What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies

by Tim Urban

In high-rung politics, when people come across a correlation, they dig deeper to explore which of the above is actually going on. But in Political Disney World, people believe whichever explanation best supports the narrative. Let’s imagine there’s a political tribe whose narrative says that dogs are almost always good boys (and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot), while most raccoons are dangerous, vile creatures (and anyone who says otherwise is a bigot). Now imagine that one week, these six news stories happen: The actual information at hand here suggests that both animals can be good sometimes and bad sometimes. But the required narrative leaves no room for mixed messages. Dogs are good. Raccoons are bad. Period. So the pro-dog media starts twisting things. The anecdotes that align with the narrative (say, “racoon found in trash can”) can be reframed as trends (“yet another racoon found in trash can”). Pro-dog media could use the correlation/causation fallacy to further nudge the day’s news in their favor by fiddling with blame in two of the stories: “Dog bites racoon in parking lot” places the blame on the dog, which conflicts with the pro-dog narrative, so it could be adjusted to the more neutral “dog and racoon get in parking lot skirmish.” The headline about dogs shitting on the sidewalk could be rewritten in a way that implies it’s not caused by dogs at all: “With the city continuing to neglect dog park conditions, more dogs resort to shitting on the sidewalk.” ...