Today I saw a piece by a writer whose articles I don't usually read because I prefer a 'dryer' style of writing. I don't get much from articles based on snap and burn, that style of writing produces articles that are too easily refuted. Unfortunately, competing writers can knock down conclusions based on any collection of facts; no writer who wants to be widely read can include everything, and the other writers can choose to highlight omissions to make their own points.
And, oh, the rabbit hole of fact collecting: "just one more click." Especially with the Internet, the time needed to break through the surface of collectible information can go on for days if you let it, especially if you do not have a research team. Then factor in the time for Google-diving in order to delve into hard studies, as well as educating yourself on background so you can read and understand the studies. I could guess that Internet research is one reason why the eye-drops aisle at the supermarket so big - Systane Ultra is my drug of choice.
Analysts such as George Lakoff say that the writing style of relying on information (such as using statistics and the relationships between them) in order to write articles-that-make-sense results in an epic fail of persuasion for liberals because people identify more with slambook journalism rather than Spockian analysis. Reading a writer who tells someone he has a pointed head to go with his pointed ears (burn!) is way more amusing than decoding pie charts, graphs and surveys (yawn!).
Regardless of what I like to read, and regardless of how liberals and conservatives write to convince people of their points of view, the article, "What liberals don't know about guns," percolated up to where I could see it: people must be passing it around. (you'll have to Google it if you want to read it because I'm not giving the link any traffic)
In the article, Ann Coulter writes, "In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the highly regarded economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect." Ms. Coulter's reliance on this study for her conclusions jingled a bell - didn't I read something about a scarcity of such studies? It took a few minutes to hit on the right combination of search terms to find the New York Times articles. <insert eyedrops>
- "In Firearms Research, Cause Is Often the Missing Element," Michael Luo, 26 January 2011, New York Times
- "N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say," Michael Luo, 25 January 2011, New York Times
Ms. Coulter referred to a 1997 study by John Lott of Chicago University, and in her article she produces her own small study of the outcomes of attacks by gun-toting mass murderers around the country. However, in the "missing element" article above, New York Times writer Michael Luo wrote, "Subsequent studies have found serious flaws with Dr. Lott's data and methodology but come up with a range of conclusions - many finding no effect on crime, but some finding it rose slightly." So, is this a smoking gun to debunk Ms. Coulter's conclusions? That depends on who you are.
In placing these articles side-by-side, I think that what it comes down to among a general readership is which writer most closely confirms your own belief in the topic.
- Readers who think it is good that we have greater numbers of weapons-on-the street, probably agree with Ms. Coulter.
(good citizens will work to protect themselves and others) - Readers who worry that the people who want to carry weapons could (not 'would') include some folks who drive and text while they are cutting others off in traffic and ignoring red lights, probably agree with Mr. Luo.
(we have too many examples of everyday poor decision-making in traffic alone, much less in Victoria's Secret, to trust todally awesome Josephine Half-caf-soy-latte with a loaded weapon)
Unexamined positive reactions to the articles is called (among other things) "confirmation bias." It happens to all of us because who has time to research and deconstruct every article each of us reads?
Confirmation bias aside, I think we'll still have trouble deciding whether we'd want our society to regress to a Wild, Wild West model in which VS's new line of clothing is frilly bulletproof undies, or to proceed to a lawless dystopia where only the crooks have guns (or bullets, or butterknives or scissors or letter openers). Going back to Mr. Luo: "The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done." Both sides are working with data that is more incomplete than is usual in large-scale policy matters. This subject needs more examination.
No matter who confirms your bias, the story is full of holes.
_________________________________________________________
Update
Hours after clicking "publish" on this blog entry, I was riding in the car while listening to the book Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt. I was surprised to hear the name John Lott, a reference to his study on carrying concealed weapons, and about how Mr. Lott posed online as a former student of his own, a one, "Mary Rosh." After arriving home, I Googled Mr. Lott, and the only part of the name I could remember from the passage in Freakonomics, "Mary."
Oh. My. Goodness.
- The Mystery of Mary Rosh: How a new form of journalism investigated a gun research riddle, by Julian Sanchez, May 2003, Reason Magazine
- John Lott's Unethical Conduct, by Tim Lambert, 1 February 2009, Deltoid at Scienceblogs.com
- Double Barreled Double Standards, by Chris Mooney, 12 October 2003, Mother Jones
If you need to read more, just Google.
Comments