[p2p-research] The truth, the story or the lie

[marc fawzi]

I was staying at a ranch near the Mexican border in a town known for having
been a major copper mining town.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&sll=31.435621,-109.895124&sspn=0.036397,0.077248&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=31.342202,-109.574118&spn=0.025657,0.036478&z=14&iwloc=addr

The big blue areas on the ground are not lakes. They're massive holes
produced by mining.

I found out that the concentration of Arsenic in surface water in Douglas,
AZ and nearby areas (due to the copper mining and processing plant nearby)
was twice the EPA limit.

So armed with this fact, I went around telling locals one of three versions
of reality (before telling them the fact about the Arsenic):

1. "Drinking water from local surface reservoirs carries a serious health
hazard"  (the fact, unbiased)  The Response was overwhelmingly negative and
most people were unhappy with the message and even resisted it saying there
water is fine etc.

2. "The other day I found out that the level of Arsenic in the water here is
a little high but it probably won't kill you... Everyday people talk about
this thing or that thing causing cancer and now they say baby feeding
bottles cause cancer so maybe people need to chill out and relax"  The
response to this was mostly in agreement with people saying that the water
doesn't kill anyone

3. "The other day I was reading in a science magazine that a little bit of
Arsenic or a little bit of something bad can be good, so the Arsenic in the
water maybe a good thing.. you never know"  The response here was people
joking about it or dismissing what I'm saying as a joke and not thinking
about it the fact that THERE IS TWICE THE AMOUNT OF ARSENIC IN THEIR WATER
AS THE EPA MAXIMUM LIMIT!!!

The sample was small town folks, not very educated.

I have since come up with 10 or so other examples applying to different
types of audience and while this is extremely rough and informal I believe
that it has some merit as an experiment, at least justifying a more
formal/methodical effort on my part.

Marc

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 4:01 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am excluding those whose life pursuit is to seek the "truth"
> including scientists and philosophers.
>
> My sample is limited in size but very diverse, going from multi
> millionaires to homeless people to ex convicts, and so called "normal"
> folks.
>
> This group here is not in my sample, not by a far shot, but I thought
> that I should share this.
>
> The survey is currently informal but the procedure is consistent. I
> will share specific examples and would like to work toward a formal
> method if anyone here is interested.
>
> Marc
>
> On 4/5/09, paola.dimaio at gmail.com <paola.dimaio at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Mark , I dont have to read all the posts in my inbox, but truth interest
> > me.
> >
> >  what you say below gets to me badly
> > you need to investigate more, prolly refine your method
> > broaden the base of people you are interviewing, your reserch maybe
> biased,
> > what kind of people are you asking? i think both philosophers and
> > scientists
> > would be looking for truth in some form, you may have to work more on
> your
> > sampling
> > P
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:21 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I've been running an informal experiment (or p2p survey) to find out
> >> which
> >> version of a given reality is most appealing to people based on people's
> >> reaction:
> >>
> >> 1. The facts, unbiased (i.e. the truth)
> >>
> >> 2. The story (what the majority of people want to hear, including "white
> >> lies")
> >>
> >> 3. An out right lie (deception, with the purpose of gaining an advantage
> >> at
> >> the expense of others or getting away with murder etc)
> >>
> >> So far #2 and #3 are tied for the top spot.
> >>
> >> I'll formalize the experiment and release the procedure. It applies to
> >> all
> >> areas of social and business research.
> >>
> >> If someone is operating under the impression that #1 is the most
> >> appealing
> >> route (as I have been) they will be surprised when they perform the
> >> experiment.
> >>
> >> If I was in the business of selling opinions for profit (e.g. a blogger
> >> who
> >> relies on ad revenue or popularity for a living) I would be adopting #2
> >> and
> >> if I was menacing and manipulative I would be adopting #3.  The ranks of
> >> the
> >> principled opinion makers are shrinking as more and more people shut
> >> their
> >> ears to the harsh reality and more and more opinion makers find it more
> >> productive (and/or profitable) to sell people on appealing stories or
> out
> >> right lies.
> >>
> >> I'm just waking up to this...
> >>
> >> Marc
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> p2presearch mailing list
> >> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paola Di Maio,
> > ****************************************
> > Forthcoming
> > IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)
> >
> > i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria.
> > www.i-semantics.tugraz.at
> >
> > SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
> > http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
> > **************************************************
> > Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090405/dfbcdbb2/attachment-0001.html>