Why internet discourse slowly eats away at all happiness available to mankind

I don't remember when, but life got really boring. I'm apt to blame the internet, but it was happening on my mission too. Here's the problem. Everywhere seems to be turning into an echo chamber. You can't go two days without running into some big issue on Facebook. There's always some shooting or some mosque being vandalized or some gay rights protest going down, and everyone immediately jumps onto their pet cause. Usually, the representation for one side of the issue is overwhelming, and the other side is almost nonexistent. Usually, the argument is saturated with a sort of indignant passion. Almost always, the issue is quite small in the large scale. 

I think that is the part that's the deal-breaker for me. I hate to be this guy, but chances are that none of these issues do or will ever reach a circle where you are affected, and the reverse is also true. Most people will never be in the same city as a mass shooting. Even less will ever perpetrate one. Most people aren't denying gays service or calling for mass deportations. The problem is that we find the special snowflake who is pulling these stunts and we make a huge deal about it. We all throw our handful of pine needles onto the fire, and watch it turn into a consuming inferno. 

This has two effects. The first is keeping the wrong thing in the spotlight. Some people are dicks. it happens. There's probably a kid from your high school who spent most of the class trying to anger his teacher or fellow students. You probably don't remember his name. The question is why do we keep putting the camera on people we don't like? Why do we let these people be spokesmen for causes with a 1% approval rating? People lose their pedestals as soon as there is no longer a camera pointed at them. So stop supporting them.

The other effect is that it that original thought and solid argument break down. When I was in debate, almost the first thing I learned was to never combat an argument by saying it is ridiculous. Even if that is perfectly true, it conditions debaters to stop thinking about issues on the simple but incorrect notion that the fault is manifest. There are truly crazy theories promoted all over the world. Usually these come out of a basement that reeks of BO and stale Doritos. As you might expect, these sorts of people don't get very much street cred or any other type of cred. 

On the other hand, there are those with a much larger circle of influence. This is usually because their argument, although the final point is bogus, it stems from some valid arguments or builds on something more intangible, like fear or anger. When 90% of people recognize that the argument is ridiculous, usually Facebook fills up with denunciations filled with ad hominem attacks and usually concludes with such statements as "only someone crazy would believe this."

One of the most poignant messages I learned on my mission was that the best way to ruin a perfectly good argument is to represent it poorly. This is why I refrain from ever commenting on such issues during the heat of the moment. Nobody is interested in listening or debating. The foremost issue on everyone's agenda is to make sure it's clear that everyone knows that they're not one of those idiots who supports the opposition. The arguments aren't arguments at all. They're propaganda. Propaganda in a positive direction? Perhaps. However, it turns the internet into a giant echo chamber.

I mentioned that I felt this same problem brewing in the mission. There, I was always in an apartment with three other guys who were currently spending their lives in the exact same way I was. Perhaps 75% of the time, one of the guys was from Utah or southern Idaho. Back in the MTC, a speaker chuckled about a missionary who said that he couldn't work with Elders from Utah. I didn't laugh. Although I have nothing against Utah natives, there is a definite effect of being immersed in a culture where they are the majority. I grew up in Washington, and I spent three years on a debate team filled mostly with individuals with very opinionated, opposing views. I was a minority in this respect, and the collision of ideals ultimately did much more help than harm. 

I am profoundly thankful for my parents, who taught me that the majority of people are good people, and usually their beliefs, once dissected, are completely sensible. This shaped the way I speak to people. On the other hand, living in a bottle with three other people was a deathtrap of rhetorical discussion. I found that most people grow up believing that there are certain pieces of culture that they are expected to conform to, and that it can vary widely. 

The biggest problem was when things that were certainly not doctrine or commandments were treated as such. The problem was that they were discussed in a matter-of-fact way that tended to make others feel excluded. You do not need to be a Republican to be a Latter Day Saint. You do not need have to support gun rights or have a certain occupational path. Your baptism count does not affect your righteousness. The problem with Utah is that certain pockets of culture become attached to the church, and they become confused as doctrine. In the apartment, these become the expectations. It can cause great amounts of discomfort from those who do not share those views. Most of the time, challenging this sort of status quo immediately damages the newcomer's ethos. 

This is the same effect the internet causes. Your points may be right. Your view may be fully qualified. But when issues are treated as enlightened vs. the fool, the bridge of communication is burned from both sides.

If there is untruth, fight it. If you are convinced you are correct, endeavor to convince others. But for the love of everything holy, do not start out by calling your opponents fools.

Rant over.

Some thoughts on bad stats

The lights glare down on a sparkling stage, where several young women nervously face the judges. The year is 2007, and the future Ms. Teen USA is in this group. The judge proceeds down the aisle. Unknown to all present, a piece of YouTube comedy gold is about to be born. Turning to Ms. South Carolina, he asks her to explain the problem of political unawareness in the United States. In a moment, it becomes obvious that she is the queen of the unaware. Stammering, a cascade of disconnected words tumble from her mouth: "personally believe... and the maps... Iraq". The blended mess of buzzwords fades out and the audience claps uneasily. Besides the several data points evident on the internet, the world had a new reason to distrust teenage selfie-posters as a reliable source of information.

Chuckle at this story though we may, it underlines a serious issue. The world we live in takes its financial advice from advertisers, accepts dieting tips from fashion magazines, and awards the camera to whoever represents an opinion in the most obnoxious way possible. The casual manner that we adopt while tossing around statistics is particularly disturbing. An old joke claims that 87 percent of statistics are made up on the spot, but the truth of the statement overshadows the humor. Statistics are supposed to be the gatekeeper of truth, but all too often, pundits and presidents misquote or mislead using these very tools. Although such data is invaluable, social integrity and decency both dictate that statistics should be presented and controlled in a way that does not skew the truth.

In no way am I raising a call to arms against those who use statistics. On the contrary, they are perhaps the most solid bedrock one can use to support a claim. A quick scan of all sorts of historical incidents easily brings this to light. It's a story we know too well by now. The smoking industry hid behind a wall of happy-go-lucky commercials, only to have a wrecking ball of studies break through their smokescreen. The same pattern showed up a few decades later surrounding climate change, and still shows up every time there is a health or human rights conference. In all of these situations, statistics were the hammer that drove the final nail in the coffin. Unfortunately, the back end of the same hammer keeps trying to pull the nails out. The reason it took so much solid research to overcome smoking bias was because for every study used to prove the risk of cancer, another report was published denying the risk. Climate change is consistently swept under the rug. Even a country such as North Korea can paint itself through rose-tinted glasses if they can control the sample interviewed.

Usually, the driving power behind such blatantly biased results is a blatantly biased experiment. Data collection is a remarkably delicate program, subject to more manipulation than a cat faced with a laser pointer. For example, one report claimed that over 70% of Americans were in favor of legalizing marijuana, including 67% of Republicans: the sworn enemies of fun and freedom. However, a closer look at this survey reveals a few discrepancies. For one thing, the poll was conducted by a group known as the MPP, This name may sound innocent enough, until the hyperlink takes you to the Marijuana Policy Project homepage, with a banner that proclaims "we change laws". If this name weren't bad enough, that 67% figure rounds nicely to two out of three. It is entirely possible that the survey takers made their way down to Berkeley, CA, went to the local hangouts, and asked all the college students their views on smoking the marijuana like a cigarette. On such a street, finding more than three republicans may prove quite the challenge.

Similar studies can be found for nearly any topic, ranging anywhere from gun control to gay rights. the more hot button an issue, the more backing there will be. After finding the obvious trends, such statistics are easy to spot. Unfortunately, emotion is a more powerful trigger than facts, and the cycle perpetuates itself. The greatest perpetrator is public opinion polls. Shoddy reporting leads to charged reactions, which in turn leads to a very easy to steer mob mentality. In such instances, the careful rewording of a question can have incredible power. "Do you think homosexuals hold the same rights as others?" will yield a far more mild result than a question that contains such words as "oppressed" or "discriminated". Leading the witness happens far more often outside of the courtroom than inside of it.

Misinformation is a plague whose only cure is regulation. Several years ago, I was sent to the Redbox in search of a family movie. My little sister was in tow. As I browsed through the selection, her eye caught a movie entitled "The True Story of Puss in Boots". Upon seeing this, she instantly confused it with the popular Shrek spin-off with a similar name. Exasperated, I attempted to explain the concept of a mockbuster to my dear sister. As my coup de etat, I cleverly pointed out that there was no mention of Shrek anywhere on the box. However, unyielding screaming in public usually beats out logic. Thus, I spent the next 2 hours watching the CGI mess that marked the low point of William Shatner's career.

In this example, Shrek was the undeniable, trademarked proof that separated the real deal from the raw deal. Statistics needs such a guardian. we need to sort the chocolate chip goodness of strong, true statistics from the nefariously identical oatmeal raisin lookalikes. It would be a simple matter to set up a committee that acts as the snopes.com of the statistical world. Every cute bar graph displayed across the news would require some watermark in the corner, signifying that it had been approved my a decent statistician.

Another essential step is to avoid causing this effect by poorly designed surveys. Most large polling institutions are already very good at preventing this. It's the smaller ones that often experience problems. The reason telephone surveys exist in the first place is to create a wider, less biased sample. For the same reason, pollsters often ask different versions of the same question to eliminate response bias. Such practices ought to be observed across the field. In addition, it is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in such surveys. Uncomfortable though it may be, elections show us what happens when only the extremists show up to voice their opinions.

The problem of shoddy statistics, although certainly not new, is still not set in stone. It is a problem that can be uprooted. In the modern world, information is one of the most important commodities available. So many people who think they have it are being paid with counterfeit bills. Now is the time to choose decency over control. Now is the time to choose enlightenment over ignorance. Although it will take the cooperation of all involved, the world's perception of data could be changed very easily. In this assertion, I advocate for no side except for the truth. If truthful reporting leads to some uncomfortable truths, let them come to light. Whatever the political cost, it is cheaper than the cost of ignorance.