[olix0r]

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

"In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

– Michael Crichton (1942-2008)

[digdugdirk]

It's fascinating that Michael Crichton would have a quote like that when he's been guilty of falling into the same trap himself. It really shows how difficult it is for the human mind to have perspective on itself.

[throw4847285]

There's a corollary to the Gell-man Effect which I will dub the Crichton Effect. If somebody is a compelling enough prose stylist then it is easy to be duped into believing that they know more about the topic of their fictional works than they really do. Crichton was a crank, but he knew how to craft a narrative.

[rikthevik]

We are all blind to ourselves.

I feel like I should get that tattooed on my hand, next to one saying, "It's not about you."

[tomcam]

> It's fascinating that Michael Crichton would have a quote like that when he's been guilty of falling into the same trap himself.

For example?

[rikkert]

Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is a prominent example of climate science denial wrapped in a techno-thriller narrative. In the book, he portrays mainstream climate science as alarmist and driven by political motives rather than factual evidence. Crichton uses the plot to imply that climate change fears are exaggerated, fueled by a coalition of media, scientists, and activists with hidden agendas. Despite claiming to be based on scientific data, the book misrepresents studies, cherry-picks data, and cites outlier opinions to undermine the overwhelming consensus on human-caused climate change. The novel’s presentation has been criticized for promoting misinformation and distorting the complexities of climate science to fit a skeptical narrative.

[tomcam]

Thanks. I read the book and feel he’ll be proven largely correct. Won’t relitigate here but I very much appreciate your reply.

It was one of his worst books but not due to his evaluation of the science world. Just way too heavy-handed. He usually had a far lighter touch.

[greenie_beans]

that actually makes sense that he'd write that book if he's going around talking about gell-mann in interviews

[TeaBrain]

That isn't actually an example of the Gell-Mann Amnesia, as he described, but just an example of the cherry picking of data and selective interpretation. The Gell-Mann Amnesia, as he described it, refers to how people will not read a source with skepticism when they are not familiar with it's subject matter, even when they have read an inaccurate article from the same source about subject matter that they are familiar with enough to spot the inaccuracies.

[kmeisthax]

"Every accusation is a confession", in other words

[thinkharderdev]

The fact that it's named after Murray Gell-Man, a Nobel prize winning physicist should tell you something. Intelligence doesn't save you from it.