Decisions, Decisions: The Problem with “You Decide.”
July 2, 2012
What typical ploy is used on a Bigfoot news site, in a
documentary on ancient aliens, and when soliciting a vote for a
political candidate? It’s the “you decide” gambit. But it’s not as
straightforward as it seems to just state your case and leave the
audience with their decision to pick the “best” option. As with
everything that requires evaluation, how you decide is based on a
complicated process of what you are given, how you are given it, and how
it fits into your framework of the world.
My memory may be biased, but doesn’t it seem like
every
unsolved mystery television program has ended with the proposition “you
decide?” At the close of various documentaries about Bigfoot, UFOs, or
psychic powers, the narrator dramatically summarizes the evidence and
asks, “Is this fact or fiction? You decide.” As I learned more about the
tactics used in these kinds of presentations, I became annoyed by that
closing bit. This piece might best be labeled “Sounds Reasonable-ish.”
It applies to many sciencey sounding claims made by the media and
information sources.
The premise of “you decide” is that we, the source, will give you
information about a choice you can make (e.g., believe or not, use this
or not, pick this one or not). Then, you, intelligent person, can judge
for yourself what the best decision is. It sounds democratic. It appeals
to your vanity as a smart, responsible person. But in this case, it's a
sly marketing trick.
People like to think they are being rational and that they do a decent
job of fairly weighing both sides of an issue before forming a
conclusion. But many factors come into play. How often do we fully
assess and understand what we are given and how we might have been
influenced? Not very often. And that's the core of what's wrong with
proposing, “you decide.”
As I noted, paranormal purveyors pull this maneuver. It's a
particularly handy gambit for those organizations or individuals
promoting a view that lacks scientific backing–Creationism and
intelligent design proponents, vaccination choice or anti-vax advocates,
fear mongering groups warning about health risks from certain consumer
items or promoting all-natural, chemical-free products. They will feed
you their story and put
you, the concerned parent and/or
conscientious consumer, in the position to choose what appears to be the
logical and ethical choice. This works as an effective manipulation to
get you to accept their position.
False Balance and False Choice
When presenting information to the public in order to persuade
acceptance of a position, two false setups may be used: false balance
and false choice. Once you recognize them, you can spot them all over
the place.
The journalistic idea of balance is that a story should portray both
sides. A pro-topic spokesperson (or advocate) and a token skeptic are
featured in newspaper articles or TV news clips. We get the pro and con.
Sort of. That’s only two sides. I have a hard time coming up with a
real-life scenario that isn’t multi-faceted and complicated. Some have
no
right choice or multiple right choices. Granted, TV news and newspaper
formats are limited in time and space so the complexity of a situation
has to be greatly simplified. The real world reaction to an issue is far
more complicated than unambiguously choosing option A over B.
Often, the choices we make are based on our current situation, or we
try to pick the “least of all evils” option because there is no ideal
option—I’m thinking of elections, of course. Negative ads for candidates
are the most egregious examples of false balance. All they present is
the bad, and that’s the sort of gunk that sticks in your head and is
recalled when the candidate’s name is mentioned. Yet those ads
frequently end with, “Do you want to see candidate X do that to your
town/state? Come this Election Day,
you decide!” Oh great, thanks for
poisoning the well.
Certain media sources will tout their
fair presentation of
news. But their attempt at balancing viewpoints may be completely out of
line with the accuracy and weight of the evidence that supports those
points. If you take away nothing else regarding the “you decide” gambit,
remember and use this:
Not all positions are equally worthy of serious consideration. 1
There are endless examples of situations in which alternatives are not
equal but are presented side-by-side as if they should be treated as
such. Some views have the backing of substantial evidence and scientific
knowledge, while others are just someone speculating or making it up
whole cloth. The trouble is, without some prior knowledge, you may not
know
whether the information you are being presented is an accurate assessment or problematic.
Your local reporters or the producers of a pseudo-documentary show may
also not have prior knowledge of the topic and thus may present a view
that is falsely balanced to the audience: one poorly supported side is
artificially propped up to look legitimate and equal to the other.
That’s not my idea of fair at all. This is a particular problem with
science reporting because science is a specialized topic that requires
significant research to understand it.
In 2011,
I interviewed Lauri Lebo, a local reporter who covered the famous
Kitzmiller v. Dover
trial, which reaffirmed that intelligent design has no place in science
class. She said that journalists were nervous about reporting on
science news: “Everyone is afraid to speak the truth about everything
because they’ll be told they are biased. That’s a terrible way to
approach science coverage!” Very few journalists have a scientific
background. Due to time constraints, they can only briefly research the
subject and frequently rely on eyewitnesses (as if one person’s
experience can trump decades of accumulated knowledge) or one expert.
So, the public receives pseudoscientific ideas presented alongside a
well-tested, well-established scientific theory. In these days of
information overload, do reporters have a responsibility to go beyond
just putting all views out there? Or should they strive to provide
context for the choices? There
is a justifiable excuse to be biased; the stronger case
should be presented with greater vigor in the name of accuracy.
Were we to go by literal weight of evidence alone—say, the weight of
peer reviewed, established documentation—the anti-evolutionist would be
crushed under mounds of paper. To counter that reality, creationists use
emotional and seemingly logical or rational arguments—ploys like “teach
the controversy” or “academic freedom”—to underpin their case. They
also dish out false information, unconfirmed “facts,” and only their
half of the story. But to those who have a philosophical leaning toward
the creationism story (or any paranormal or pseudoscientific idea), the
non-scientific or science-like arguments are compelling enough for them
to choose that view. It takes practice to spot the flimsy foundation of
some of these sensational ideas and not just eat up whatever you are
given because it tastes good and digests easily.
The use of false choice is another byproduct of space and time
constraints in today’s media outlets. Or, it could be just shallow
thinking.
False choice (a.k.a.
false dichotomy, false dilemma)
is when the options are only A or B. Is the Loch Ness monster real or a
hoax? Did this person see a UFO or are they lying? The real world
presents us with far more explanatory options than just two. To suggest
the options are limited to two is dishonest since it excludes the vast
middle ground. It can also be used to sort you into a camp: skeptic vs.
believer, for example, where skeptic means “cynical and closed-minded.”
Quite sneaky—and wrong. When I spot false dilemmas, I note the lack of
critical thinking and flag that information source as potentially
untrustworthy.
Informed Decision or Opinion
It's a busy world out there. We don’t always have the time to carefully
consider a question. The process of deciding is often based on
heuristics (thinking short-cuts, rules of thumb, generalizations, and
common sense) and ideology (body of doctrine, myths of belief). Deciding
upon the believability of paranormal or fringe claims is likely not a
matter of fairly weighing the evidence but rather reliance on what
feels
right to you. When a person evaluates a casual issue that has little
influence on daily life and well-being (such as ghosts, UFOs, or
Bigfoot), rarely has that person scoured the literature for evidence and
various viewpoints. Instead, the influence comes from stories heard or
perhaps even personal experiences for which a definitive explanation is
lacking. It’s easy to say “There may be something to it…” and “It’s
possible….” It’s also fun to entertain those thoughts when there is
usually no great societal impact (though some might argue that there
is). With the ubiquity of paranormal- and supernatural-friendly
communities and activities out there, it makes it easy to buy into those
beliefs.
Public opinion polls are everywhere in the media. They provide the
illusion of participation and serve as an outlet for passing judgment.
Websites overflow with these question boxes because they are interactive
and make the participant feel as if they are contributing to deciding
on an issue. Websites’
poll
results are unscientific and practically worthless as data because of
the selection methods, poorly worded questions, and incomplete choices.
“Do you think UFOs exist?” is an example of a bad question format. It
raises questions before you can answer it. What do you mean by “UFOs”?
“Exist” truly as unidentified objects or as people perceive them? I
particularly notice poll questions that are worded as if science is a
democracy, such as: “Should creationism be part of the science
curriculum?” or “Do you think vaccines are safe?” Next time you see an
online quick-click poll, evaluate the question carefully to see if the
options they give are actually all the options available for an answer.
Their purpose is not to be definitive about the issue (as participants
may assume) but instead to appeal to the “you decide” gambit.
If You Choose Not to Decide, You Still Have Made a Choice
How many times have we skeptically minded people been told that we are
closed-minded
because we don’t outwardly accept the reality of an alternative
treatment, psychic powers, or a spiritual encounter? In keeping an open
mind, you don’t decide: I don’t know if psi exists. It’s possible, but
the data so far are not at all convincing to me. Or, I may change my
mind: Psi doesn’t exist as far as we know right now but there is the
possibility that someday it may be measurable via a new method.
The same set of evidence can be interpreted differently depending upon
what the interpreter considers reliable evidence, what their biases are,
and their existing knowledge about the subject. Or, the analyst may
decide that there isn’t enough evidence to come to a conclusion.
Scientists nearly always wish for more data to, hopefully, make things
clearer. That’s why scientific theories are continually tweaked and
honed based on the incoming evidence over time that sharpens or changes
them. We can’t always have all the information we wish we did in order
to make a clean judgment. So, as a good critical thinker, the right
choice is to withhold our decision.
To conclude this glimpse into the “you decide” gambit, I’ll express my
hope that you look for and spot its use and misuse. Asking an audience
to decide on a choice is only fair if you are an honest broker of all
the information available: you weigh the presentation of evidence based
on its quality and reliability and present all options, not just two.
When asked to decide, remember that your choices may be unlimited.
Reference
1. Pigliucci, M. (2012)
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. University of Chicago Press.
Sharon Hill specializes in issues of science and the public and runs the
Get back issues, subscriptions, and merchandise at the CSI store.