With the growth of online media in the last fifteen years, newspapers are becoming obsolete, with their demise comes a larger problem; misinformation. This problem is not new, however most authors have been rather ambiguous in their conclusions. A closer look on how unconscious human behavior impacts this issue should be given, especially with the news regarding Peak Oil--Spectators caused the oil price spike of 2008 vs. demand of oil was higher then supply rings a bell. Unfortunately, no large government agency has confirmed or denied these claims in midst of smaller entities giving alternative stories. The reason for this unequilibrium is explained here.
Confirmation Bias is a human condition that causes a person to seek out only information that matches their preconceived notions. It also can be in the form of interpreting data to reaffirm a given truth a person holds. This was the subject of an experiment held by Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper. They gave subjects two studies on the death penalty—one for each side of the argument, Regardless of being pro or anti death penalty, the subjects chose the study most reliable to be the one that shared their viewpoint, even though the latter was more detailed. This illustrates two key things; the human conscience does not like contradictions, humans are irrational.
Another bias is looped with Confirmation Bias called Blind-Spot Bias. This often rears its ugly head during debate on the very subject of being bias. Dr. Emily Prolin discovered that when asked to rate ones level of bias compared to their fellow peers, humans will certainly assume the position they are less susceptible to bias and stereotyping. Blind-Spot Bias would ultimately prevent a person from realizing their confirmation bias. The question then becomes, how do I really know what heck is going on?
Thanks to the trusty—insofar—Internet, a simple Google News search shows a real life example of contradictions in the reporting of Peak Oil. The first story in the results claims “Peak Oil Period” to Be Attained By 2014, Alarm Scientists.” The fifth exclaims “there never was such a thing as "Peak Oil" or "Peak Hydrocarbons".. Economic success is balanced on how...” One gives you a feeling of panic, the other of ease. The contradictions in media today are of course in all subjects. The size of the Internet also allows an endless number of fictitious realities created simultaneously. As our perceptions become more divided, the effect has yet to be determined—depending on the severity of division will ultimately conclude the answer.
Many may be asking themselves if print media has any reliability? My answer is undecided. Every writer is prone to bias because they must create a voice in which to report the news. Also newspapers are littered with stories promoting new products and businesses while advertisements’ scatter in between. (The words conflict of interest comes to mind) However historically journalists were affriended with the common folk. I would like to think the historical significance of journalism should weigh on a few authors’ consciences.
As gas prices scamper to three dollars a gallon, I expect peak oil to finally gain some traction. Although because of the Normalcy Bias—the refusal to plan for an event because it has not happened before—should do us in regardless, or perhaps the argument that technology will save us all will come to suffice.
- Kristen Mcgreagor; Chanhassen, MN
PeakOil is You
The influence of Bias & Media on Peak Oil believability
First unread post • 15 posts
• Page 1 of 1
The influence of Bias & Media on Peak Oil believability
by Kristen » Thu 11 Mar 2010, 15:54:43
-
Kristen - Tar Sands
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Mon 17 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: The influence of Bias & Media on Peak Oil believability
by shortonsense » Thu 11 Mar 2010, 20:39:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kristen', '
')As gas prices scamper to three dollars a gallon, I expect peak oil to finally gain some traction. Although because of the Normalcy Bias—the refusal to plan for an event because it has not happened before—should do us in regardless, or perhaps the argument that technology will save us all will come to suffice.
- Kristen Mcgreagor; Chanhassen, MN
')As gas prices scamper to three dollars a gallon, I expect peak oil to finally gain some traction. Although because of the Normalcy Bias—the refusal to plan for an event because it has not happened before—should do us in regardless, or perhaps the argument that technology will save us all will come to suffice.
- Kristen Mcgreagor; Chanhassen, MN
An interesting perspective, and perhaps important. For example, do you believe that the implications within your statement are because of your biased view on the issue of peak oil, or your unbiased view?
Look at statement as an example..."as gas prices scamper to three dollars a gallon, I expect peak oil to finally gain some traction". Are you saying that the price of gasoline, at 75% of its nominal height of just 2 summers ago, is more important to your view of peak oil than the fact of peak oil itself 5 years ago?
Is it possible to then assume that your view of peak oil has nothing to do with peak oil, but only the price of gasoline? Look at this graph:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/imag ... _chart.htm
Notice that the real price of gasoline at the most recent datapoint (Nov2009) is much less than the price of gasoline in the 1978-1984 timeframe, which was one of the last global peak oil time periods. Maybe peak oils cause higher prices However, from 1931 to 1942, gasoline was also more expensive, and that certainly was not the effect of a global peak oil. So is it reasonable to think that any particular peak oil has ANYTHING to do with the price of gasoline?
-
shortonsense - Permanently Banned
- Posts: 3124
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Re: The influence of Bias & Media on Peak Oil believability
by mos6507 » Thu 11 Mar 2010, 21:11:36
People these days tend to determine truth or fiction based on a paranoid litmus test. In other words, they look at the messenger and they try to determine what that guy is selling, who is funding them, and so on. This isn't the way it used to be, but it is now. The idea that someone would ever give out what they really feel is objective data is excluded from the equation. Everybody's considered dirty, whether it's big oil or the IPCC. The raw data is rarely factored in. Hell, the data itself isn't even trusted. Even if it were, most people can't grasp big concepts like peak oil or overshoot. If something doesn't happen right in front of your face, it's not trusted. "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit", basically. I'm not saying some mistrust is unjustified, but that most people are very poor at determining what to trust and what not to trust. Our trust-meters are broken. That sort of extreme myopia is fine in a hunter-gatherer society where what happens over the next hill is irrelevant to survival, but in a population teetering on the verge of die-off, it's deadly.
- mos6507
Re: The influence of Bias & Media on Peak Oil believability
by Kristen » Thu 11 Mar 2010, 23:33:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kristen', '
')As gas prices scamper to three dollars a gallon, I expect peak oil to finally gain some traction. Although because of the Normalcy Bias—the refusal to plan for an event because it has not happened before—should do us in regardless, or perhaps the argument that technology will save us all will come to suffice.
- Kristen Mcgreagor; Chanhassen, MN
')As gas prices scamper to three dollars a gallon, I expect peak oil to finally gain some traction. Although because of the Normalcy Bias—the refusal to plan for an event because it has not happened before—should do us in regardless, or perhaps the argument that technology will save us all will come to suffice.
- Kristen Mcgreagor; Chanhassen, MN
An interesting perspective, and perhaps important. For example, do you believe that the implications within your statement are because of your biased view on the issue of peak oil, or your unbiased view?
Look at statement as an example..."as gas prices scamper to three dollars a gallon, I expect peak oil to finally gain some traction". Are you saying that the price of gasoline, at 75% of its nominal height of just 2 summers ago, is more important to your view of peak oil than the fact of peak oil itself 5 years ago?
Is it possible to then assume that your view of peak oil has nothing to do with peak oil, but only the price of gasoline? Look at this graph:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/imag ... _chart.htm
Notice that the real price of gasoline at the most recent datapoint (Nov2009) is much less than the price of gasoline in the 1978-1984 timeframe, which was one of the last global peak oil time periods. Maybe peak oils cause higher prices However, from 1931 to 1942, gasoline was also more expensive, and that certainly was not the effect of a global peak oil. So is it reasonable to think that any particular peak oil has ANYTHING to do with the price of gasoline?
A very important question indeed--several actually. I certainly have biases as well as anyone else does. You are right, historically, the price of gasoline creshendoed without a huge conflict in supply and demand. However it also is reasonable to think of price increases as a symptom of peak oil. Both are good arguments.
Inflation vs Deflation I will come back to at a latter time, I'm exhausted tonight.
-
Kristen - Tar Sands
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Mon 17 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Re: The influence of Bias & Media on Peak Oil believability
by Kristen » Thu 11 Mar 2010, 23:47:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'P')eople these days tend to determine truth or fiction based on a paranoid litmus test. In other words, they look at the messenger and they try to determine what that guy is selling, who is funding them, and so on. This isn't the way it used to be, but it is now. The idea that someone would ever give out what they really feel is objective data is excluded from the equation. Everybody's considered dirty, whether it's big oil or the IPCC. The raw data is rarely factored in. Hell, the data itself isn't even trusted. Even if it were, most people can't grasp big concepts like peak oil or overshoot. If something doesn't happen right in front of your face, it's not trusted. "If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit", basically. I'm not saying some mistrust is unjustified, but that most people are very poor at determining what to trust and what not to trust. Our trust-meters are broken. That sort of extreme myopia is fine in a hunter-gatherer society where what happens over the next hill is irrelevant to survival, but in a population teetering on the verge of die-off, it's deadly.
Our trust meters are broken. There is blatant conflicts of interest across the whole spectrum of Government, Finances, Public, Private, Banking, Marketing, Manufactoring, etc industries that make me wince when opening a newspaper. I imagine all these iinconsistencies created the intense paranoia in some people, which is quite a tragedy. A individual with such a Paranoiad streak is experiencing the hopelesness of overfear. My hat goes down for those who seek the raw data actually and perform their own computations.
-
Kristen - Tar Sands
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Mon 17 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
