The less Americans know about Ukraine’s location, the more they want ...
washingtonpost.comThis seems to be a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: the people who know least are the most willing to take action, because their ignorance blinds them to the impracticality and potential consequences of that action.
It's also a dead ringer for all the stereotypes about gung-ho ignorants taking all their views and opinions from the talk show ideologue du jour.
Is there a name for when you get progressively more depressed about an issue the more you learn about it?
The Ukraine conflict might very well also qualify for that.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect Effect.
> Is there a name for when you get progressively more depressed about an issue the more you learn about it?
Experience.
COuld simply be that the ignorant/dumb are more likely to react favorably to propaganda.
How did they ask people to locate Ukraine? Some of these points look like somebody accidentally clicked on a random spot of a map. For example, the dot below New Zealand is in the middle of the ocean (approx. -55.000000,176.000000). Some even located it within the US (Florida seems to be a popular guess). Have they found really misinformed people or is this noise in the data?
I would bet that the noise comes from people who have no idea just closing their eyes and clicking at random.
Clearly the map wasn't coloured to differentiate bodies of water, considering the clusters in the Black and Caspian seas. (But you'd think people could at least identify the major oceans...)
This would correlate with 'I have no idea what I'm doing'
"In general, younger Americans tended to provide more accurate responses than their older counterparts: 27 percent of 18-24 year olds correctly identified Ukraine, compared with 14 percent of 65+ year-olds."
65+ year olds spent a big chunk of their lives in the cold war. Presumably they would know more about the geographical breakup of the Soviet Union than 18-24 year olds who didn't even exist when the Berlin Wall fell.
From a data analysis standpoint, I would say discard the outliers that look like mis-clicks. Based on the groupings you still have people that identified Alaska, Greenland, Canada, India South America, and so on. Irregardless of the colorings or map size, those should not have been chosen.
On another note, a given countries foreign policy always makes a hell of a lot more sense when placed in context on a map. I'm glad I read a lot of National Geographic as a child.
No, people who were in primary school before the breakup of the Soviet Union would probably have never seen the Ukraine on a map, since all they would see is a big red area labeled "Soviet Union". I doubt Soviet internal geography & politics were taught regularly. Younger people may not even know that the Soviet Union ever existed, but they have a much better chance of seeing Ukraine on a map in school.
> No, people who were in primary school before the breakup of the Soviet Union would probably have never seen the Ukraine on a map, since all they would see is a big red area labeled "Soviet Union".
Many of the maps I remember seeing (in school and otherwise) as a kid in the 1980s labelled the constituent republics of the USSR.
Yup. No Ukraine on my globe as a kid in the 80s, just "U.S.S.R.".
Perhaps younger Americans took geography in school after the break out of the Soviet Union. I only know where Ukraine is because I recently looked at the map when this crisis came up.
It may come from growing up in a part of the country where there were a lot of Central European DPs, but I'm pretty sure that as a kid I knew where the Ukraine was.
Believe it or not, but there are many real people who point to UK, when asked where Finland is.
The point is, if you know where Russia is, you likely know where Ukraine is. The clicking at random is by people who have no idea about either.
EDIT: Sorry. I meant that as a reply to your comment regarding legitimacy of the map.
> The point is, if you know where Russia is, you likely know where Ukraine is.
I don't know about that. There are ~15 (depending on what you are counting) countries that border Russia. And while I am fairly confident that I could label them all, Russia would certainly be the easiest to label. It's the big one; it's hard to miss.
I'm the product of American public schools for what its worth. I learned the countries back in middle school, but learning the locations of countries not in North or South America was extra credit for my class (as was learnin the state capitals, and country capitals).
Considering there are notable clusters in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, you're probably right. Those people probably located Russia, knew Ukraine is "under" Russia, so picked a couple of countries under Russia.
Incidentally, I suspect those large clusters in the central asian republics account for a large amount of the error in the median response. The lone clicks in New Zealand or whatever don't count as much as big clusters do, and those clusters are pretty near the median error of 1800 miles off.
It is human not to be an expert on everything, so I'd say the people that clicked Kazachstan, Belarus, the Black Sea and the like should be forgiven.
Also, there are certainly a number (below 5%) of clicks that resulted from accident or interface understanding problems. Those could account for some of the most outlandish dots.
But then there are a lot of people that selected India. That's kind of disturbing.
Fair point about the 15 countries bordering Russia. I must have not been clear. What I was trying to say is, the least you can do is point towards Russia, if you don't know where Ukraine is.
Ah yes, that definitely makes sense. I misunderstood you.
There seems to be a sharp drop-off line running north/south just west of Mongolia & east of Novosibirsk.
I wonder if that is from a side-scrolling artifact or drag/drop interface in the sampling (wild speculation there) or from an unconscious pruning algorithm, among people who are unaware of Ukraine's proximity to the Black Sea, roughly: "hmmh, Ukraine, medium-to-small country, former Soviet, I'll look further east, oops, there's China, better stop here.
Some more informative maps include languages and hydrocarbon pipelines:
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73094000/gif/_73094671...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-20/ukraine-situation-e...
"There seems to be a sharp drop-off line running north/south just west of Mongolia & east of Novosibirsk."
That line is too sharp for a 'Hey, that's China!' stop. Besides, it's unlikely that many of them could locate China correctly, due to the generic lack of geological, geographical and topographic studies in US schools.
I think they got an America (as in: continent) centred map, something like this [1], with the small difference of being cut somewhere at the eastern parts of India, instead of the eastern borders of Iran.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/White_Wo...
It's interesting how many wrong clicks are piled up in the general region north of India / east of China. In other words, where any marginally informed person would think is an area of unrest and trouble.
Kazakhstan seems to be an attractor, probably because it's so big.
"Hmmm, so Afghanistan is in that general area, and it's a troubled country, so therefore Ukraine must be thereabouts also."
I imagine people think "crimean peninsula," look at Florida and go "well there's a peninsula"
I think the real outlier dots are "I give up, so I'll just click whatever."
Not surprising to me. Many Americans can't find America on a global map, including those in the military (confirmed by my shocked army friends).
Since you said "Many" (even 1% could be many by some definitions) it is hard to dispute your assertion.
Nevertheless, I think the # of Americans that can point out the US on a world map is well over 90%. I don't see any definitive data to the contrary.
I think you might want to rethink that assumption. No definitive data, to be fair, but this: http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/02/geog.test/
"Inside the United States, "half or fewer of young men and women 18-24 can identify the states of New York or Ohio on a map [50 percent and 43 percent, respectively]," the study said."
I don't think it's that far fetched.
The article that you referenced says that 7/10 can find China on a map. I'd be willing to bet that a far larger number can find the US on a map.
I'm pretty sure the poster that I was responding to was taken in by a fake study. The overwhelming majority of Americans can find the US on a map.
37% can't according to this Gallup poll [1] from 2008. I've seen other polls with similar or worse results.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-shehori/poll-37-of-amer...
I see lots of numbers in there, but none relating to a desire for military action, save for the fact they're "95% confident" that people who don't know where Ukraine is are more likely to support military action. How much more likely are they?
The map would have been more interesting if the color represented preference for intervention.
This. Color is an entire dimension they had available, and they used it to reiterate what we can already see (distance from actual Ukraine) instead of the actual point they are trying to make (clueless about location => wants to intervene)
This makes sense, no? With less knowledge about the Ukraine and hence less information about the ties and affinity parts of its population have to Russia, the more aggressive Russia seems. Without that knowledge, you just have to take the prior assumption that Ukraine is just like any other country, no specific link to Russia - and given that, the breach of sovereignty seems more egregious than it is in this specific situation.
I don't dispute the conclusion of this study, but this might be a great example of when the choice of map projection used has a significant consequences.
For example, would Greenland have been chosen so many times if a projection were used that didn't make it look so huge?
Many replies here try to dispute the methodology and UX in the survey. When it comes to geography, you either know it, or you don't.
The distance from Ukraine for many data points is so big, that you can't possibly write it down to projection/UX.
Whether they answered "in Florida" or "in Kansas" is of little consequence. Either way, they don't know where it is, and that comes through loud and clear.
The UX certainly doesn't help! I've been to Russia and Ukraine several times. I can easily point out Ukraine on a normal map but I must admit that single colored map is a bit confusing.
Normal maps tell you where Ukraine is :)
I can't even find the survey methodology. Where is it?
Russia knows more about Ukraine's geography, so they should occupy it.
Reminds me of this video. As an American it makes me sad.
That was cringe worthy.
I suppose it will be big surprise to many people (even some russians) to know, that first capital of ancient Russia was Kiev, current capital of Ukraine ;)
So what? Most people in Europe do not know where Washington state is.
Anyway US already intervened in Ukraine several times. I just hope this will not become another Iraq.
Do they have strong opinions about European intervention in Washington state?
That's a bit unfair, though, as Washington State is an internal subdivision. That's like asking an American where Galicia is (either the Spanish or the Ukrainian one).
And the US will not actively intervene in the Ukraine, since NATO, as an organizational entity, would probably be damaged badly. Most of Europe wants to stop the Russian Bear but also wants to keep the situation from escalating.
If the US pushed for an intervention against the opposition of key NATO members (after having done so so in Iraq), where would that leave NATO?
When did US intervened in Ukraine?
Has Washington state been on the news in Europe a lot recently?
Does anyone spy a link to the data? Some of the numbers make me think they're over-emphasizing the conclusion.
More people need to play Risk apparently.
Where's the map where they baseline people identifying something in the US (or other map points with higher likely familiarity) correctly as well? That would help clear out some noise.
Secondly. Who cares at this point? Seems like Putin keeps Crimea on the basis of some familiar reasoning that bodes poorly for outcomes here. There is no appetite or willing money for military intervention at scale.
Most interesting tidbit for me: "self-identified independents (29 percent correct) outperformed both Democrats (14 percent correct) and Republicans (15 percent correct)"
Edit: Removed inflammatory language about Democrats and Republicans and will let the numbers speak for themselves.
Although I find it interesting, what's the point of the article other than "look how most Americans are ignorant about world geography"?
And what do I gain from it?
What I always find interesting about "look at how ignorant Americans are" type articles is that they never bother to compare against any other nationality and see if the ignorance is in any way abnormal in a broader context.
Is a "look at how ignorant non-Europeans are about world geography?" going to have a different result? (And I would be quite curious to know how many, say, British or Spaniards can accurately place Ukraine on a map. I have a sneaking suspicion that the number is surprisingly low).
This coming from a non-American, by the way.
Yep. It seems that most people were actually quite close (with the majority at least pointing at other Eastern European countries) and, like you pointed out: most people from Europe wouldn't do much better. An even better comparison would be to ask Europeans about the location of different US states, I'm pretty sure the results would be very poor, if not worse.
I don't know what Survey Sampling charges but a Mapbox hack + a $1,000-$2,000 ad campaign, run internationally, could accomplish this.
Coming from a non-American as well:
Assuming ignorance would fall in the same spectrum compared to other nationalities, you don't hear other nationalities confidently stating their opinions about things they know nothing about.
To be fair, I don't have data to back that up, but I can tell you from my personal observations that people usually refrain from commenting or are reasonably educated about the topic.
Why this is important in this case is because it's largely a matter of geo-politics, and if you don't even know where the damn country is, you should not seriously suggest a certain course of action.
To be fair, these people were asked for their opinion--it was an opinion survey; it's not like they're walking around volunteering it. Saying they shouldn't say anything when asked is a bit odd.
99.9% of the Americans I talk to every day are refraining from commenting about whether the US should intervene in the Ukraine. But, then, I'm not asking.
I didn't think about the "pressure" of the survey, I must admit. Fair point.
However, does the fact that if you don't know where the country in question is located, and out of war|no war, you choose war, not strike you as somewhat weird?
I'd like to think most people would always choose no war over war ESPECIALLY if they're uneducated about the situation.
I think when you're 6'6" and 250 lbs of muscle you may be more inclined to step in when someone is threatening a defenseless innocent.
Not that that's what's going on here, but I think that's the image that many Americans have of America's place in the world. It's not especially enlightened, but I don't think the people are warmongers, they probably honestly think it's just the right thing to do and that it would have very little in the way of consequences for anyone. It's the latter part that probably correlates with not knowing much about the world outside America's borders.
> you don't hear other nationalities confidently stating their opinions about things they know nothing about [...] I can tell you from my personal observations
What nationality are you, again? :P
> what's the point of the article?
I took it as look how most Americans are ignorant about world geography AND how much they want to intervene in something they know nothing about.
That is not the point of the article. The reason why Americans are the subject here is that the news agency is American. It is an artifact. What is the interest to an American that people from Botswana want intervention in the Crimean peninsula? That is useless to you. You want to know what your fellow citizens are thinking and why first. That gives you more actionable information.
Here the article claims that a desire to intervene is correlated with a lack of geographical knowledge. _That_ is the point.
Your comment, whether you meant it to or not, comes off as the sort of defensive reaction that is so very common when any article on the Internet claims something that can be interpreted as putting down Americans.
People that take surveys seriously take all of the questions seriously
"Smart people are anti-war"
The more people actually know about a place, the less they think it's a good idea to kill people who live there.
In this case, military intervention would not involve killing people who live there.
The point is that calls for intervention in Ukraine are being driven by people who are ignorant of the situation.