Over the course of the morning I encountered two news stories that at first might not have an obvious connection.
Just after waking up, I heard a story on NPR about the changing face of poverty in Des Moines, Iowa. Apparently the latest U.S. Census data demonstrates that poverty is moving to the suburbs, and that there are now more people living in poverty in suburban areas nationwide than in urban areas. A second area of change: significant increases in the number of homeless working families. You can hear the story at:
Rethinking Social Services in the Des Moines Suburbs
Later this morning I was browsing through academic websites when I came across a story about Linda J. Bilmes, a Harvard lecturer whose credibility is being attacked by the Pentagon. She presented research estimating future costs for treating injured soldiers who serve in Iraq, first at an academic conference, then in an op-ed in the LA Times. Her contention was that current projections of the medical expenses incurred in treating injured troops far underestimate the actual cost burden of providing adequate medical care over the course of their recoveries. The Pentagon challenged her sources, and when she justified them by documenting the specific public-access government websites where she got her information, the info was altered or removed from public access. This story is at:
Shooting the Messenger
I could blog extensively about the sociopolitical issues generated by either of these stories, but here's what struck me: How much are our opinions shaped by the data we have access to? How much does control over that data shape our personal priorities? How much do our perceptions of data shape our belief systems?
I run faster when I wear a stopwatch. Because I have a constant stream of data regarding my pace, I can adjust real-time to the goals I believe I can reach, based on the times I've already achieved. Yet I don't truly know how fast I can go.
I'm more likely to give money to a charitable organization if I believe (based on past data) that it has a history of providing lasting help to people. I am less likely to give money to individual homeless people I see on the street because I have no data on what they'll do with it. I can't accurately track the results of my charitable choices, but I hold onto the belief that they do more good than other choices I might make.
I am unlikely to be convinced that the Iraq War should be prolonged with a troop surge no matter what data the current administration puts forth, because I no longer trust their data. I believe they alter their definitions of terms to suit the reality they wish to present, and manipulate the information available to the public to justify their choices. The lack of an accurate Iraqi body count is just one example. The story above is a second, if it proves true. I could find more support for this belief of mine regarding the current administration, but I already believe it. This belief will predispose me to choose data that support my belief while dismissing data that do not support it.
If the ground is constantly shifting, if data is only as good as its collections and its definitions of terms, it seems there must continue to be a gap between perception and belief. There will be no end to research, to contention, to discussion, no final answers on cost or pace or charity until after the decisions have passed into history. So how best do we evaluate our choices as we make them, if any perception is skewed?
Maybe I just read too much.
1 comment:
I find that if I no longer trust one sort of data (as in your example of the government re: Iraq - although I would call that "spin" instead), I go with sources I trust, even down to the individual level. Jodi (who you met at Danskin) and her husband are both in Iraq right now, in Camp Anaconda, which is an hour north of Baghdad. It's an area that is in the midst of some of the worst insurrection, and she wrote that the longer she's there the more important she believes that it is for the US military to be there, that the US troops are doing some good and making a difference in terms of combating terrorism (her area of expertise: she's an intelligence officer). However, she adds that her husband is more ambivalent about the situation. So while single person reports are never conclusive, I find it useful to consider the assessments of people who are actually there fighting as opposed to the pontifications of bureaucratic brass OR of academics who will never get anywhere close to a real war. But I agree it's important always to consider your sources and their possible motivations, and to assess the rigor of the data as well as the credibility of the one(s) delivering it. And, of course, as you say, the impact the data has on yourself. (Boy am I sounding like a constructivist: my professors would be so proud!)
Post a Comment