Everyone reading Factfulness should also take a look at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328759928_Good_Thin...
I've always regarded this book as being blatant neoliberal propaganda.
I've always regarded this book as being blatant neoliberal propaganda.
> Christian Berggren, a Swedish professor of industrial management, has questioned the authors' claims and suggested that Rosling's own thinking shows a bias towards Pollyannaism. Particularly, Berggren criticized the authors for understating the importance of the European migrant crisis, the environmental impacts of the Anthropocene, and continued global population growth. Furthermore, Berggren remarks that "Factfulness includes many graphs of 'bad things in decline' and 'good things on the rise' but not a single graph of problematic phenomena that are on the rise." It "employs a biased selection of variables, avoids analysis of negative trends, and does not discuss any of the serious challenges related to continual population growth." Berggren raises concerns that the simplistic worldview this book offers could have serious consequences.
If the criticism against him is "he's picking the wrong data" and Berggren then picks his own data to make his point, it's that a bit of a carousel?
You might want to consider the possibility that it is simply an opinion that you disagree with and move on.
> you aren't willing to engage the people you're insulting
I'm sorry you feel insulted, that's mainly on you, this was not my intention. I suggest you reflect on why you feel insulted when an internet stranger calls a book (which you did not write) as propaganda.
I can acknowledge without aversion that it may be possible that it is sometimes harmful, and sometimes not. Can you do the same?
>Bias is a given for any work, why is that a problem to you?
Bias and misinformation leads to delusion, delusion leads to disharmony, disharmony leads to suffering, at least often. I consider concern for the well being of others to be a good thing in an absolute sense...but this is a bias on my part, "each to his own", and enjoy the consequences Mother Nature rewards us. But please let's also consider how our fellow humans are making out in the lot they were born into.
> If there’s misinformation in the book - I’m all ears.
Is this to say that you are able and willing to consider all sound arguments, without bias?
As for Rosling: I think if people considered the entirety of his message things would be better....as I recall, he was an advocate of international aid rather than immigration and refugee policies saving some of the people from underdeveloped countries? To me, this seems like a better approach for several reasons.
> Is it pervasive?
I believe so, I think young Wittgenstein and many others are objectively correct, and that this can be objectively proven with virtually unlimited examples, because language is a fundamental building block of reality. The alternative, that all the people involved in disagreements derived from language are joking or something and I'm not in on it, is just too much for me.
Of course not, how could I possibly do that? I'm a human being, my life experience up to this point is my bias. Same goes for you.