I Don’t Not Know This to Be True
In an Atlantic Monthly article released this week, Zeynep Tufeckci describes “5 Pandemic Mistakes We Keep Repeating”, and it’s worth a read. (Everything Tufeckci writes is worth a read.)
But what struck me most was nestled in one of those recommendations, not a headline. At one point Tufeckci rewrites the officialese of recent CDC and WHO statements in plain language, and the difference is startling. CDC/WHO statements: meaningless. Tufeckci version: guidance you can use.
It’s a concrete example of how when we cloak clear instructions in layers of protective language, we lose our chance to make any meaning at all.
In a section titled “The Balance Between Knowledge and Action”, Tufeckci writes,
Sometimes, the way that academics communicate clashed with how the public constructs knowledge. In academia, publishing is the coin of the realm, and it is often done through rejecting the null hypothesis—meaning that many papers do not seek to prove something conclusively, but instead, to reject the possibility that a variable has no relationship with the effect they are measuring (beyond chance)….
At crucial points during the pandemic, though, this resulted in mistranslations and fueled misunderstandings, which were further muddled by differing stances toward prior scientific knowledge and theory….
Thus, on January 14, 2020, the WHO stated that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.” It should have said, “there is increasing likelihood that human-to-human transmission is taking place, but we haven’t yet proven this, because we have no access to Wuhan, China.”…
Later that spring, WHO officials sated that there was “currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection,” producing many articles laden with panic and despair. Instead, it should have said: “We expect the immune system to function against this virus, and to provide some immunity for some period of time, but it is still hard to know specifics because it is so early.”
This passage highlights three core communications issues:
Not tailoring your message to your audience can make that message essentially meaningless. Authorities issued statements that fit scientific conventions, but held back critical guidance for the non-scientist rest of the world.
We think adjustment is a sign of weakness. Responsible people sometimes feel afraid to say “I don’t know”, or to change their minds even in the face of new evidence. This cripples us. See the genius Adam Grant.
We celebrate obfuscation, accepting nonmeaning and nodding wisely at more words, officialese, and piling on the clauses. More words mean all the good things, right? Intelligence, authority, validity, power. Nope! See Farnam Street on how learning to explain something in simple terms is the best way to ensure you actually know it.
There’s a lot to take from this article: the error, in public health and elsewhere, of living in a world of “should” rather than a nuanced reality (“everyone should just stay home!”); how prioritizing the privileged in public health measures leads to loads of missed opportunity in harm reduction (“When officials assume that risks can be easily eliminated, they might neglect the other things that matter to people: staying fed and housed, being close to loved ones, or just enjoying their lives. Public health works best when it helps people find safer ways to get what they need and want”).
But read it, most of all, for a clear example of how to shed a protective cloak of words upon words to get to the plain language that would tell people living through an unprecedented pandemic what they most need to know: what they can do, why, and what could happen if they don’t.
