Factfulness and a childlike sense of wonder

Share

[SPOILER ALERT: In the previous article in Cuffelinks, we reproduced the 13-part questionnaire from the start of the Factfulness book, designed to test your understanding of world affairs. You will benefit most if you attempt it before reading this review. Consider buying the book, it’s only $20 including postage.]

When Hans Rosling and his family founded the Gapminder Foundation in 2005, their mission was “to fight devastating ignorance with a fact-based review”. ‘Devastating’ is a strong word, but he has done us all a good service. As the book takes the reader systematically through dozens of worldviews where the majority of people hold wrong opinions, the most obvious question is ‘why?’ Why do the best-educated people know so little about global trends in population, health, education or demographics despite watching and reading the news every day? In fact, says Rosling, “the most appalling results came from a group of Nobel laureates and medical researchers.”

Rosling concludes we have an overdramatic worldview because of the way our brains work. After millions of years of evolution, the brain is designed to jump to immediate conclusions without much thinking, which once helped us to avoid attacks by sabre-toothed tigers. We are most interested in gossip and drama in the same way we crave sugar and fat, which were once a vital sources of energy. Obesity is a growing problem despite education about healthy food, in the same way our news instincts influence our worldview.

Our daily media consumption feeds this obsession with drama rather than reporting the gradual incremental progress the world is really experiencing. News delivers sensational stories rather than a wider perspective, and much of it is disproportionately emotional and negative and encourages quick conclusions.

Close parallels with Daniel Kahneman

There are similarities with the arguments of Nobel Prize-winning behavioural economist, Daniel Kahneman, and his System 1 and System 2 thinking. He says there are two ways we make decisions: System 1 is automatic, fast, often subconscious and intuitive, while System 2 is slower, logical and deliberative. But System 2 also takes more effort, so we fall back on System 1 even for important decisions. It has implications for many activities, including investing, where we react in irrational ways to minor events. Similarly with Rosling, the drama of the immediate news cycle forces us into opinions and thoughts and often we do not take a slower, more logical look at the issues.

What happens when you dive into the facts?

Rosling has no less an aim than to change the way people think and calm irrational fears. When people strip away the drama of the headline, they can be more hopeful about the world. He encourages critical analysis rather than instinctive thinking. It’s like a healthy diet with more exercise and better food. You can even stay more alert to real danger than worrying about the wrong things. He wants people to return to a childlike sense of wonder about the world.

He also argues that when people think the world is becoming worse, it’s not really thinking, it’s feeling. Consider the selective reporting of the news cycle. Natural disasters, crime, wars, politics, corruption and terror. Most people are less interested in stories about gradual improvements in the lives of millions.

The solution is not to sugarcoat the news, but to keep two thoughts in mind at the same time while maintaining a wider context. For example, the dramatic news item might be that 12% of one-year-olds are not vaccinated, but that means nine out of ten children are. The non-vaccination figure has fallen from 66% as recently as 1980 despite there being two billion more people in the world.

Rosling’s most dramatic example

In a book offering many examples to support Rosling’s claims, he says his most dramatic chart is the number of babies per woman from 1800 to today, as shown below in this extract from one of Rosling’s videos.

For most of history, and as recently as 1948, women on average gave birth to about six children each, and now it is headed for only two. This is a vital statistic as it shows billions of people are coming out of extreme poverty. They no longer need large families to toil on a small farm and as insurance against old age and child mortality. Better-educated women have fewer children, aided by access to contraceptives. This also means the period of fast population growth across the globe will soon be over.

My favourite financial example is Rosling’s explanation of why many houses are half-built in Tunisia. It looks as if many Tunisians are lazy or cannot finish a project. Rather, as many Tunisians escape poverty, they have capacity to save but they don’t have access to banks. Money can be stolen or lose its value through inflation. So they buy bricks, but as there’s no space inside to store them and outside they might get stolen, they add their bricks to their house as they buy them. Over 10 to 15 years, they gradually build a better home.

Income defines what everyone in the world buys

In fact, the vast majority of people in the world do not live in extreme poverty or extreme wealth, but somewhere in the middle. It’s not as bad as most people believe and the lives of the majority of the world’s population are somewhere in the middle. Rosling’s powerful example is the distinction between developing and developed countries. Due to the vast differences in lifestyle found within any country, he argues, to label it either ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ can be misleading. He dispels the notion that the standard of living in each country is defined by culture. Rather, he argues, everywhere it is defined by income. Regardless of where a person lives, people of a comparable income tend to buy the same things: not only expensive items like cars and electrical equipment, but even toys and kitchen utensils.

Back strong opinions with strong facts

I admire Factfulness for making the case for less cynicism and ignorance while remaining sceptical about the world. It is not a flowery book making out the world is a wonderful place, as of course there is serious inequity and injustice. But not as much as most of us think and opinions should be more nuanced than extreme.

After reading this book, I challenge myself not to react to the headlines or dramatic news items without considering other facts. Rosling has a simple rule that would surely make the world a better place of informed opinion: only carry strong opinions when you have the supporting facts. Many politicians and media commentators (especially our shock jocks who are frequently held libellous for badly-researched opinions) need to offer a more balanced view and we might not be so pessimistic about the planet we are all sharing.

Footnote: Hans Rosling wrote the book with his son, Ola Rosling, and Ola’s wife, Anna Rosling Ronnlund. They conceived the idea in September 2015 and Hans was diagnosed with incurable pancreatic cancer in February 2016. He died in February 2017, and the book was finished to honor his memory.

The final words in the book are:

“When we have a fact-based worldview, we can see that the world is not as bad as it seems – and we can see what we have to do to keep making it better.”   

The writers have also created Dollar Street, an online database on life in different countries.

How did you score in the test? Did you think the world was a worse place than is really is?

 

Graham Hand is Managing Editor of Cuffelinks.

Share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

,

10 Responses to Factfulness and a childlike sense of wonder

  1. Warren Bird October 11, 2018 at 3:01 PM #

    Almost everyone underestimates the impact that China has had on these things.

    I have this discussion with friends from aid agencies all the time. Aid groups do some good work – and I support a few – but the real power to effect change is with government, not with charities. China becoming a more open economy has done more to relieve poverty and improve standards of health and education than all the aid agencies combined could ever have hoped to achieve.

    The media, of course, rarely reports the improvements in the world, focusing only on the negatives.

    It’ll be interesting to see if Cuffelinks readers see through the noise any better than the global averages.

    I got 54% when I did it, the demographic questions catching me out – I thought the population of South America might have boosted the American continent to two figures, for example. And I underestimated how many girls are educated in – you guessed it – China.

  2. Philip Drake-Brockman October 11, 2018 at 3:05 PM #

    I failed miserably. 2/13! Listening to too much bad news. There is a lesson here (to me).

    • LB October 11, 2018 at 3:37 PM #

      Same here Philip. A measly 2/13 for me too!

  3. Frank October 11, 2018 at 3:47 PM #

    So much for me being better informed by listening to news all day and spending half my life reading. I scored 3/13. But I love being reminded about the improvements in the world at a more fundamental level than a better iPhone.

  4. Raymond October 11, 2018 at 5:20 PM #

    I stopped watching tv news decades ago but my wife still does. So I often stick my head in for the headlines and make cynical comments about what is considered the most newsworthy items each night. then I am thrown out of the room.
    But before I leave, it is the same things that reinforce the view that the world is dangerous and going to hell in a hand basket.
    Despite my awareness of the rubbish commercial news shows, I still only got 46%. Damn.

  5. DougC October 11, 2018 at 10:49 PM #

    I scored the same as the chimp would ! so perhaps I’m not as optimistic as I should be in light of the demographic facts; however, educated or not, 11 billion more or less, and however youthful or elderly the population might come to be, these facts do not displace the critical issue that will be (is now and always was) available and sustainable resources – especially food, water, minerals and energy – to support the vast population.

    The facts are that we manage all of these things badly and the increasing numbers will make this even worse. It is difficult to see that we will manage these resources twice as well (for twice the population) than we do now; and climate change is likely to exacerbate the problem.

    An overwhelmingly important fact seems to be that improving health, education and incomes appears to also entail disproportionate increases in the use of our limited resources. In the light of all the facts, it’s difficult to be optimistic about life in 2100.

    There are some interesting charts at :
    http://geoservice.pbl.nl/website/flexviewer/index.html?config=cfg/PBL_HYDE.xml
    and :
    https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth

  6. Kevin October 11, 2018 at 11:07 PM #

    Just as Warren Buffet has his letters to shareholders ,Bill Gates does the same in his charity letters.The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation letters are well worth reading.

    They seem to highlight what I imagine this book highlights,life is definitely getting better.Being an old man now I knew that.Thinking back to 60 years ago there were no good old days.We are now living in the wonderful modern days

  7. Graeme October 13, 2018 at 1:14 PM #

    I consider that I am a very pessimistic person. I become quite depressed on issues such as our current governments energy policy. I find it difficult to reconcile this with my score of 77%. My wife agrees that I am pessimistic, but also thinks I am very thorough on evaluating things and invariably come up with the right answer. Perhaps my engineering background enables me to favour facts over emotion.

    • Philip Carman October 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM #

      As a financial adviser I LOVE engineers as clients (and about 50% of my clients are engineers and architects) because they want to know how things work and will keep looking/asking until they do. They take responsibility for knowing (unlike like doctors, in my experience, who want an authority to listen to and blame…) and make the very best, albeit sometimes time-hungry clients, who we can educate and then collaborate with to help them achieve their goals with realistic expectations. Take a bow, Graeme.

  8. Derek O'Hare October 15, 2018 at 1:22 AM #

    I find all this kind of discussion fascinating. Partly because it is true and does challenge the way we think about things. But partly because it still expects us to suspend some logic to believe it!!

    The video “200 countries 200 years” was great. Except that 200 years is not a long period of time. What would happen if the same charting was done for 2000 or 20000 years? How would the chart look then?

    To me, the last 200 years are an outlier in the earth’s history. It is easy to make conclusions based on the last 200 years of data, and that is good to do. But it is really akin to taking the last 10 years of stockmarket gains and assuming this is the baseline for which to make predictions about future movements.

    Some may argue for progression from stone age times etc. But in terms of trajectory, the last 200 years is still an outlier and we can’t base all out conclusions on such recent history. A complete worldview needs to take into account a lot more than this.

Leave a Comment:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Register for our free weekly newsletter

New registrations receive free copies of our special investment ebooks.