Comments on: Revealed: Eight Ways The Media Distorts Psychology

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:02:00 +0000

Thanks for those points Andrew, Greg and Colin.

You can read more on this from Dr Petra Boynton

By: colin

colin — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 16:18:00 +0000

Greg's point in his last sentance is a good one, and I think it really applies to statistics. The negative image of statistics is partially due to political statistics, but it's also do to the media picking and choosing numbers without paying attention to what they mean.

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:33:00 +0000

Very clever and very well presented! I think what you are illustrating here is typical of the media's approach to science in general. Think of all the things like red wine and coffee and chocolate that are alternately (sometimes even simultaneously) bane and blessing. Unfortunately it's usually science that suffers in the perceptions of the public, not the undereducated, half-smart journos....

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:57:00 +0000

An extension on Colin's rule #9:
When showing statistical differences never give actual statistical differences. If a person is more likely to do A than B, don't let the reader know if a person is 90% more likely to do A than B, or 5%. Heaven forfend the proles know how statistically significant causation or correlations are!

By: Jeremy (PsyBlog author)

Jeremy (PsyBlog author) — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:48:00 +0000

Good ones, thanks Colin.

By: colin

colin — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:57:00 +0000

I'd add:

9) When faced with research results containing a bunch of numbers, only grab the more interesting ones. Then make sure to distort those even more.

10) No matter how specific the research was, generalize the results so that they apply to everyone possible in any situation. Bonus points if you can make the results seem like they apply only to your readership.