But it just goes to show that one should never let a good tragedy go to waste!
In another stellar example of how emotion distorts cognition and trumps logic and reason, the data are now in; gun crime - from homicide to non-fatal gun crime - has dropped almost 50% in the last 20 years (note that is across periods with and without "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazine bans). Despite these facts, 56% of Americans think the prevalence is higher than it was 20 years ago. Imagine this - it is 50% lower yet a majority think it is higher. Sadly, it is certain that those who "believe" it is so despite the evidence will be looking for any way they can to discredit these data. They will be aided by those whose agenda is ill-served by these data. Get ready for a lot of "Yes, but..." hand-wringing.
This also lends very little credence to any polling on this issue, no matter who tries to use it to their advantage. All the polling can tell us, in light of this report, is that we have a badly uninformed citizenry. But why are so many Americans so clueless, so certain in their ignorance? While one possibility is that we have become an immature society of children, it is also likely that we need look no further than the availability heuristic for another reason this might be so.
Tversky and Kahneman (1972) suggest that estimates of the "...likelihood of an event..." are often made "...by assessing the relative ease with which the mental operation of retrieval, construction or association can be carried out". In other words, how "available" the information is, how easily it comes to mind; such availability is to a large extent a function of repetition, of frequency of exposure. And exposure in today's world is hardly an accurate measure of prevalence. Indeed, given the current deluge of (mis)information indicting guns and gun ownership, associating all gun ownership with evil, and the headlining and highlighting of any and all associated events, it is no surprise that the American public is likely to over-estimate the prevalence of gun violence. While the prevalence has gone down, the coverage has gone up, so the concept is more available. By virtue of the sheer amount of exposure, it is judged to be more prevalent than it is.
One of the reasons I turned to writing this blog more frequently was because the local paper (the St. Petersburg - now Tampa - Times) editorial board, who loved my letters on Mitt Romney, taxes and voting rights and such when they agreed with them, declined to print any letters I wrote to provide data and logic to refute their biased presentations on firearms. Liberal causes, hell yeah! Open discussion, not so much. Just like the LGBT, women's rights and other self-interest groups who support only the rights they want, but not rights in general, so it goes with the media; they give voice only to those viewpoints they agree with; "We decide, then report!".
But that is today's media - regardless of the side of any debate one is on. It all begins with an agenda - it is not news, it is not data, it is not information, it is propaganda with a mission. It is all about manipulating opinion. One need not be a rocket scientist to realize that any story can be told from any angle to make it fit the agenda. For instance, in reporting on this survey, the Tampa Times begrudgingly noted the drop in gun crimes, but made sure to note that 70% of violent crime involves firearms. Never allow good news one disagrees with to go to waste - always look for the shitty lining to rile the base and keep the hysteria rolling. Another example: Firearms accidents involving children are receiving increased attention in the media - for obvious reasons - although the rates are lower now than they have ever been ("Among children, such deaths have decreased 90 percent since 1975"). Any death of a child is tragic, no matter the cause, but the choice to highlight those that support some agenda is manipulative and unconscionable.
Most people do not want data anyway, they want to hear what they already believe, they want the sob story, the emotion, they want me to live by their whim. Americans are a decidedly unscientific bunch; "We don;t need no stinkin' facts!". They prefer magic words, like "I believe!" to inconvenient data. Sadly then, it is likely that data will make no difference. Studies have consistently shown that even in the face of accurate data, such shortcuts that lead to erroneous conclusions dominate more rational, data-driven processes.
We had all thought we would be such a rational society.
No comments:
Post a Comment