You may have seen that there are arguments based on scientific articles on polar issues discussed in the news, social media and other media. For example, ‘Is coffee harmful?’, which has been on the internet agenda for years. We can show the subject.
When you go to some people about this subject, they tell you that coffee is beneficial and that they decided on it after browsing scientific articles. On the other hand, some people argue that coffee is harmful by showing scientific articles. So how can we evaluate these two arguments based on science?
This is exactly the cherry picking fallacy:
Let’s continue with our example again. People who love coffee can refer to the parts of coffee that are beneficial in scientific articles, or just look for studies that say it is beneficial. In this context, they ignore information that says otherwise but is equally reliable, that is, they fall into the cherry picking error.
Likewise, those who want to argue that coffee is harmful can make a search for ‘The harms of coffee’ and present the findings as a source. This would be cherry picking at the same rate. Which of these you believe or not depends on your trust in the platform or the person presenting the findings, what you are inclined to believe, and most importantly, your objectivity.
Coffee is a very simple example, we can see it in politics, in the advertising industry, and even in the healthcare industry:
You remember the ads like 9 out of 10 dentists recommend our toothpaste. In these advertisements, we do not usually see why dentists approve of this paste or why that 1 person does not approve. It is stated that it is only approved by dentists, which is sufficient for the buyer who is not very conscious and needs toothpaste to choose that product.
We don’t know how many dentists tested that paste and how. We do not know whether a special part prepared at the production stage was delivered to them or whether it was given to them as we bought it from the market.
Of course, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t trust them. Dentists are of course more capable of testing the functionality of toothpastes than other groups. Here, the main point that causes cherry picking is that the opinion of 9 dentists is not included in the opinion of 1 doctor, that is, it is biased. Of course, it should not be surprising that there is no idea in the advertising industry that will bring the product down.
We see this in politics as well. Especially when new decisions will be taken that will affect the whole country:
At this point, politicians, while expressing their ideas, show other countries as an example and support their own ideas through them. Of course, we will not go into politics here, but let us state that this is the case all over the world. 3% growth in sector X, as if everything were perfect when the slightest improvement occurred in countries with a downward graph in education level, economy, and other areas for years! shared with such expressions.
But the massive decline that has been going on for years is left in the background. This is also a solid example for cherry picking. In other words, we can define cherry picking as “while evaluating the evidence supporting the argument or the situation one wants to believe, to ignore the counter-arguments that contradict them”.
There are two types of Cherry Picking, direct and indirect:
The part we talked about so far was the direct one. In the indirect one, human nature comes into play. We want to believe that our thoughts are correct, so we inevitably tend to be biased. For this reason, we can be selective in the new information we acquire, and we can participate in cherry picking by sharing this information that we have chosen objectively with others.
We can show laziness as another reason for being indirectly involved in this situation. For example, you know that everyone saw the 3 percent growth in the political example we just gave. But how many see the setback behind the scenes and share it with others? Here, there is indolence and instead of diving into the heap of information, we are content with the crumb of information presented to us.
It is not difficult to predict what will happen when everyone does this. The regression gets bigger and people start to see it as normal after a while. This, in addition to politics, gives a great power that can be used for the sake of advertising, fashion, health or whatever field it is applied by.
So what can we do against cherry picking?
First of all, you need to be objective both to yourself and to the other party. In order for the other party to be objective with you, you need to leave behind the ‘I am right’ perception and present concrete evidence. When both parties are objective, the truth will reveal itself.
But if you are confronted with the unconscionable or questionable ideas of an organization or a group in the absence of someone, the counter-arguments you can present alone may not receive much response. In such cases, you can share your evidence through mass media, especially social media, and enable other people to see this situation and reach an objective answer.
Finally, we have a content where we explain in detail what you can do against misleading news content. By taking a look at our content, you can ensure your objectivity in digital content consumption.
Finally: don’t confuse objectivity in cherry picking with pessimism.
If a small number of buildings remained standing in a city that was caught unprepared for an earthquake, explanations can be made such as our method X kept them standing. At this point, it is normal to see the destroyed buildings. For this reason, we recommend that you avoid being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic when evaluating situations or explanations.
You can share your thoughts about cherry picking in the comments section.
Sources: 1, 2, 3
19184
