Info We Trust Page 21

  The moral I guess is this: Truth is terrific, reality is even better, but believability is best of all. Because without it, truth and reality go right out the window.

  WILLIAM GOLDMAN, 1983

  Our Need to Believe

  Consider lunch. Hungry and new to the neighborhood, you see that there is a sandwich shop around the corner and walk over. I am sorry this story does not have a delicious ending, but the sandwich you ordered is lousy. The roll is stale, the lettuce is soggy, and the turkey tastes like it was sliced in another time zone. You will never make the mistake of eating here again.

  As people invented new tools for new ways of living, they simultaneously created new realms of ignorance; if everyone had insisted on, say, mastering the principles of metalworking before picking up a knife, the Bronze Age wouldn't have amounted to much. When it comes to new technologies, incomplete understanding is empowering.

  ELIZABETH KOLBERT, 2017

  But wait one moment, you only tried that place once. Making decisions based on a sample size of just a single event is not a rational way to live. Or is it? There is a gap between the evidence we demand from scientific inquiry and our own everyday life. A single life does not experience a statistically significant number of events. The quantity we witness is rather limited. Yet, we make decisions with absolute confidence all the time. What is going on?

  Our mind is able to operate with scant input experience because it already holds a wealth of information. We each cultivate a rich conceptual framework for how the world works. Take the sandwich shop as an example. Only one meal can tell me a lot if I believe there is little variation across this shop's sandwiches. How can I assume this? The same food supplier delivers the same ingredients for the same kitchen staff to assemble using the same recipes. What is the likelihood of the same process producing a delicious sandwich, after producing a lousy sandwich? Nil.

  When it comes to perceiving the physical world, we appear to mostly see things the same way. When confronted with trees, shoes, and gummy bears, our brains construct these things for us in similar enough ways that we can agree on which to climb, which to wear, and which to eat. But when we move to the social domain of understanding people and their interactions, our “seeing” is driven less by external input and more by expectation and motivation. … If I am seeing reality for what it is and you see it differently, then one of us has a broken reality detector and I know mine isn't broken. If you can't see reality as it is, or worse yet, can see it but refuse to acknowledge it, you must be crazy, stupid, biased, lazy, or deceitful.

  MATTHEW D. LIEBERMAN, 2017

  We all make similar fast assumptions and assertions. Our existing cognitive structures help us categorize observations. Once you have a model, even a single experience can be put in its place. Simple models of how things work help us navigate the world with efficiency. They have served us well across our development. But like many adaptations, simple models have downsides. A reckless jump to conclusion may result in error. If you never go to the sandwich shop again, you can never know if you are wrong.

  Individual models derive from a personal experience. But it is not always our own personal experience. We learn how to see the world from others. Everyone inherits models from strangers whose personal context is lost to deep history. Cultural models combine with the unique snippets of reality we each actually experience. As a result, everybody has a unique perspective. Except in extreme cases, people are not crazy, stupid, evil, or incoherent. Perspectives are well-reasoned and in coherence—with one's beliefs. To correct a seemingly trivial error by someone else can pit your way of thinking against the structures they use to understand. To correct a small error may necessitate correcting the entire structure. And changing the entire way someone sees the world is not a trivial matter.

  We rarely expend the time and energy to sort out something unfamiliar, let alone something that creates dissonance with what we already “know.”

  ABBY SMITH RUMSEY, 2016

  We invest years developing perspectives. It is easy to incorporate new information into our preexisting categories. We become dedicated to these viewpoints. We do not naturally criticize ideas that support our view, but do we attack others that dissent. We relish in confirmation as we dismiss contradiction. Our cognitive coherence becomes part of our identity. To abandon a way of looking at the world stings, as if we are deleting a piece of our self.

  The cost of adopting a new view and integrating it with everything else you know is real. But it is not always possible to swap one model for another. In some cases, a simplistic black-and-white way of looking must be abandoned for nuanced shades of grey. Mostly, there are no good guys or bad guys, just a lot of complicated people. This kind of orientation steps us closer to the complexity of reality. Suddenly, something that used to be simple is now hard. We feel pushed toward chaos. There is a loss of confidence as we sense a weaker agency to figure things out and get things done. Facing the facts sometimes means feeling less assured about your place in the world.

  Truth is therefore a function of our conceptual system … We understand a statement as being true in a given situation when our understanding of the statement fits our understanding of the situation closely enough for our purposes.

  LAKOFF AND JOHNSON, 1980

  To influence, evidence must interface with belief systems. Facts compete against long-rooted ways of thinking about the world. As we saw with storytelling, the brain is built for survival, not truth. If we are to be truth-dealers, we need to negotiate survival-seeking brains. And our brains are not built to survive on their own. We are built to thrive in groups. We become dedicated to alliances with others who see like us. Sometimes in life, tribes beat facts.

  Coalitional instincts: To earn membership in a group you must send signals that clearly indicate that you differentially support it compared to rival groups. Hence, optimal weighting of beliefs and communications in the individual mind will make it feel good to think and express content conforming to and flattering to one's group's shared beliefs, and feel good attacking and misrepresenting rival groups.

  JOHN TOOBY, 2017

  We reject certain facts because we want to belong. Consider “Young Earth” creationism. Its literal reading of the Bible has deduced that Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago. But what practical good can the scientific truth about the actual age of the Earth (about 4.5 billion years) offer a creationist? What benefit is that knowledge, if it costs that person their church community? Belief in a “Young Earth” in the face of so much science seems irrational. It is irrational! That is the point. Groups demand belief in the irrational as a committed signal of membership. Belief in the practically useful cannot express group identity. Everyone agrees on the practically useful. If everyone agrees, then everyone can belong, and then you have no tribe.

  Having an enemy is important not only to define our identity but also to provide us with an obstacle against which to measure our system of values and, in seeking to overcome it, to demonstrate our own worth. So when there is no enemy, we have to invent one.

  UMBERTO ECO, 2008

  We can just as easily criticize political tribalism. Think of any divisive social policy issue that plagues a country. Now, realize that the way it is characterized on both sides of the aisle has little to do with solving a problem. The way we sensationalize hot-button issues has a lot to do with maintaining party coherence. In politics, this is called stirring up the base. If we did not demand dedication to extremes, how would we know who was devout? If we did not sensationalize, we might not have any opponents to mobilize against. If we do not have any enemies, how would we know who we are?

  Comeuppance: To give us an incentive to monitor and ensure cooperation, nature endows us with a pleasing sense of outrage at defection and a concomitant sympathy for the victims of deception

  WILLIAM FLESCH, 2007

  Cognitive and social coherence both help us understand why we cling to irrational beliefs. Rejecting the evidence i
s perfectly rational, if it helps boost our standing in the world. This perspective may not explain everything, but it begins to guard us against casting others out as stupid or crazy. That is a sloppy way of categorizing humanity. It can also toughen us for the long game. Pulling back the curtain on reality, one dataset at a time, is not a casual endeavor. It is a game whose work will outlast us all. Now, with a generous attitude in mind, how should we design for a belief-hungry audience?

  Design for Trust

  Trust, this book's title quality, holds practical lessons for data stories. Trust is the essence underpinning relationships. It is the reasoned faith that allows us to proceed, despite a lack of specific evidence. Before we jump into its visual design, consider trust through the lens of a transaction.

  Say you want to buy my rare painting. If we trust one another, we can schedule payment and delivery based on a handshake deal. It will be quick and easy. But what if we do not trust one another? Now we will have to appeal to a mediator to watch over the exchange, just in case one of us is a crook. Regulations, oversight, and security precautions that protect us will also add costs and slow things down.

  Trust is as much a function of character as of competence. We would not trust a family member, who may love us very much, to operate on us. Unless they are a surgeon, they are not competent for the task. And we also would not trust a psychopathic surgeon. He has all the necessary technical skills, but his intentions are dubious.

  Trust does not reside in integrated circuits or fiber optic cables.

  FRANCIS FUKUYAMA, 1995

  The key to trust is time, especially the future. The longer we know someone, the more opportunities we have to observe their behavior. We can see if they keep commitments, deliver on expectations, and reciprocate our own altruism. You trust me, the art dealer, because you bought several valuable paintings from me before. We expect our relationship to continue into the future. You want to keep buying and I want to keep selling. For me to cheat you today risks more than today's sale. A bad deal today risks all of the paintings I might sell you in the future. A bad deal today could also ruin my reputation, making it impossible to sell paintings to anyone in the future. Relationships that stretch into the future build trust.

  Credibility is from Latin credere, to believe

  Rating systems that administer virtual reputations are essential to online marketplaces.

  Too much trust, blind trust, makes you a gullible fool. Too little trust, distrust, destroys possibility. The right amount of trust makes all kinds of exchanges better: collaboration, execution, partnerships, relationships, and communication. You want your reader to trust the information you serve them. So how do we make trust?

  Signaling theory: In evolutionary biology and economics, a signal informs a potential partner about something that helps them make a decision. A cock makes showy displays of its plumage to a hen as a way of signaling its vitality. Job candidates make showy display of their diplomas to employers as a way of signaling their ability to do the job.

  The storyteller does not get to dictate trust. Only the audience determines trust, just as it is the audience who determines what is meaningful. Trust is not something you can serve directly. All you can do is create something that deserves the audience's trust, and then do your best to convey that the work is trustworthy.

  The first half of encouraging trust is to create something worthy of trust. Do a good job. The second half is to convey that your work is worthy of trust. To be clear, the following principles do not supersede competent, quality work.

  The connection between style and substance is absolute. A true thing badly expressed becomes a lie.

  STEPHEN FRY, 2011

  Trustworthy design makes a positive first impression. Superficial, quickly-observed attributes matter. In any relationship, first impressions stick and are difficult to reverse. Work should be visually appealing, or at least, not off-putting. Aesthetic quality signals that the creator put care into the creation.

  Trustworthy design is correct and accurate. Errors and bugs threaten to undermine trust. A typo in a book is embarrasing, but a single misplaced data mark can be devastating. It invites the reader to fixate on the error and question the validity of the entire visual.

  Aesthetics were a stronger signal of quality when it took more expertise, care, and time to make something look good. Today, it is easy to churn out digital dishonesty that looks just like everything else.

  Trustworthy design is accessible. It engages audience's capabilities and ready knowledge about the topic. Complexity is O.K., but clutter creates chaos. Creativity gets noticed, but novelty can also build barriers to understanding. Give easy access to what a data story is about and why it is worth a reader's attention. An upfront insight inspires continued engagement.

  Trustworthy design is direct. It employs familiar protocols where they are expected. Direct design highlights unique departures from conventions to the reader's attention. Do not burden the reader with unnecessary work.

  Trustworthy design is transparent. It elevates its data sources to the reader's attention. It is specific in detailing what it can and cannot do. It qualifies its findings. It acknowledges editorial decisions. It anticipates and addresses criticism before it has to be voiced.

  Trustworthy design is vulnerable. Stand by your work. Put your name on it. Include your contact information and then engage in feedback and questions. Align your own reputation with the work. Remain accountable to it. In lieu of a personal relationship with the audience, the creator must convey their real, long-term commitment to the work itself. An audience will have more trust in the work when they see the creator believes in it.

  Few things can help an individual more than to place responsibility on him, and to let him know that you trust him.

  BOOKER T. WASHINGTON, 1901

  Trustworthy design trusts the audience. Readers are intelligent, but they have not yet experienced what you have to show. Do not talk down to them as you help them see something new.

  People are curious. We want to understand the world. We want things explained. But we also desperately want to be reassured about our place in the world. We fear being insufficient. We fear not belonging. Presenting an antagonistic view of the world to a reader, no matter how factually correct, is a poor way to convey information. It might make us feel good to be right by telling someone they are wrong, but this is a small accomplishment. We can sometimes avoid rejecting someone's belief by helping them place it in a richer context. In science, this happens when a proposed “theory of everything” is knocked down to the special circumstances where it applies. In the same way, we can help one another qualify when, how, and why certain beliefs apply.

  Synthesis occurs when a contradiction between two ideas, a dialectic, is resolved by a higher-order third idea which can account for their differences.

  Other times, there is no substitute for telling someone that their beliefs are misplaced. Engineering school taught me to depersonalize design ideas. It is not my idea or your idea; it is just an idea. If we talk about an idea being mine, then I get hurt when you criticize the idea. Build distance between ideas and identities when you critique. I hope that when we do confront people about what they believe, we remember that it is not a wrong person but a person who believes the wrong thing. Accusing and shouting does not convince minds. The way to convince minds is to persist in offering a clearer worldview and to be patient.

  The evolution of trust: In the short run, the game defines the players. But in the long run, it's us players who define the game. So do what you can do, to create the conditions necessary to evolve trust. Build relationships. Find win-wins. Communicate clearly. Maybe then, we can stop firing at each other, get out of our own trenches, cross No Man's Land to come together… and all learn.…

  NICKY CASE, 2017

  Once a data story is published, it is hard to measure its impact. Content has a long tail. It may influence some immediately. Others may not discover it for years. Some w
ill be ready to graft new information into their way of seeing the world. Others need to hear a lot more, and take a lot more time, before seeing things differently. All at once, or over time with other information, you can never fully know how a data story inspires. Of all the uncertainties that the creator straddles, this might be the most exciting. When I was a child an illustration of an elephant and all the food it ate captured my attention. Its creators could never predict its impact, decades later. Visual stories are so powerful, you cannot know what response they will spark. New information fuels new ideas and changes how people see the world.

  To inspire is to infuse, animate, or actuate a person with a feeling, idea, or impulse. From Latin inspirare for “breathe into”—the inspiration that a muse breathes into a person.

  As creators, our goal is to inform an audience. As we move forward, and concentrate on serving the reader, let us remember that we are all creatures who want to believe in something. We also all need to trust. Along the way, as much as you can, be kind, encouraging, and persistent. Inspiring the world to new understanding takes time.

  CHAPTER

  17

  IMAGINATION TO IMAGE

  It is when we do not have to believe, but come into actual contact with Truth, and are related to her in the most direct and intimate way. … This world is but canvas to our imaginations.