The Semmelweis myth and why it's not true (2018) | Hacker News Reader

The Semmelweis myth and why it's not true (2018)

digitaltonto.com

13 pointsOgsyedIE18 comments

This led me down a bit of a rabbit hole. Related to this is what is sometimes known as the "Backfire Effect" which is the idea that a person's belief in something untrue will only be strengthened when presented with evidence to the contrary.

I had thought this was well established by experimental psychology, but now that I am looking into it it seems like the evidence is not nearly as strong as I thought and the effect may be very small or nonexistent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance#Backfire_e...

But seeing all this evidence to the contrary has made your belief in the theory stronger?

Haha yeah I was thinking about that. Either way my decision will work as evidence for itself.

Either I stop believing in the backfire effect due to the new evidence, or I ignore the new evidence and keep believing in the backfire effect :)

It is true. How about linus pauling and quasicrystals?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328481-400-impossib...

> That’s why innovation needs communication

I package this as:

"Doing the do" is half the work; "advertising the do" is the other half.

Few ideas are so intrinsically obvious as to sell themselves.

Faulting Semmelweiss for being a nutjob (as he was) doesn't excuse the doctors who refused to look at the evidence.

That's your intellectual test: How do you react when a crazy, unpopular person says something sensible? When the safe thing to do is to just dismiss it?

Wasn't "nuke the messenger" the default?

I interpret the article to say the "myth" is exactly true. It may also be true that Semmelweis could have done a better job communicating his findings and persuading others. But that doesn't take away from the truth of the basic story.

Agree. This seems to just be a trashy clickbait headline with a vaguely related thought piece about effective communication following it.

Exactly. The "myth" is true.

> Innovation takes more than having ideas and expecting others to immediately accept them.

This absolves the people who said, "Eh, he's just a nut" (as he was). Instead of calmly asking if he had something there, however badly he communicated it.

The idea is not responsible for the person who holds it.

He didn't just have an idea, though.

He performed experiments and showed that his washing regime dropped the maternal mortality rate at his ward from 12.3% to 1.27%. That's a 90% reduction in deaths!

>This absolves the people who said, "Eh, he's just a nut" (as he was). Instead of calmly asking if he had something there, however badly he communicated it.

Why shouldn't they receive their absolution? No one has time to evaluate every idea they come across. As a matter of practicality, one has to put poorly communicated ideas or those for which the data collection is sloppy or otherwise badly done lower on their priority list.

People's lives would've been saved if Semmelweis had been taken more seriously, but how many other advancements would have suffered if everyone followed up on every poorly thought out and represented idea and didn't prioritize?

This is not so much about prioritization but outright dismissal and comfortably not questioning the status quo.

Reminds of many surgeons refusal to use checklists a while ago despite showing general improvement in outcomes. Nobody wants to admit they could have done better, change their routine and think they don't need help as they're already really good. [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19682451

Wrong. Dead wrong. That's judging people's ideas by how pleasant they sound, rather than what they say.

When you say "evaluate every idea" you ignore the fact that that's what a scientist does: he or she should be trained enough to know when, "Oh, that's interesting!" or "Yeah, I guess I can ignore that." is the right answer. Their judgement of which is which is a good way to evaluate them.

Nowhere in there did I say people are judging based on how pleasant an idea sounds. Try again.

You said, "As a matter of practicality, one has to put poorly communicated ideas or those for which the data collection is sloppy or otherwise badly done lower on their priority list."

"poorly communicated" is perfectly well characterized by "how pleasant [it] sounds"

You try again. Maybe you don't like the characterization but it's fair.

>"poorly communicated" is perfectly well characterized by "how pleasant [it] sounds"

No, it absolutely is not. You should read what people write, not what you read into it to confirm whatever view you took ahead of time.

.. and you should say what you actually mean, instead of using corporate euphemisms like "poorly communicated," which can mean anything in the world.

Including, "I don't like that person."

And stop assuming you know anything about my world view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com