I’ve been spending a lot of time today reading about memes and snowclones and other such fascinating topics. Oddly enough, this search started last night because I was interested in looking up quizzes for my blog, happened upon “blog memes” through some of the same sites, and kept exploring where the hyperlinks led me.
However, one thing that I’ve been bumping up against is this idea about intentionally spreading ideas. I’ve been fascinated by the epidemiology of ideas for a year or so now, ever since reading The Tipping Point. I even wrote a thesis applying some of his notions to the spread of terrorist ideology (and using some specific mathematical models to show how the application might work). It’s not a stretch to figure out that the science of advertising and PR is all about spreading the right “mind-virus” so that people will do what you want them to–buy something or behave in a particular way.
But what I keep coming back to is how skeptical I am about PR-fostered scientific studies that shape our society, usually based on inducing fear of horrible consequences if one behaves in the wrong manner. For instance, take the low-fat diet surge that has most likely created an epidemic of obesity. See this article for some in-depth discussion of that particular phenomenon. We saw a panic about overpopulation, which has been refuted as it appears that most developed countries have declining rates of population growth, and will most likely have population peaks and declines within the next few decades. We heard all about the ozone hole, which subsequently went away (from what I’ve read, some environmental types try to claim that it was bans on CFCs that caused the “repair”, but it’s more likely just a cyclical phenomenon that has little to nothing to do with human activity).
Shall I go on? Saccharine causes cancer (this one got refuted a while back). Caffeine causes untold health risks (though they can’t get any studies to back them up on it). Stress causes stomach ulcers. Butter is evil. Eggs are evil. Whole milk is evil. Alcohol is evil (this belief ended up fueling a full constitutional amendment and all sorts of mischief ensued). Exercise is the end-all and be-all of healthy living (despite the fact that there are plenty of exercise-related health risks like dropping dead while exercising, blowing out various joints, and so on). Diet soda pickles your brain. Babies should only sleep on their stomachs. Babies should only sleep on their backs. Babies should only sleep on their sides.
And so on and so forth. I guess what I’ve always felt, at some level, is that you can’t believe what people tell you, just because they tell you. Especially with this hysteria-producing health and environmental type of concerns, I am increasingly skeptical. Having studied statistics and worked with statistics, I don’t trust them one whit. You can use statistics to say anything that you want to say, even without being intentionally deceitful.
Studies about long-term health risks are always tricky because the human body is such a complex system that we still have very little concrete causal information about anything except very simple things. You know, on the level of, “if one’s organs aren’t functioning properly, there’s a problem.” Causal relationships are tricky across the board, because it’s almost impossible to figure out which of the umpteen-zillion possible causes (all of which probably influence one another to some extent or another) is meaningful. Also, we’ve only had reasonable medical care for the past two hundred years or so–before that timeframe, you were dealing with leeches and bloodletting as cure-alls.
The environment isn’t any easier to study. Think of weather data. All the climatological data that we have probably amounts to a hundred or so years of observations. Less if you’re talking anything more than temperatures and precipitation. Methods weren’t standardized and we didn’t have any satellites or other such observational facilities until much later. So, yes, maybe we are looking at a general upward trend in temperatures, but who is to say that this won’t reverse itself in the next 50 years. If I recall correctly, the fears used to be that a global ice age would soon be upon us. Now it’s all about global warming. In fact, some people hedge their bets saying that global warming will bring about a global ice age!
All that this tells me is that conventional wisdom is not truth. It might correspond to truth, but the odds are that it doesn’t. I’d like to be provocative and say that “If everyone believes something, it’s probably wrong,” but that seems a little overstated. I’ll say, instead, “If ‘everyone’ believes something, it’s highly suspect.”
If we don’t question conventional wisdom, and if we make it taboo to question it, then how can we have reliable evidence upon which to base our knowledge? Why, exactly, is consensus so important to people that they’ll disregard dissenting evidence? It’s probably part of the essential nature of humans, in order that we can get anything done without sitting down and parsing everything that we see and hear, but it gets irritating when taken to extremes.
And I, for one, object to being subjected to continued advertising for one phony “scientific” cause after another just because panic-inducing news causes ratings to go up and sells preventative measures. Maybe we’re backing ourselves into a corner, happily creating a Brave New World for ourselves. I don’t want to be part of it, though. Can I opt out?
11/7/06: I’m closing comments on this post because it’s being spammed. Not sure why–but I hope this will take care of the 3 dozen nasty spam comments I’m collecting in my filter daily!
OK, this is silly, but I wanted to share . . . Last night, I picked up a pack of Eclipse Midnight Cool Sugarless Gum, a new flavor the folks at Wrigley are experimenting with. I was shocked to taste it and detect a distinct anise (black licorice) hint to it–what a great flavor!
Posted by Kjirstin 
Posted by Kjirstin 
