Gell-Mann amnesia effect

Last updated

Michael Crichton, coiner of the term MichaelCrichton.jpg
Michael Crichton, coiner of the term

The Gell-Mann amnesia effect is a claimed cognitive bias describing the tendency of individuals to critically assess media reports in a domain they are knowledgeable about, yet continue to trust reporting in other areas despite recognizing similar potential inaccuracies.

The effect is not formally recognized, but the concept has gained traction in critical thinking and media literacy discussions.

The term was coined by novelist Michael Crichton in a 2002 speech, naming it after Murray Gell-Mann, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist with whom he had discussed the phenomenon.

Origins

Physicist Murray Gell-Mann, for whom the effect was named Murray Gell-Mann at Lection (medium).jpg
Physicist Murray Gell-Mann, for whom the effect was named

Crichton first described the "Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect" in an April 2002 speech about speculation to the International Leadership Forum: [1]

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story—and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

Michael Crichton, "Why Speculate?" (2002) [2]

He explained that he had chosen the name ironically, because he had once discussed the effect with physicist Murray Gell-Mann, "and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have". [1] [2]

References

  1. 1 2 Kilov, Daniel (November 9, 2020). "The brittleness of expertise and why it matters" . Synthese . 199 (1–2): 3431–3455. doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02940-5 via SpringerLink.
  2. 1 2 Crichton, Michael (April 26, 2002). Why Speculate? (Speech). International Leadership Forum. La Jolla, California, US. Archived from the original on July 14, 2007. Retrieved October 4, 2023.