Okay, so that’s a little misleading. But, as Clive Thompson writes in the September issue of Wired magazine, that’s precisely the point. “Wander into the pop science section of any bookstore and you’ll be told—over and over again—a disturbing fact: Everything you know is wrong. About everything. Seriously, everything!” From Talent is Overrated to The Social Animal, Thompson has noticed that telling people they’re wrong about some seemingly familiar truth is increasingly popular: “it’ll take a renegade outsider—like, say, a ‘rogue economist’—to pierce these veils of ignorance,” “revealing a ‘secret’ long ‘hidden’ from you.”
Thompson offers three ideas for why it is we might be drawn to the “Everything You Know Is Wrong!” trope (since it’s fairly obvious why writers and media outlets—The Society Pages’ authors are no exception—adopt it). First, and most fundamentally, he says that the world is confusing and we may be drawn to those who promise to illuminate it. Fair enough. Second, perhaps “it’s a side effect of what David Shenk… called ‘data smog.’ When you live with an ever-expanding surplus of research… it may paradoxically make you increasingly unmoored from what you actually believe—so you’ll swallow anything.”
Or, third, “Perhaps our willingness to have our basic beliefs overturned is a sign of intellectual health. This mindset is, after all, key to the scientific method.” Maybe we truly, deeply learned the lesson of all those science classes, becoming true lovers of skepticism willing to embrace uncertainty, theory, testing, and a “delight in a genuinely counterintuitive argument.”
Thompson ends on a cautionary note:
Now, I’m not suggesting that all of these “secret side” articles hold water… some are awfully lazy… But the readers—they’re out there searching and questing, and that’s good.
Or to put it another way, Everything You Know About Everything You Know Being Wrong Is Wrong.
Unless, of course, I’m wrong.
Comments 3
doug — August 28, 2012
The whole 'everything you know is wrong' mantra is particularly amusing to me insofar as it stands in such stark contrast with a line we often hear from regular, lay people about how much of what sociologists write and research about; namely, that it is little more than cultural common-sense, what we already know.
Letta Page — August 28, 2012
and for me it brought to mind alex casey's brilliant "sociology mad lib" from years past.
Is _______ Bad for __________? The answer might surprise you....
Letta Page — September 7, 2012
I actually just came across the Mad Lib our former editorial assistant, Alex Casey wrote to show the standard lay reporting of soc. sci. ("both mocking and celebrating the form," says this here nerd):
Is _(noun)_ Bad for _(gender)_?
Many _(plural noun)_ think that _(plural noun)_ are _(adjective)_. However, _(names)_, find that this "just ain't so." Citing findings from their _(year)_ study of _(adjective)_ populations in _(state or country)_, _(same names)_ discover _(plural noun)_ are the real culprit behind this trend. Even after accounting for _(noun)_, the researchers find that _(plural noun)_ are actually _(adjective)_. At least _(number)_ percent of all _(plural noun)_ now find themselves victims of this inequality, compared to _(number)_ percent only a decade ago. _(Adjective)_ individuals who exhibit these _(adjective)_ traits are _(number)_ times more likely to end up _(adjective)_. Whoda thunk it? Clearly this is substantial evidence to _(verb)_ public policy on this issue. Guess it's really important to _(verb)_ your _(noun)_ before _(pronoun)_ _(verb)_.