The Best of the Business Web
  • Sample Issue
  • About the Editor
  • Store
  • R. Berkman Resume
  • Best of the Best 2019 Ed.
  • Best of the Best 2020 ED.

In the Age of the Social Web, Who Do We Trust?

4/27/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
[This is the first in a 5-part series, excerpted  from my forthcoming book: Find it Fast: Extracting Expert Information from Social Networks, Big Data, Tweets, and More, 6th. Ed., CyberAge Books, Autumn 2015]

The late Senator from New York State, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was attributed to have said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.”  

Go to the Web to see if anyone agrees with some pet theory or hunch of yours: could all that white pizza you ate last night be the cause of your dizzy spell? Isn’t it weird how sinkholes happen whenever a drone flew over the same area?

Whatever it is you are “wondering about”, go to the Net, search on the key words, and you will almost certainly find one or more sites or persons somewhere with a similar suspicion and belief. And when we engage in self-confirmation bias, we will use whatever shreds of confirming information we turn up to “prove” to ourselves that, aha!- indeed there was something to our suspicion after all! But most of the time, these “discoveries” are only a reflection of the power of large numbers—with billions of pages on the Web, and who knows how many words, created by millions of people, probability theory compels that there is going to be a pretty good chance that some page, some place, created at some point exists that supports your pet theory.


And once you are convinced that you’ve found the truth or confirmed an existing point of view, it may not matter to you what kind of actual evidence exists that exists to dispute or provide alternative explanations.   According to recent research by Brendan Nyhan, PhD; Jason Reifler, PhD; Sean Richey, PhD, and Gary L. Freed, MD, MPH on efforts to educate parents on the safety of vaccinations, if we have a particular belief firmly in place, even when shown clear contradictory evidence, we find ways to hold on to and justify our prior viewpoint, particularly if that belief is important in how we view the way the world works. (In fact, the research has even shown that showing someone disconfirming information can backfire and serve to increase the person’s belief in incorrect information. This issue gets into the complex and fascinating topic of coincidence, conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs which I will discuss in future blog posts.


Picture
And we are all quite attached to our own beliefs, especially since our ways of looking at the world provide us with a sense of who we are and how the world makes sense. So, naturally, if a certain new set of facts or data threatens to force us to revise our world view we may work quite hard to reject them. As Bertrand Russell noted: 

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.    

And not only, as Bertrand Russell noted, does there appear to be a general human propensity to reject information that contradicts one’s existing beliefs, but in the last 20 years or so within the U.S. there has probably been in increase in the distrust of others’ different views, even or especially if from authoritative sources.

This rise in the propensity to reject others’ views can be attributed to several reinforcing factors: increased polarization of values within the country and an increasing cynicism about the integrity of our institutions. Those institutions include corporations, educational institutions, the medical establishment, religious organizations, and of course the government—and government distrust is particularly driven by the corrupting influence of money. All this distrust has seeped into a larger suspicion of pronouncements from those up on high, “the experts,” and even what some might even deride as experts’ “so called facts.” 

And it’s hard to blame people for not trusting what our institutions and authorities say and do. Examples of misplaced trust abound.  Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; preventable fatal errors in hospitals; cover up for misdeeds at the VA hospitals and in the church; university’s pushing certain student loans for self-interested purposes; doctors writing addictive OxyContin prescriptions; and the list goes on…

Another reason why some people reject evidence and facts is when the disconfirming information could lead to consequences that the person simply does not like or want to happen. For example, some who dispute the reality and problems resulting from human created climate change do so out of a concern that if that reality is accepted, it could (and probably would) lead to more government rules and regulation, which to those persons would be an anathema.

Of course it’s not just some conservatives whose ideology trumps facts. There are also some on the left who will reject, out of hand, data, evidence or findings that could create what they perceive as potentially undesirable changes in government policies, laws or accepted social practices.

Finally, almost nobody other than perhaps Socrates, who famously said “I know that I know nothing” thinks they are wrong. (Though, perhaps if challenged on his remark, Socrates too might strongly cling to his core belief that he “knows nothing”!)


Ultimately, when it comes to deciding whether to believe something that seems outlandish, contrary to your own accepted beliefs, fringe-y, politically untenable, unheard of, or just weird, so much of it comes down to trust. And we all have different touchstones on whom and what we trust. Some trust The New York Times. Some trust their gut. Some trust results of careful scientific research. Some trust their own life experiences. Some trust their intuition. Some trust MSNBC. Some trust what their parents told them. Some trust Oprah.  Many of us simply trust when we hear something that confirms what we already agree with or suspect is true.

Bottom line: the matter of who to trust is complex and of course there is no single way to determine who to trust. But here are five principles I try to follow when making a decision whether or not to trust an unknown source:

1.      We don’t know everything, so remain open to what others have to say. Try to set aside and loosen up current beliefs when doing research. As someone once remarked, “research is a river—it takes you where it wants you to go.”

2.      Our current state of knowledge and understanding of the world has changed and is going to change. Just look at dietary recommendations. Before the 1960s, eating fats was fine. In the 1970s and 1980s it was considered the enemy of good health. Later, it was determined that some fats were OK and others were not. Today some researchers are promoting eating more fats overall. Since the best predictor of the future is the past, you can probably count on this current perspective to change again (and again and again) as we move into the future.

3.      Utilize the critical thinking of the journalists and scholar: be open but also skeptical. Be open because we don’t know everything; be skeptical too because you need to apply some yardstick for resolving conflicting claims and coming to your own decision.

4.      Understand and apply the notion of probability to serve as a check on jumping to conclusions on the larger meaning of a certain coincidence. Remember, when it comes to “amazing coincidences” we all have a tendency to remember the hits but forget the misses, and that as my first year probability college professor told our class “rare events do happen.” (But remember too that sometimes there can be in fact meaningful coincidences—the odd and unexpected coinciding of events that are significant if they in fact reflect some unseen, hidden and/or yet to be discovered underlying force or reason creating that surprise). Again: open but skeptical.

5.      What seems to be in opposition and contradictory does not have to be so; things are not always mutually exclusive and either/or. Natural climactic cycles occur AND human-induced warming both exist; there is corruption in some medical circles but vaccinations are STILL most likely to be safe. Stay alert to false and unnecessary either/or dichotomies.

How do you determine who to trust on the Web?


Next Week: How Wise is the Crowd Really? Exploring the Phenomenon of the Wisdom of Crowds

0 Comments

When its OK to use Data from Ideologically Driven Organizations

4/20/2015

2 Comments

 
Picture
You wouldn’t consult an e-cigarette manufacturer’s website if you were doing research on the hazards of electronic cigarettes, right? Or rely on data on the growth of solar energy from an organization whose sole mission is to advance its cause. Your natural, logical—and largely sound—instinct would be to avoid using information provided by entities who have a vested interest in achieving a particular outcome.

Kind of obvious, right?

But I recently did choose to use data and analysis from an advocacy group—one that I strongly disagreed with no less.  

My project was to research and find out how many Americans were eschewing driving cars and choosing public transportation instead. I came across a comprehensive survey created by the American Public Transit Association (APTA) that found that Americans took a record 10.8 billion trips in 2013, "the highest annual ridership in 58 years” the subtitle of the report read. According to its President and CEO the survey illustrated “a fundamental shift going on in the way we move about our communities…” 

Then I found some additional commentary, on a blog that challenged the APTA’s notion that transit use was truly increasing. I quickly scanned down the page to find the source and discovered that it was The Heartland Institute—an organization with a “libertarian and conservative” agenda to “promote public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets.”  I was, in fact, already familiar with and quite unsympathetic towards this group. For years it has actively been trying to convince the public to discount human created climate change, as well as pursue other politically “on the right” points of view that I personally do not ascribe to.

So my immediate reaction was to dismiss this blog piece as just more propaganda. But I decided to suspend judgment a bit, and see what else my research turned up and revisit the site further down the road. So later when it was time to pull together my research, I did take the time back to read the full blog piece. And what I found was in fact a convincing argument.

The reasons that I found the piece convincing were:

  • The data it used to back up its points were from neutral and respected sources, including the Bureau of the Census, and the article linked back to those original sources.
  • The argument that disputed the conclusions of the APTA study was logical, clear, and easy to understand.
  • The tone of the piece itself was informative, and did not call on, refer to, or mix up its larger value related viewpoints with the data and argument.

Heartland’s argument itself was actually quite straightforward: while it was true that transit ridership was at an all-time high as the APTA data showed, that organization failed to put its data into two very important pieces of context: changes in population and mass transit use by one particular city. On the first point, the blog provided reputable data that between 2008-2013 the total US population rose from 304 million to 316 million. Once that data is taken into account, annual public transportation use, on a per person basis, actually falls from about 35 trips to 34. Furthermore, if one takes out New York City’s contribution—which represents 40% of all transit riders—American public transit use on a per capita basis actually falls for those years.

But although this new information was extremely valuable in putting the APTA data into the missing and necessary context, it still is just one more piece of data and still does not tell the “whole story.”  Further research uncovered larger, macro trends supporting likely ongoing growth of public transportation in the U.S. due to forces like aging boomers looking to move to urban centers with nearby businesses; millennials lack of passion and interest in driving; and a renewed increase among certain cities towards building new light rail and public transport options, among other relevant trends. The President and CEO’s claim that Americans were in fact fundamentally shifting their way of travel looked to be correct, but not because of the total rise of transit use found in its survey.


Picture
So for me, the lessons were, yes, to remain skeptical, but not closed to data presented by an advocacy group (even those I strongly dislike!) and that while a piece of data may be sound, the interpretation may not be. It’s also a reminder that there are many ways to look at a particular phenomenon, and each organization will slice and present it in the way that is going to serve their interests the best.

That’s why any good researcher will find and evaluate multiple sources of information—including data from advocacy groups—and ultimately make his or her own conclusions.

2 Comments

Can Google Really Do it All?

4/13/2015

0 Comments

 
For the last several weeks I’ve been immersed in a broad but in-depth business research project that required seeking out the timeliest, most credible, and most insightful sources on a wide array of business topics ranging from changing demographics, to the Affordable Healthcare Act, recent consumer shopping behavior and more.

When I set out to begin this project, I planned to conduct my online research by searching several long time, favorite fee based deep business research sources, as well as going to the open Web.

My strategy was to search high quality business databases like ABI/Inform, well known newspaper and magazine online search services like Proquest National Newspapers, various scholarly databases, like SSRN, and I’d kick off my research with some open Web searches on Google as well.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the databases--I never got there.

I discovered that virtually everything I was looking for could be found on the open Web via Google. The additional databases, which I have used and valued for years, did not add a significant amount to my research.

This was not what I expected.

Of course, my subject was broadly business oriented and represent topics that are reported in the popular and trade press, survey organizations, associations, conferences and so forth, which are sources that Google indexes. There are lots of other types of business or scholarly research queries where Google would certainly not be the first or last word, or even useful at all. Say, for example, you needed to examine the first treatises on accounting from the 1500s; or review a set of archives of financial statements from German companies in the 1920s; or find scholarly analyses on a niche social science or humanity discipline topic.  You’d need to turn to a library, a specialized digital or e-journal collection or a niche discipline database.

I’m also not saying that entering a few words into Google equals good research. In order to best leverage Google, it still takes some upfront knowledge and skills such as knowing how to choose and modify keywords; toggling between Google Web, News and Scholar where appropriate; utilizing some of the search engine’s most important features such as its date tool to customize dates (in some cases to limit to newer and other cases for older pages); and knowing tricks like inputting the name of your own trusted sources and experts to serve as quality filters and more.

This is hardly a new topic. Discussions about what can and cannot be found from a Google search is about as old as Google itself, and teachers and librarians continually work to educate students of the world “beyond Google.” But to me the surprise was that even though it was “just Google” it served this complex business research project so well.

But my experience also made me wonder…despite the  admirable efforts of traditional online services like ProQuest, Factiva, LexisNexis and others to introduce new versions and enhancements that balance their power search capabilities with Web based ease of search interfaces and features—how will services like this best be able to continue to maintain and justify their fee based services? Or can they at all? 

This question will become increasingly relevant
as millennials move to positions of greater responsibility in the workplace, which as this just published fascinating book called When Millennials Take Over explains, will change so much about the way things are done. And that includes, of course, where and who we turn to for our sources of knowledge.

What do you think? 

0 Comments

A Conversation with: Allison Mooney, Head of Insights & Trends at Google and Editor-In-Chief of Think With Google

4/7/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
Welcome to the second edition of our recently launched “First Tuesday” feature.  On the first Tuesday of every month we feature a one-on-one discussion with a person behind one of the previous month’s Best of the Business Web e-letter selections that we felt would be particularly interesting to talk to.

This month we have chosen Allison Mooney, Head of Insights & Trends at Google and Editor-In-Chief of Think With Google. We highlighted Think With Google as a selection in our March 2015 issue, and noted that it "surfaces insights unavailable elsewhere and is particularly valuable for trends research." We also said the site was "fascinating, informative and fun."

Allison is based in New York City, and before working at Google founded IRL Productions, an engagement marketing agency; and has served as VP, Emerging Trends at MobileBehavior and Director of Trends & Research at global public relations and marketing agency Fleishman-Hillard.

Below is an edited summary of our interview, conducted via email last week.

Q. Can you provide a little background on the origin of Think With Google?

A. Think with Google launched in early 2013 and was originally called Think Insights (taking the name of a research-focused website from which it evolved.)

We spoke with a lot of our partners about how we could best help them access the same data, analysis and insights that inform our own strategies, and Think With Google was a result of those conversations. It’s intended to be a resource for everything from high-level insights to deck-ready stats to useful tools. We publish the data we’re exploring and the trends we’re tracking along with forward-looking perspectives and behind-the-scenes looks at digital campaigns —across industries, platforms and audiences.

Q. How do you decide which topics to tackle?


A. We look at a number of factors when deciding what to cover, including:

  • Big cultural moments and seasonal events that marketers care about
  • Popular and rising consumer trends on Google and YouTube
  • Topics that users are searching for on our site
  • Qualitative audience research and feedback
  • Hot topics in the marketplace

On an ongoing basis, we’re looking at the data and listening to our audience to see what’s resonating (or not). We use that feedback to inform our content strategy moving forward, including the topics we cover, the formats we use, the way we craft content, as well as our promotional efforts.

PictureThink With Google leverages search and trend history with surveys and 3rd party data to generate insights



Q. Can you walk through, in a simplified manner, the steps leading to a Think With Google article?


The process depends on the type of piece we’re doing, but I’ll walk you through one of our Data Insights pieces. I work with a team of data analysts to develop this content, and here are the steps we follow:

1) What’s the topic and when should we cover it?

We build pipeline of content that aligns with the broader marketing calendar, company priorities, seasonal events and news hooks.

2) What are the trends in this space?


We do online research, talk to experts, and brainstorm with internal partners to figure out what we should cover and how.

3) Can we validate these hypotheses with our data?

We look at Google and YouTube data through proprietary and public tools like Google Trends, and we run Google Consumer Surveys to see if these trends bear out. If not, then we don’t write about it. Our aim is to add data-driven insights to the conversation, not repeat what’s already been said. In the process, we want to show marketers how they themselves can discover consumer, category, and cultural trends through our data.

4) What else do we need to tell the story?

We’re a data-driven company and believe that it’s incredibly powerful, but it can’t stand on its own. We turn to other sources — third-party research reports, news articles, client case studies, and interviews with consumers and experts — to tell a story, provide color, and add support to our findings.

5) Can we map this to a broader theme?   

We pull out the “so what’s” for our readers, laddering insights into higher level themes that have implications for marketers.

6) How can we package it in the most compelling way?

We think about the best format to present the content on all of our external channels as well as for internal audiences.

Q. Based on your experience with working with large data sets to identify patterns and trends, what would you advise those new at data analysis to be careful about—e.g. pitfalls, using data sets inappropriately, common mistakes etc.?

A. Generally, it’s important to remember that data alone are not insights. Insights may be born from data, but it’s people who see into the data and develop insights.

Specifically as it relates to Google Trends data, it’s important to remember that:

It shows search interest relative to everything that people are searching vs the absolute number of searches. A great example is the term “science,” which shows a decline since 2004. It’s not necessarily true that fewer people are searching about science, just that more people are now searching for other things.

Terms can be ambiguous (e.g. jobs vs. Steve Jobs, hangover the movie vs. an actual hangover). When you start typing into the search box you'll see topic predictions, which make it easy to do a fairer comparison.

Results are normalized against one another – you can’t compare terms you’ve searched separately.

Q. Are there a few new business related insights or trends  that you published recently and think might be particularly interesting to business researchers?

 
A. Here is all of our content covering specific industries and here are some recent articles:

  • Retail: Omni-Channel Shoppers: An Emerging Retail Reality
  • Gaming: Think Gaming Content Is Niche? Think Again
  • B2B: The Changing Face of B2B Marketing
  • Financial Services: Money Matters: Finance Trends Throughout the Year
  • Beauty: The Looks We Look For: Makeup Trends Throughout the Year

Q. A lot of diverse information is presented on Think With Google? What ties it all together?

Digital innovation continues to propel the marketing industry forward, and the pace is mind blowing. At Google, we use research, analysis and insights to stay ahead, and Think with Google is our way to share all of this with our readers.

We see Think with Google as a place to talk to business decision makers at brands and agencies about digital marketing strategies, emerging consumer trends and valuable tactics that will help them achieve their business objectives.

What brings it all together is insights — consumer insights a planner puts in a brief, platform insights a media buyer uses to allocate budget, or category insights a brand manager uses to shape strategy. In short, high-value insights that fuel and enable the success of our customers.

Thank you Allison!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

1 Comment

    Author

    A blog by Robert Berkman, editor Best of the Business Web

    Archives

    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015

    Categories

    All
    Big Data
    Business Research
    Credibility
    Culture
    Fake Reviews
    Internet
    Market Research
    Open Access
    Scholarly Research
    Social Media
    Surveys And Polls
    Trust

    RSS Feed

    View my profile on LinkedIn