3 kinds of bias that shape your worldview | J. Marshall Shepherd

Prevodilac: Ivana Krivokuća Lektor: Dragana Savanovic

I'm a meteorologist by degree,

Meteorolog sam po struci,

I have a bachelor's, master's and PhD in physical meteorology,

imam osnovne, master studije i doktorat iz fizičke meteorologije,

so I'm a meteorologist, card carrying.

dakle, meteorolog, zvanično.

And so with that comes four questions, always.

Uz to uvek idu četiri pitanja.

This is one prediction I will always get right.

To je jedino što uvek pogodim.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

And those questions are,

A ta pitanja su:

"Marshall, what channel are you on?"

„Maršale, na kom si kanalu?“

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

"Dr. Shepherd, what's the weather going to be tomorrow?"

„Dr Šepard, kakvo će vreme biti sutra?“

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

And oh, I love this one:

I da, ovo obožavam:

"My daughter is getting married next September, it's an outdoor wedding.

„Moja ćerka se udaje sledećeg septembra, biće venčanje na otvorenom.

Hoće li padati kiša?“

Is it going to rain?"

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Not kidding, I get those, and I don't know the answer to that,

Bez šale, dobijam ta pitanja, i ne znam odgovore na njih,

the science isn't there.

tu nema nauke.

But the one I get a lot these days is,

Ali jedno koje mi ovih dana često upućuju je:

"Dr. Shepherd, do you believe in climate change?"

„Dr Šepard, da li verujete u klimatske promene?“

"Do you believe in global warming?"

„Da li verujete u globalno zagrevanje?“

Now, I have to gather myself every time I get that question.

Svaki put kad čujem to pitanje moram da se priberem.

Because it's an ill-posed question --

Zato što je pogrešno postavljeno pitanje - nauka nije sistem verovanja.

science isn't a belief system.

My son, he's 10 -- he believes in the tooth fairy.

Moj sin, koji ima 10 godina, veruje u Zubić vilu.

And he needs to get over that, because I'm losing dollars, fast.

I to mora da prevaziđe, jer ubrzano gubim dolare.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

But he believes in the tooth fairy.

Ali on veruje u Zubić vilu.

But consider this.

Razmislite o ovome.

Bank of America building, there, in Atlanta.

Ova zgrada Banke Amerike se nalazi u Atlanti.

You never hear anyone say,

Nikada ne čujete da neko kaže:

"Do you believe, if you go to the top of that building

„Verujete li, ako se popnete na vrh te zgrade

and throw a ball off, it's going to fall?"

i bacite loptu, da će ona pasti?“

You never hear that, because gravity is a thing.

To nikad ne čujete, jer gravitacija je nepobitna stvar.

So why don't we hear the question,

Pa zašto ne čujemo pitanje:

"Do you believe in gravity?"

„Da li verujete u gravitaciju?“

But of course, we hear the question,

Ali naravno da čujemo pitanje:

"Do you believe in global warming?"

„Da li verujete u globalno zagrevanje?“

Well, consider these facts.

Pa, razmotrite ove činjenice.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS,

Američko udruženje za razvoj nauke, AAAS,

one of the leading organizations in science,

jedna od vodećih naučnih organizacija,

queried scientists and the public on different science topics.

ispitivalo je naučnike i javnost o različitim naučnim temama.

Here are some of them:

Evo nekih od njih:

genetically modified food, animal research, human evolution.

genetski modifikovana hrana, istraživanja na životinjama, evolucija ljudi.

And look at what the scientists say about those,

Pogledajte šta naučnici kažu u vezi sa njima,

the people that actually study those topics, in red,

ljudi koji zaista izučavaju te teme, označeno crvenom bojom,

versus the gray, what the public thinks.

naspram sive, onoga što javnost misli.

How did we get there?

Kako smo stigli ovde?

How did we get there?

Kako smo stigli ovde?

That scientists and the public are so far apart on these science issues.

Da su naučnici i javnost toliko udaljeni u pogledu ovih naučnih pitanja.

Well, I'll come a little bit closer to home for me,

Pa, vratiću se malo bliže svojoj temi,

climate change.

klimatskim promenama.

Eighty-seven percent of scientists

Osamdeset sedam posto naučnika

believe that humans are contributing to climate change.

veruje da ljudi doprinose klimatskim promenama.

But only 50 percent of the public?

Ali samo 50 posto javnosti?

How did we get there?

Kako smo stigli ovde?

So it begs the question,

Ovo pokreće pitanje

what shapes perceptions about science?

šta oblikuje stavove o nauci?

It's an interesting question

To je zanimljivo pitanje

and one that I've been thinking about quite a bit.

o kome sam poprilično razmišljao.

I think that one thing that shapes perceptions in the public, about science,

Mislim da je ono što oblikuje stavove o nauci u javnosti

is belief systems and biases.

sistem uverenja i predrasude.

Belief systems and biases.

Sistemi verovanja i predrasude.

Go with me for a moment.

Priklonite mi se na trenutak.

Because I want to talk about three elements of that:

Jer želim da govorim o trima elementima toga:

confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger effect

efektu potvrđivanja, Daning-Krugerovom efektu

and cognitive dissonance.

i kognitivnoj disonanci.

Now, these sound like big, fancy, academic terms, and they are.

Zvuče kao glomazni, fensi, akademski termini, a i jesu.

But when I describe them, you're going to be like, "Oh!

Ali kada vam ih opišem, reći ćete: „Oh!

I recognize that; I even know somebody that does that."

Prepoznajem to; čak i znam nekog ko to radi.“

Confirmation bias.

Efekat potvrđivanja.

Finding evidence that supports what we already believe.

Pronalaženje dokaza koji podržavaju ono u šta već verujemo.

Now, we're probably all a little bit guilty of that at times.

Verovatno za ovo svi mi nekad pomalo snosimo krivicu.

Take a look at this.

Pogledajte ovo.

I'm on Twitter.

Ja sam na Tviteru.

And often, when it snows,

Često, kada pada sneg,

I'll get this tweet back to me.

dobijem ovaj tvit.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

"Hey, Dr. Shepherd, I have 20 inches of global warming in my yard,

„Hej, dr Šepard, imam pola metra globalnog zagrevanja u dvorištu,

what are you guys talking about, climate change?"

o čemu vi to govorite, o klimatskim promenama?“

I get that tweet a lot, actually.

Zapravo, često mi stiže taj tvit.

It's a cute tweet, it makes me chuckle as well.

To je simpatičan tvit, a i nasmeje me.

But it's oh, so fundamentally scientifically flawed.

Ali je toliko suštinski naučno pogrešan.

Because it illustrates

Jer ilustruje

that the person tweeting doesn't understand

da osoba koja tvituje ne razume

the difference between weather and climate.

razliku između vremena i klime.

I often say, weather is your mood

Često kažem da je vreme vaše raspoloženje,

and climate is your personality.

a klima je vaša ličnost.

Think about that.

Razmislite o tome.

Weather is your mood, climate is your personality.

Vreme je vaše raspoloženje, a klima je vaša ličnost.

Your mood today doesn't necessarily tell me anything about your personality,

Vaše današnje raspoloženje mi ne govori ništa o vašoj ličnosti,

nor does a cold day tell me anything about climate change,

kao što mi hladan dan ne govori ništa o klimatskim promenama,

or a hot day, for that matter.

kao ni vreli dan, štaviše.

Dunning-Kruger.

Daning-Kruger.

Two scholars from Cornell came up with the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Dva naučnika sa Univerziteta Kornel su došla do Daning-Krugerovog efekta.

If you go look up the peer-reviewed paper for this,

Ako potražite recenzirani članak o tome,

you will see all kinds of fancy terminology:

videćete raznoraznu prefinjenu terminologiju:

it's an illusory superiority complex, thinking we know things.

to je iluzorni kompleks superiornosti, kada mislimo da znamo nešto.

In other words, people think they know more than they do.

Drugim rečima, ljudi misle da znaju više nego što zaista znaju.

Or they underestimate what they don't know.

Ili potcenjuju ono što ne znaju.

And then, there's cognitive dissonance.

Potom, tu je kognitivna disonanca.

Cognitive dissonance is interesting.

Kognitivna disonanca je zanimljiva.

We just recently had Groundhog Day, right?

Nedavno je bio Dan mrmota, je l' da?

Now, there's no better definition of cognitive dissonance

Nema bolje definicije kognitivne disonance

than intelligent people asking me if a rodent's forecast is accurate.

nego kada me inteligentni ljudi pitaju da li je prognoza glodara tačna.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

But I get that, all of the time.

Ali i to me stalno pitaju.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

But I also hear about the Farmer's Almanac.

Ali takođe čujem i o „Farmerovom almanahu“.

We grew up on the Farmer's Almanac, people are familiar with it.

Odrasli smo uz "Farmerov almanah", ljudi znaju za njega.

The problem is, it's only about 37 percent accurate,

Problem je u tome što je tačan samo 37%,

according to studies at Penn State University.

prema istraživanjima sa Državnog univerziteta Pensilvanije.

But we're in an era of science

Ali nalazimo se u vremenu nauke

where we actually can forecast the weather.

u kome zaista možemo da predvidimo vreme.

And believe it or not, and I know some of you are like, "Yeah, right,"

Verovali ili ne, a znam da neki među vama misle „Da, kako da ne,“

we're about 90 percent accurate, or more, with weather forecast.

imamo 90% i veću tačnost vremenske prognoze.

Samo ste skloni da upamtite povremene promašaje, jeste.

You just tend to remember the occasional miss, you do.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

So confirmation bias, Dunning-Kruger and cognitive dissonance.

Dakle, efekat potvrđivanja, Daning-Kruger i kognitivna disonanca.

I think those shape biases and perceptions that people have about science.

Mislim da oni oblikuju pristrasnosti i stavove koje ljudi imaju o nauci.

But then, there's literacy and misinformation

No, uz to, tu je pismenost i dezinformacije

that keep us boxed in, as well.

koje nas takođe drže u određenim okvirima.

During the hurricane season of 2017,

Za vreme sezone uragana 2017. godine,

media outlets had to actually assign reporters

mediji su morali da zadužuju novinare

to dismiss fake information about the weather forecast.

da odbacuju lažne informacije o vremenskoj prognozi.

That's the era that we're in.

U takvom vremenu se nalazimo.

I deal with this all the time in social media.

Time se stalno bavim na društvenim mrežama.

Someone will tweet a forecast --

Neko će tvitovati prognozu -

that's a forecast for Hurricane Irma, but here's the problem:

to je prognoza za uragan Irmu, ali evo u čemu je problem:

it didn't come from the Hurricane Center.

ona nije došla iz Uraganskog centra.

But people were tweeting and sharing this; it went viral.

Ali ljudi su to tvitovali i delili, i proširilo se.

It didn't come from the National Hurricane Center at all.

Uopšte nije proisteklo iz Nacionalnog uraganskog centra.

So I spent 12 years of my career at NASA

Proveo sam 12 godina svoje karijere u Nasi

before coming to the University of Georgia,

pre nego što sam došao na Univerzitet u Džordžiji,

and I chair their Earth Science Advisory Committee,

i predsedavam njihovim Savetodavnim odborom za nauku o Zemlji,

I was just up there last week in DC.

baš sam bio tamo prošle nedelje u Vašingtonu.

And I saw some really interesting things.

Video sam neke vrlo zanimljive stvari.

Here's a NASA model and science data from satellite

Evo Nasinog modela i naučnih podataka sa satelita

showing the 2017 hurricane season.

koji pokazuju sezonu uragana 2017. godine.

You see Hurricane Harvey there?

Vidite tamo uragan Harvi?

Look at all the dust coming off of Africa.

Pogledajte svu tu prašinu koja dolazi iz Afrike.

Look at the wildfires up in northwest US and in western Canada.

Pogledajte požare u severozapadnoj Americi

i u zapadnoj Kanadi.

There comes Hurricane Irma.

Evo uragana Irma.

This is fascinating to me.

Ovo je za mene fascinantno.

But admittedly, I'm a weather geek.

Doduše, ja sam štreber za vreme.

But more importantly, it illustrates that we have the technology

Ali, što je važnije, ovo ilustruje da imamo tehnologiju

to not only observe the weather and climate system,

ne samo da posmatramo vreme i klimatski sistem,

but predict it.

već i da predviđamo.

There's scientific understanding,

To je naučno razumevanje,

so there's no need for some of those perceptions and biases

dakle, nema potrebe za onim stavovima i predrasudama

that we've been talking about.

o kojima smo govorili.

We have knowledge.

Imamo znanje.

But think about this ...

Ali razmislite o sledećem...

This is Houston, Texas, after Hurricane Harvey.

Ovo je Hjuston u Teksasu nakon uragana Harvija.

Now, I write a contribution for "Forbes" magazine periodically,

Periodično pišem prilog za časopis „Forbs“,

and I wrote an article a week before Hurricane Harvey made landfall, saying,

i napisao sam članak nedelju dana pre nego što je uragan Harvi udario kopno,

u kome sam rekao: „Verovatno će biti 1 000 do 1 200 mm padavina.“

"There's probably going to be 40 to 50 inches of rainfall."

I wrote that a week before it happened.

To sam napisao nedelju dana pre nego što se dogodilo.

But yet, when you talk to people in Houston,

Ipak, kada razgovarate sa ljudima u Hjustonu,

people are saying, "We had no idea it was going to be this bad."

oni kažu: „Nismo imali pojma da će biti ovoliko loše.“

I'm just...

Ja prosto...

(Sigh)

(Uzdah)

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

A week before.

Nedelju dana ranije.

But --

Ali -

I know, it's amusing, but the reality is,

znam, zabavno je, ali u stvarnosti,

we all struggle with perceiving something outside of our experience level.

svi se mi mučimo sa shvatanjem nečega što je izvan našeg iskustva.

People in Houston get rain all of the time,

Ljudi u Hjustonu stalno imaju kišu,

they flood all of the time.

stalno imaju poplave.

But they've never experienced that.

Ali to nikad nisu doživeli.

Houston gets about 34 inches of rainfall for the entire year.

Hjuston primi oko 860 mm padavina tokom cele godine.

They got 50 inches in three days.

Dobili su 1 200 mm za tri dana.

That's an anomaly event, that's outside of the normal.

Taj događaj je anomalija, izvan normalnog.

So belief systems and biases, literacy and misinformation.

Dakle, sistemi uverenja i predrasude, pismenost i dezinformacije.

How do we step out of the boxes that are cornering our perceptions?

Kako da izađemo iz okvira koji sputavaju naša opažanja?

Well we don't even have to go to Houston, we can come very close to home.

Pa, ne moramo ni da idemo u Hjuston, možemo da budemo blizu kuće.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Remember "Snowpocalypse?"

Sećate se „snegopokalipse“?

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Snowmageddon?

Snegmagedona?

Snowzilla?

Snegzile?

Whatever you want to call it.

Kako god da nazovete.

All two inches of it.

Od čitavih pet centimetara.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

Two inches of snow shut the city of Atlanta down.

Pet centimetara snega je blokiralo grad Atlantu.

(Laughter)

(Smeh)

But the reality is, we were in a winter storm watch,

Ali istina je da smo bili u stanju pripravnosti zbog zimske oluje,

we went to a winter weather advisory,

davali smo savete zbog zimskog vremena,

and a lot of people perceived that as being a downgrade,

a mnogo ljudi je to shvatilo sa umanjenim značajem:

"Oh, it's not going to be as bad."

„Ma, neće biti tako strašno.“

A u stvari, percepcija je bila da neće biti tako loše,

When in fact, the perception was that it was not going to be as bad,

but it was actually an upgrade.

ali je zapravo došlo do pogoršanja.

Stvari su postajale gore kako su modeli dolazili.

Things were getting worse as the models were coming in.

So that's an example of how we get boxed in by our perceptions.

To je primer toga kako se zaglavimo u okvirima svoje percepcije.

So, the question becomes,

Postavlja se pitanje

how do we expand our radius?

kako da proširimo radijus opažanja?

The area of a circle is "pi r squared".

Površina kruga je „pi puta r na kvadrat“.

We increase the radius, we increase the area.

Povećamo radijus, povećamo površinu.

How do we expand our radius of understanding about science?

Kako da povećamo naš radijus razumevanja nauke?

Here are my thoughts.

Evo šta ja mislim o tome.

You take inventory of your own biases.

Napravite popis svojih predrasuda.

And I'm challenging you all to do that.

Izazivam vas da to uradite.

Take an inventory of your own biases.

Napravite popis svojih predrasuda.

Where do they come from?

Odakle one proističu?

Your upbringing, your political perspective, your faith --

Iz vašeg vaspitanja, političke perspektive, vere -

what shapes your own biases?

šta oblikuje vaše predrasude?

Then, evaluate your sources --

Onda izvršite procenu svojih izvora - odakle dobijate informacije o nauci?

where do you get your information on science?

What do you read, what do you listen to,

Šta čitate, šta slušate

to consume your information on science?

kako biste došli do informacija o nauci?

And then, it's important to speak out.

A onda je važno govoriti o tome.

Talk about how you evaluated your biases and evaluated your sources.

Razgovarajte o tome kako ste procenili svoje predrasude i svoje izvore.

I want you to listen to this little 40-second clip

Hteo bih da poslušate ovaj snimak od 40 sekundi

from one of the top TV meteorologists in the US, Greg Fishel,

jednog od najboljih TV meteorologa u SAD-u, Grega Fišela,

in the Raleigh, Durham area.

iz Ralija u oblasti Daram.

He's revered in that region.

Njega veoma cene u tom regionu.

But he was a climate skeptic.

Ali bio je klimatski skeptik.

But listen to what he says about speaking out.

Slušajte šta kaže o iznošenju ovoga.

Greg Fishel: The mistake I was making

Greg Fišel: Greška koju sam pravio,

and didn't realize until very recently,

a nisam to shvatio do nedavno,

bila je da sam samo tražio informacije

was that I was only looking for information

to support what I already thought,

koje su podržavale moje već postojeće mišljenje,

and was not interested in listening to anything contrary.

i nije me zanimalo da čujem ništa što je bilo suprotno tome.

And so I woke up one morning,

Tako sam se probudio jednog jutra

and there was this question in my mind,

i javilo mi se pitanje u glavi:

"Greg, are you engaging in confirmation bias?

„Greg, da li si podlegao efektu potvrđivanja?

Are you only looking for information to support what you already think?"

Da li samo tražiš informacije koje podupiru mišljenje koje već imaš?“

And if I was honest with myself, and I tried to be,

Ne bih li bio iskren prema sebi, a pokušao sam da budem,

I admitted that was going on.

priznao sam da se to dešava.

And so the more I talked to scientists

I tako, što sam više pričao sa naučnicima,

and read peer-reviewed literature

čitao recenziranu literaturu

and tried to conduct myself the way I'd been taught to conduct myself

i pokušao da se ponašam onako kako su me učili

at Penn State when I was a student,

kada sam bio student na Pen Stejtu,

it became very difficult for me to make the argument

postalo mi je veoma teško da iznesem argument

that we weren't at least having some effect.

da ne doprinosimo bar malo.

Maybe there was still a doubt as to how much,

Možda je i dalje postojala sumnja u vezi sa time koliki je doprinos,

but to say "nothing" was not a responsible thing for me to do

ali reći „ništa“ bilo bi neodgovorno od mene

as a scientist or a person.

kao naučnika i kao osobe.

JMS: Greg Fishel just talked about expanding his radius

DžMŠ: Greg Fišel je upravo govorio o širenju svog radijusa

of understanding of science.

razumevanja nauke.

And when we expand our radius,

A kada proširimo taj radijus,

it's not about making a better future,

ne radi se o borbi za bolju budućnost,

but it's about preserving life as we know it.

već o očuvanju života kakvim ga poznajemo.

So as we think about expanding our own radius in understanding science,

Dok razmišljamo o širenju naših radijusa razumevanja nauke,

it's critical for Athens, Georgia, for Atlanta, Georgia,

to je od ključnog značaja za Atinu i Atlantu u Džordžiji,

for the state of Georgia, and for the world.

za državu Džordžiju i za svet.

So expand your radius.

Dakle, proširite svoj radijus.

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)