In the interview with Meade and Murphy, Professor Goodman mentions that it is difficult for the public to understand how prediction systems work. Meade mentions how difficult it is to convince the public of the severity of natural disasters, citing the misunderstanding of the uncertainty with climate change. On the other hand, Murphy mentions that it is easier to convince individual people of predictions regarding their health. I would like to ask, do they believe that the public will only spend the time understanding predictive systems when they have a more personal stake in the prediction, or is it because of bystander effect, or maybe both? Is part of their job finding the best way to relay their predictions to the public in a way that is most understanding and creates action, even if it is not the most technically descriptive and accurate?
top of page
bottom of page
Hey Jordan, you make a great point regarding people needing a more personal stake in something to take action or at least take something seriously. Perhaps it could be something like framing or salience effects -- the issue can often too easily be regarded as simply rising sea levels or some faraway disaster, so people not living on the coasts might believe they won't be affected at all. If we can't convince people of how their lives could be affected (perhaps due to confirmation bias), we could potentially use behavioral nudging to change peoples' behavior in a way that would benefit themselves and the world, bypassing the necessity of convincing them.