? We should feel optimistic that children are being caged and separated from their parents, that drug overdoses are increasing exponentially across US cities, or that Flint, MI doesn't have clean drinking water? Hard pass.
I realize this feels like I'm taking one idea and only attacking that one, but I have a lot of issues with data like this, as it just seems too cherry-picked. I study public health and ethics. I know of a lot of the increases in global GDP and health advancements. That doesn't mean I can't be pessimistic about the many other physical, mental, and social injustices that continue to persist and get worse. Like u/Kat mentions, many of the answers to the survey are just the most optimistic answers without any kind of operant definitions the terms/measures talked about in the questions. Edit: I just read your reply to u/Kat. I am happy that there are some kind of definitions used, but I think your validity of the survey really comes into question by not providing definitions in the test.
I also feel like data falls into a lot of a same fallacies that Steven Pinker's Enlightment Now falls in, and here are two fantastic critiques about similar sentiments expressed by both Pinker's and this current statistics, who can express these kinds of flaws much more eloquently than I can:
-Critique 1
-Critique 2
If your primary goal is to celebrate how far progress has come and to point out that people inaccurately predict the gains in global poverty or child mortality - then yeah, I absolutely agree and am on board. People are filled everyday with misinformation and, as a generality, many don't follow macro trends on SDGs.
What I specifically take issue with is the overall positivity that comes with patting ourselves on the back for saving a few people from a building fire while plenty more are still inside. The specific statement I quoted, which is one of your headers, is an absolute statement, already a logical fallacy. To point it out, then extend your own metaphor doesn't constitute as strawman in my eyes as it's one of your main points. The progress we have made is good, but we've got plenty more to go.
The linked article goes from recognizing informed pessimists exist, to saying "better informed people are more optimistic about the future" which I don't believe is fair or valid. As I said in my initial post and as u/Kat pointed out, when you have a survey which primarily collects information about improvements, without operant definitions of what you're asking about, you're going to have a skewed sample. I think you'd do a lot better by including metrics which we have made little societal progress on, or have regressed on (ex. US African American women dying while giving birth) to your existing survey. I'd say not recognizing where we are lacking more, while celebrating our successes, is where the naivete comes in.
Very well said -- thanks for taking the time to write all that out. I didn't realize that the data was coming from two different surveys. I'm also not entirely familiar with the work of Max Roser, so I can't say if they do or do not report on a wide use of data or not, so thanks, also for the clarifying statement.
I wholeheartedly agree!
I think this is a pretty fair reflection in that we have different definitions. I would say that, to me, cynicism often fall into the category of complaining about things, but the essence of it is that cynics complain that things are bad because they have ideas as to how they could be better (even if they're not fully formed ideas or if they're not explicit thoughts) or an overall longing for things to be better. I think for me, cynicism absolutely means not giving myself a job well done until it's completely done, whereas you see optimism as rewarding goals towards that progress. I feel like, we're not too far off from each other, really.
I can also speak for only myself in saying this, but my overarching cynicism comes from the mass amounts of inequalities and injustices I see in the many different communities around me today. My cynicism allows me to be critical of half-hearted attempts at progress, while remaining hopeful that real change can happen some day.
I really appreciated taking the time out to talk with you here today, by the way. Thanks!
Progress is not a straight line, there are always set backs.
But it is disingenuous to say we will always progress forward because we have done so in the past. This does two things, it diminishes the sacrifices that those before us made because it presume that the current outcome was inevitable. It also disincentivizes and marginalizes any sacrifices made today because tomorrows progress is assured.
this outlook is very technocratic, "the data shows that our lives are better in some ways, therefore we should feel optimistic." there's a reason most people (in the US) are discouraged - politically they feel defeated, personally they feel isolated. our upward trending suicide rate, depression and anxiety rates, and huge heroin problem reflect a much more grim reality.
I feel like the main problem with these neoliberal, data-oriented analyses is they never consider the broader socioeconomic context the data exists in. For example, it's great that "extreme poverty" is decreasing, but how is it decreasing? It's not clear to me that we should be celebrating people switching from subsistence agriculture to sweatshop labor, beyond maybe being glad that peoples' short-term material outlook has slightly improved. Is quick development worth it if it comes at the cost of neocolonialism and expanding capitalist hegemony? It feels to me like it's just kicking the bucket down the road.
Also, it's very disingenuous to implicitly conflate "is the world getting better?" with "are material conditions improving globally?", it's a presupposition of some kind of utilitarianism.
Simple fact underlying all of this: most people are bad at statistics. Most people looked at the poll data as certain in the 2016 votes in the UK for brexit (which were literally tied, with maybe a one point edge for remain--well within the margin of error where complacency would make the difference), and for the US election (where there were many "battleground states" that had similar demographics and could swing the same way, and most were close in pre-election polling, such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania for the midwest, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado in the west, and North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire on the east coast--in other words, people couldn't either understand what the polls were saying and/or the uncertainty with what the polls could say).
Then you have crime statistics ... anywhere. Most people everywhere believe crime happens more often than it does, and they have for decades. They might be vaguely aware of where the "most" crime happens, but they have no idea about how likely the crime is to happen on a per-person basis. That question makes no obvious sense to most people.
So why should I be optimistic about a future in which most people are so hopelessly bad at numbers to maintain a reasonably accurate view of any statistical fact? This isn't just an education question. To leave it at that suggests the people writing this hogwash have no idea how pervasive this problem is, or they arrogantly believe it is unique to how the world has changed and doesn't show up in a more general way.
A small but I think important point while I'm here: the headline of this article is factually unproven. There is no special mismatch that is shown among the cross section of people who are pessimistic about the future and their accuracy in these other questions compared to the optimistic crowd or the people who are more neutral. That failure is maddeningly irresponsible. No one should take this article at face value and believe it. (But thank you for sharing something that proves my point about how bad people are at statistics.)
I'm not dismissing that last chart at all. It shows that the information that could potentially prove the author's statement is available, but they for whatever reason decided AGAINST using it.
There is no cross-section between THAT chart and any of the other charts, which is necessary to prove the statement "people who are most pessimistic about the future are least likely to accurately understand these specific facts about the world." In other words, they show with that last chart they could potentially prove the claim they labeled their entire article around, yet they decided not to bring that information forward. Why is that? What, as a reader, am I supposed to think when someone says something like that, shows they have the information that would be needed to prove it, and then doesn't bring that information forward?
That's why I think the author of this article is irresponsible. It's not on you. It's on whoever wrote this.