Never doubt the power of doubt

Although I am not an expert, I think it was Nietzsche who famously said that "it is not enough to prove something, one has also to seduce or elevate people to it". Words which perhaps carry much more meaning in this age of information overload, where anyone can open their PC or laptop or phone and present their opinion or counter-opinion to the world in any number of ways. And quite a large percentage of the population exercise that right, including me.

But in the sea of opinions how do you find something that roughly equates as 'truth'? What criteria do people use to judge the quality of an opinion and can such judgements be 'manipulated'?

Well, the answer to the latter question is 'yes'; our judgement and opinion can be manipulated, whether we realise it or not. This can be done subtly through the use of things like nudge theory or it can be done more overtly by the use of 'expert' opinion.

In the world of autism research and opinion, there have been many expert opinions down the years. Many have attempted to 'tell' people what autism is and isn't, what causes and doesn't cause it, what works intervention-wise and what doesn't. Many opinions have seemingly been presented as fact on the basis of varying degrees of probability, despite the fact that few facts actually exist about autism. Indeed the fluidity of research findings in autism have led some people to question why so many certainties have been put as certainties.

One example, until fairly recently, autism was a genetic condition [sic]; the hunt was on the for the autism gene or genes and millions of pounds/dollars was committed. Now after some pretty heavy duty research findings, opinions are beginning to be modified; so maybe 'some' genetics but perhaps also 'some' environment as well, as per the Autism Spring post from Tom Insel of the NIMH. Some expert opinions in this area have been shaken.

A recent blogpost on the Psychology Today site might provide a solution for the authority figure and the communication of facts via expert opinions: don't be seen to be so certain, express some doubt. The post by Susan Cain is a short one, but interesting, as she discusses this study* by Karmarkar and Tormala also covered here. The main premise of the 'Bianco's restaurant' study is that a little less self-assurance and a little doubt might go quite some way to getting people to believe you and your message.

So the next time someone steps up and authoritatively tells you that diet has absolutely no connection to autism or schizophrenia, ask them to phrase it with a touch of doubt before you are ready to believe them.

* Karmarkar UR. & Tormala ZL. “Believe me, I have no idea what I’m talking about": The effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research. April 2010.

Target practice and nudge theory

This is one of my other musings entries, and for the ladies out there, hopefully an intimate look into the male psyche (shouldn't take too long). If you are easily offended, please look away now; if not maybe have a giggle and think about the important message.

There is no other way to say this than being direct and upfront: when men pee at a urinal, we tend to 'aim' at various things. If there is a fly or remnants of another creature in the urinal, as often there are in public toilets, most men will immediately revert to 'target practice' - take aim and shoot at said object or creature. I don't quite know why we do it; perhaps the process of going for a pee is such a boring thing to do, that we have to find something to keep us focused. Perhaps the sub-conscious fighter pilot comes into play. I dunno.

This not-often talked about phenomenon has been quite brilliantly manipulated by some clever boffins who in one experiment in particular sought to determine whether such 'target practice' could reduce spills and accidents and improve cleanliness. The experiment was conducted at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, whereby a motif made to look like a fly or small insect was embossed on the bowl of the men's urinals. The results suggested an 80% reduction in spills and overall greater cleanliness in the toilets, which for one of the world's largest airports might have some positive knock-on effects (tip: don't take your shoes off when flying or if you do, throw your socks away once home).

The urinal experiment is one example of nudge theory in action. Nudge theory is an interesting psychological concept which suggests that rather than trying to overtly 'change' peoples behaviour, views or opinions, you instead try and subtly direct people down a particular path by altering their environment for example. Basically being encouraged to change rather than compelled to change. We see it in action nearly every day and for some good causes. Pictures drawn by school children put outside schools to slow motorists down, putting graphic pictures on tobacco packs rather than banning their sale; all subtle ways of positively engineering the environment to make us head to a particular view or opinion, which for something like Politics is a great concept to use.

I don't like to think of us humans as passive animals in our thoughts and decisions. What nudge theory suggests however is that we are perhaps all 'vulnerable' to the various trappings and subtleties of the environment around us, positive and negative.

Don't push me... nudge me.