Bonus: Why We Believe What Isn't True (with Axios Today)
14:08 Share

Pushkin. So I have some big news for vegans and vegetarians everywhere. It's Hellman's plant-based mayo spread and dressing. Made for people with a plant-based diet or anyone really who wants to enjoy the great taste of Hellman's real without the eggs. Hellman's plant-based is perfect for sandwiches, salads, veggie burgers, or any of your family favorites.

To celebrate, Hellman's is sharing some easy, delicious plant-based recipes at hellmans.com. Hellman's Plant-Based Mayo Spread and Dressing. Same great taste, plant-based.

I'm Malcolm Gladwell, and I'd like to take a moment to talk about an amazing new podcast I'm hosting called Medal of Honor. It's a moving podcast series celebrating the untold stories of those who protect our country. And it's brought to you by LifeLock, the leader in identity theft protection. Your personal info is in a lot of places that can accidentally expose you to identity theft.

and not everyone who handles your personal info is as careful as you. LifeLock makes it easy to take control of your identity and will work to fix identity theft if it happens. Join the millions of Americans who trust LifeLock. Visit LifeLock.com slash metal today to save up to 40% off your first year. The most innovative companies are going further with T-Mobile for Business.

Tractor Supply trusts 5G solutions from T-Mobile. Together, they're connecting over 2,200 stores with 5G business internet and powering AI so team members can match shoppers with the products they need faster. This is enriching customer experience. This is Tractor Supply with T-Mobile for Business. Take your business further at T-Mobile.com slash now.

Hello Cautionary Tales listeners. As I'm getting ready to kick off my second season on the 26th of February, I wanted to share my appearance on a different show from our friends at Pushkin and Axios. On this episode of Axios Today, I talk with host Naila Boodoo about my book The Data Detective and why people believe things that aren't true.

We live in a world where now, more than ever, you have to be sceptical. That scepticism can be healthy, but it can also be used to cast doubt on data and statistics that are very real, and to spread misinformation. Listen to my conversation with Naila and subscribe to Axios Today wherever you get your podcasts. Here's the show.

Tim Harford is a senior columnist with the Financial Times, and he's also author of The Data Detective, which is just out this week. Hi, Tim. Welcome to Axios Today. Oh, thank you very much for having me. So I have to first just ask you, the title of this is How to Make the World Add Up Outside the U.S., but it's The Data Detective Here in the U.S. Is this like a Harry Potter situation? Why do we have a different title?

Yeah, I'm hoping for the Harry Potter sales. That would be nice. Yeah, it's as simple as the UK publisher didn't like the US title, the US publisher didn't like the UK title, and I just have to explain it to everybody that I talk to. Oh, I thought it had some greater significance, like statistically about the way that Americans interpret words. It's exactly the same book all over the world, just a different title. And it's all about trying to help people think clearly about the world and

using, among other things, the tools of statistics. And you're right that we might be at a bit of a fork in the road or a moment when it comes to statistics, particularly when we think about the pandemic. Yeah, I think so, because...

We've seen a tremendous amount of misinformation and even deliberate disinformation. But we've also seen a credible appreciation of just how life-saving accurate numbers can be. All of the questions we want answering, like, you know, where is the virus? Who's got it? How's it spreading? What are the risky activities? Do masks help? What treatments work? Do the vaccines work? All of these life or death questions are

You can't answer any of them without good data. And so I think people have started to appreciate that while there is a lot of polarization, there is a lot of misinformation, they are helping us make incredibly important and consequential decisions. But of course, our societal problems in the polarization aren't about the statistics themselves. They're about whether we believe them. Today, in 2021, the idea that statistics are a lie is almost an accepted fact.

Yeah, although it's a lot easier to lie without statistics, let me tell you. So that idea goes back way, way, way, way back to the time of Mark Twain. People were talking about lies, damned lies and statistics. But for me, the moment that I really...

identified as significant was 1954, because two different things happened in 1954. In the same year, you've got this, to me, incredibly dramatic illustration of these different views of statistics. There's this one guy, Daryl Huff, who wrote How to Lie with Statistics, who's saying, yeah, it's like a stage magician's trick. It's

You can never trust them. It's fun to figure out how the trick is done and I'll show you how statistics are used to deceive you. And then you've got these two epidemiologists, Richard Dahl and Austin Bradford-Hill, who are saying, this is not a trick. This is life or death. And their discovery that smoking cigarettes dramatically increases your risk of lung cancer has helped to save hundreds of millions of lives. It's not a game at all. The irony of that

bifurcation back in 1953 is that pretty soon, Darrell Huff, the how to lie with statistics guy, ended up testifying in front of Congress basically saying, well, you couldn't really believe all the statistics that showed you that cigarettes were dangerous. So it was a very short trip from here's a fun book,

exposing statistical fallacies to, I'm standing in front of Congress and I'm telling you that there's no evidence that cigarettes are dangerous. It's pretty dark. And how do you see that direct line from that moment with casting doubt on scientists' work when it comes to tobacco and cancer to climate science deniers or to what we see now?

Well, there's a well-documented link. Now that we've got more than 400,000 Americans dead, and in my own country, more than 100,000 Brits dead, now that those reassurances have been proved to be false, the defense mechanism is to say, oh, well, look, the scientists got a load of stuff wrong as well. So they'll, for example, point to the WHO, and they'll say,

The WHO told us that the infection fatality rate was about three and a half percent at the beginning of the pandemic. And nobody now thinks it's three and a half percent. It's below one percent. But that smear on the WHO is actually a deliberate distortion. WHO never said that the infection fatality rate was 3.5 percent. They said something else was 3.5 percent, the case fatality rate. And

The difference doesn't really matter. What I think is interesting is you've got that same tactic being used, which is, oh, I've been caught out, I've been discredited, and I'm going to lash out and I'll attack the scientists and claim that they've got stuff wrong that in fact they haven't. Why is it easier to discredit arguments than, it's almost like an easier fight to discredit something than to support something and prove it right?

There are so many ways to answer that question. I think really, I'm not sure why it's easier, but it is easier. And we've got good evidence that it's easier. I mean, you just have to look around at the preponderance of negative campaigning, for example. But we've got some really nice evidence in experiments conducted by political scientists and psychologists. So there's one from the mid-90s

that just showed people a bunch of arguments about real hot-button issues like the death penalty, gun control, abortion rights, the sorts of things that people get really heated about and feel very passionately about. And they asked people to evaluate issues

the strengths and weaknesses of these different political arguments. And what the research has found was, yeah, people find it a lot easier to come up with arguments supporting what they already believe. And they find it harder to come up with arguments supporting the opposing point of view. But they found that that's doubly true when it comes to negative arguments. People found it incredibly easy to produce negative arguments, reasons to disbelieve.

the political positions that they disagreed with. And I think that that's behind the tobacco strategy, the climate change strategy, now the COVID denial strategy, the same basic approach. If you don't want to believe this, it's very easy for me to give you reasons to doubt. Very easy indeed. Doubt has this special kind of power, it seems. It's very tempting, even for people who really respect the numbers and respect evidence, to

it's easy for us to fall into the trap of constantly focusing on errors and mistakes. And that, I think, just feeds into this narrative that the numbers are always lying, that they'll never tell you anything useful. And that's just not right. So how do we, for example, for someone like you, who loves statistics, obviously, how do we not take numbers for granted?

I think just to notice how important they have been in the pandemic. The metaphor for me, it's like radar. So when we developed radar in the late 1930s, that turned out to be an incredibly important innovation.

In the UK, it helped us turn back the German Luftwaffe. Then we took radar technology, took it to the States, and the United States poured an incredible amount of money into perfecting radar and perfecting that technology because it's just so incredibly important to be able to see what's coming at you.

And for me, statistics are like that. They're showing us the threats. They're showing us the weaknesses in our own system. They're showing us where policy is working and where policy is failing to work, where the supplies of PPE are going, where the supplies of vaccine are going, who is suffering most and who needs support. All of these things. You've got no chance of figuring out any of this stuff without good statistics, without good data.

And so it frustrates me when we sit around going, oh, yeah, lies, damn lies and statistics. And we treat it as though it's just a weapon in a political argument. And it's so much more important than that and so much more useful. I think part of this is just the natural also. We've talked about the human nature and just sort of our tendency to doubt. I think a lot of this also is our understanding.

how overwhelmed we are with the amount of information and statistics that are coming at us. And so how do you personally manage that? How do you keep from being overwhelmed with information and statistics? The first piece of advice that I give in the book, I think has surprised quite a lot of people. It's nothing to do with technical tips on correlations or R squared or sampling bias or any of that stuff. I just say,

Whenever you see a claim, statistical claim, a newspaper headline, ask yourself how you are feeling when you see that. Ask yourself what your emotional reaction is to the claim. Because so many media headlines, so many social media posts are designed to arouse an emotional reaction. That's what makes a good newspaper headline. That's what gets the clicks. That's what gets the shares and the likes.

But if you're processing information and you're in an emotionally hot state, you're feeling angry, you're feeling vindicated, joyful, any emotion at all, you're not thinking clearly. So my advice is just, you don't even need to count to 10, just count to three, notice your emotional reaction,

And then go back and look at the claim a second time. And you'll already be thinking in a calmer and clearer way. I know I sound like some yoga instructor. Do you do that? When's the last time you did that? Well, I do that all the time. It's a total habit of mind for me because I'm as vulnerable to emotional thinking as anybody else.

But it's just a complete reflex when I'm on Twitter and Twitter is a place where there's a lot of angry stuff going on. The moment I see something and I'm minded to retweet it, to comment, to share, I just go, hang on a moment, just notice my own reaction to it.

And then I may, of course, go on and share it. But I've already started to spot the potential errors and the ways in which it's not just that other people are fooling me, it's that I am fooling myself. And I'm always going to keep fooling myself if I'm feeling highly emotional when I see these claims.

I mean, you have talked about this. We have talked about this many times on the podcast Axios Today. And I'm sure anyone who is even a mild consumer of news is aware about the idea of checking your sources, right? Checking your emotions. So I think I wonder if you feel like that's just the world that we live in now where we have to remember to be vigilant about all of these things, knowing that people are probably exhausted of being vigilant about a lot of other things.

Yes. I mean, it would be nice if every journalist, if everyone who ever posted on social media did all that work for us, put everything into context, gave all the sources, linked us to complementary or opposing points of view so we could really sort of evaluate everything. And the best journalists do. The best sources really do that. But if they're not going to do it, you need to at least be aware that

that someone is trying to get you to feel something. But it's important to be vigilant and to be skeptical about the news stories that we consume. I think it's just as important to be vigilant and skeptical about our own filters and biases. Because you can consume a diet of really excellent news and information, but if you're constantly processing it in a very biased way, if you're really yearning to reach a particular conclusion,

you're still going to come out thinking the wrong things. Can I end by just asking what is the one thing you want people to take away from your book? If you are curious about the world and you want to understand what you're being told and how it fits into a bigger picture, it's not that hard. Ask the right questions, be open-minded, not too open-minded, but be open-minded and

And ask whether what you're being told is making you smarter. When you view information like that, rather than as a weapon that might help you win some stupid argument, you're going to be smarter about the world. Tim Harford is the author of The Data Detective, which is out this week in the US. And you can also catch him on the Cautionary Tales podcast produced by our partners at Pushkin. Tim, thanks very much for being with us. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Malcolm Gladwell, and I'd like to take a moment to talk about an amazing new podcast I'm hosting called Medal of Honor. It's a moving podcast series celebrating the untold stories of those who protect our country. And it's brought to you by LifeLock, the leader in identity theft protection. Your personal info is in a lot of places that can accidentally expose you to identity theft.

and not everyone who handles your personal info is as careful as you. LifeLock makes it easy to take control of your identity and will work to fix identity theft if it happens. Join the millions of Americans who trust LifeLock. Visit LifeLock.com slash metal today to save up to 40% off your first year.

So I have some big news for vegans and vegetarians everywhere. It's Hellman's plant-based mayo spread and dressing. Made for people with a plant-based diet or anyone really who wants to enjoy the great taste of Hellman's real without the eggs. Hellman's plant-based is perfect for sandwiches, salads, veggie burgers, or any of your family favorites.

To celebrate, Hellman's is sharing some easy, delicious plant-based recipes at hellmans.com. Hellman's Plant-Based Mayo Spread and Dressing. Same great taste, plant-based.

The news isn't always good news, but when you're getting quality journalism and in-depth expert analysis that's held up for more than 180 years, that is definitely good news. So if you haven't already, save 20% with The Economist's summer sale today and stay on top of the stories that matter to you. You'll instantly gain unlimited digital access to daily articles, special reports, award-winning podcasts, subscriber-only events, and so much more. Now that's

Good news. Go to economist.com and subscribe today.