Concepts like ‘trauma’
or ‘violence’ have stretched to encompass things no previous generation would
have worried about
By Oliver Burkeman, the
Guardian, on 20/07/18
Extracts:
“Is everything
completely terrible – or is the world getting better? It’s a popular topic of
debate, because both claims seem to be true. (...) I’m grateful for a
fascinating new study, published in the journal Science, which sheds new light
on such matters. Although it began with a seemingly unrelated, borderline
absurd question: how would you define a “blue dot”?
In the experiment,
participants were shown hundreds of dots in shades from deep purple to deep
blue, and asked to say whether each was blue or not. Obviously, the bluer a
dot, the more likely people were to classify it as blue. But what’s interesting
is what happened when researchers began reducing the prevalence of the blue
dots they displayed. The fewer dots that were objectively blue, the broader
people’s definition of “blue” became: they started to classify purplish dots
that way, too. Their concept of blue expanded, a phenomenon the study authors
label “prevalence-induced concept change”.
Which clearly has nothing to do with social problems such as poverty or racism
– except that, actually, it might.
It’s been argued that we
live in an era of “concept creep”, in which concepts like “trauma” or
“violence” have stretched to encompass things no previous generation would have
worried about. Hence the idea that certain forms of speech are literally
violence. Or that letting an eight-year-old walk to school alone is actual
child neglect. (...) If you ask people to classify faces as threatening or
non-threatening, then reduce the incidence of threatening ones, they’ll define
more neutral faces as threatening. Ask them to classify research proposals as
ethical or unethical, then reduce the unethical ones, and they’ll expand their
definition of “unethical”. As co-author Dan Gilbert put it, “When problems
become rare, we count more things as problems.”
This has big
implications for progressive-minded types, since it suggests that even if
things are getting better, we’ll find that hard to perceive, because we’ll
respond by expanding the problem. But it doesn’t follow that all these
new problems are fake. Sometimes, concept creep is good. To use Gilbert’s
analogy, an emergency doctor is right to prioritise gunshot wounds over broken
arms; but if there are no gunshot wounds to treat, she’s perfectly correct to
expand her definition of “what needs immediate attention” to include broken
arms. Conversely, a neurologist shouldn’t expand his definition of “brain
tumour” simply because he can’t find any.
The challenge when it comes to social problems – or your personal problems – is
to ask whether the thing you’re worrying about is more like the former or
the latter: a serious problem in its own right, or one you’ve essentially
invented? If it feels like nothing’s improving, it might be because your
brain keeps shifting the goalposts.”
No comments:
Post a Comment