On Standards

One reason I am perhaps a bit quieter on this blog lately than I used to be is because frankly I've reassessed my standards.

I like writing about interesting and (what I consider to be) important things, but I have also become very aware that even the most well-meaning and innocent attempts to share one's interests and opinions publicly can end up adding to the "noise" component of the signal-to-noise ratio on any topic.

Obviously I am not going to demand that either I or anyone else first achieves "perfect" knowledge before writing anything about anything.

(The only people I've seen actually demanding that are people who tend to be enthusiastic about various forms of pseudoscience and superstition. Actual scientists (at least if they're doing actual science), and reasonably scientifically literate laypersons, on the other hand, generally seem to understand that opening up one's ideas to criticism is part of the picture when putting said ideas out in public.)

But: nevertheless, the fact that asking for perfect knowledge of anyone who wishes to communicate about anything is ridiculous does not mean that standards don't matter or that it isn't irresponsible to not check one's own standards frequently. The bottom line is that these days, when I want to write about something weighty or (per my own standards) important, and I have the slightest inkling that there might be actual, factual data pertaining to that thing, I at least make an effort to find and understand the primary sources.

Now, I freely acknowledge that I am not always good about listing citations. And I do not think there is no place for "informal" blogging. I am not suggesting that we ought to all be totally stodgy, never silly, and never say anything without reference to a research paper -- that might help improve accuracy in certain topics, but it would also possibly effectively crowd out people who just might have something worthwhile to say despite not having standard or expected credentials, style, etc.

But when it comes to certain topics I guess I've just come to see it as important to avoid letting either enthusiasm or concern wreak havoc on standards.

For example: If someone tells you something you're writing about is "fringe science", don't take that as an insult -- lots of things start out on the fringes, and certainly it doesn't help your case to insist that science lower its standards to admit your pet idea rather than you going off and trying to actually get your idea tested.

(This is a litmus test I always invoke now when coming across a new claim about longevity medicine -- I am a lot more likely to take seriously efforts that are looking to submit their ideas for testing in stringent conditions than "efforts" whose primary energy expenditure seems devoted to going on about how they "have a secret your doctor doesn't want you to know!")

And if someone tells you that your well-intentioned efforts might actually be having the opposite effect to what your intentions claim, you might want to try and see if you can see what they are talking about.

(This is especially important for people (and groups) who have achieved some level of influence, and it can be very weird sometimes for people accustomed to having little to no influence to suddenly find themselves in the position of having it.

I know I was totally baffled and slightly disturbed when several people e-mailed me after seeing my two minute BBC interview on the Visions of the Future special asking me what I thought about the future of human life -- that definitely gave me a sampling of how even having been on television for a tiny speck of time and portrayed in an even remotely positive light makes people more likely to think you have some kind of "expertise" even when you might be making as wild speculations as anyone else could.)

In short, all humans need to be careful of letting confirmation/deconfirmation bias undermine their goals in trying to transmit accurate information, particularly when the subjects they claim to care about (and the public discussion thereof) has the potential to impact so many who may presently have very little power.

So, when I write these days, it is taking me longer (that is, when I am not making obvious personal speculations that make no claims of being super-sciencey or posting photos or robot-themed artwork or metablogging like this). This does not mean my interest has dropped off in anything -- it means I've realized I really do not want to be part of the noise problem, whether the subject be biogerontology or autism research or anything similarly weighty. I know I won't be perfect at this but I am willing to try harder at least.