- Necessary Nuance
- Posts
- Frogs, Felonies, and Misinformation
Frogs, Felonies, and Misinformation
Misinformation is as much about framing as it is about facts
Welcome new subscribers! If you like what you read, please consider forwarding this newsletter to someone else you think would enjoy it. And if someone forwarded this newsletter to you please consider subscribing!
You’ve likely heard the metaphor about a frog in boiling water before. In case you need a refresher, the idea is that if you put a frog in boiling water, it will immediately jump out. But if you put a frog in room temperature water and slowly raise the heat the frog won’t recognize the danger and will boil to death. Putting aside whether or not this is an accurate portrayal of amphibian behavior, is this:
A metaphor only
Based on actual research
We’ll get to the answer in a moment. But first, let’s talk about what misinformation and disinformation are.
What’s the difference between misinformation and disinformation?
There is a fair amount of debate/discussion about the differences between misinformation and disinformation, and which is the preferred term, and which should be used where. The general consensus of a definition is that misinformation is false or misleading information, whereas disinformation is false or misleading information that is created and/or shared with the intent to deceive people. Essentially, the same story could be considered either misinformation or disinformation depending on the intent of the person who shares it – but the impact would be the same, making the distinction not particularly meaningful in my opinion (it is meaningful when it comes to how we respond to mis/disinformation, especially prebunking strategies, but that’s another topic for another time).
Intent, in addition to being very difficult to determine, is also not a strict binary. If you encounter a story that confirms your worldview and share it because “it’s too good not to share” or “it feels true” without checking the facts or the framing, have you spread misinformation or disinformation? Does it matter? What if the facts are true, but the context is incomplete? What if the argument being made rests on a logical fallacy? What if you share something that was true when you learned it, but is now outdated?
The challenge with mis/disinformation is often less to do with the accuracy of the facts presented, and more to do with the argument being advanced and how the facts are framed. This is part of why teaching people to identify and avoid mis- and disinformation is not nearly as easy as we’d like it to be.
Back to the frog
Now, back to the frog. The allegory of the boiling frog has been invoked in all kinds of contexts: climate change, the rise of fascism, even the spreading of misinformation. Inevitably, someone will point out that an actual frog would jump out of the water before it reached the boiling point (often advancing the argument that the frog has a stronger self-preservation instinct than humans do). It’s a useful metaphor for making a point about how we acclimate to harmful situations without realizing it, and also for pushing back against that acclimatization.
It is also – I very recently learned from a post on Bluesky – based on actual research.
I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer as to whether the scientific experiment or the metaphorical usage came first, but a frog’s reaction to slowly warming water was the subject of several experiments in the mid- to late-19th century. This was a shocking enough discovery on its own, but then I learned that the frogs that stayed in the slowly boiling water had had their brains removed.
Now here’s the question (or, technically speaking, multiple questions): if you’ve used the boiling frog metaphor (or refuted its accuracy) without referencing the studies or addressing the fact that the frogs had their brains removed, have you spread misinformation? Does it matter that you didn’t know? Does it matter how you used the metaphor to support your argument? Does knowing more change how or if you’ll use this metaphor in the future? Do the facts matter or does the argument you’re making matter more? When does eliding the facts reach the tipping point between “not that big a deal” to “this gives people a false sense of the world”? Who gets to decide?
How many felonies have you committed today?
Representative Andy Biggs posted this on Twitter/X during Donald Trump’s New York trial about hush money payments and election interference, and I saw it shared multiple times shortly after the jury found Trump guilty on all counts. Biggs is a Trump ally and has been very vocal in his criticisms of the trial, the judge, the jurors, the DA, and everyone else involved in the prosecution.
Most of the discussion I saw focused on the “three felonies a day” and I’ll admit that’s where I started too. As far as I can tell, it’s likely a reference to a book of the same name written by Harvey Silverglate and published in 2011. Silverglate is a lawyer and writer focused on civil liberties, academic freedom, and criminal defense; I haven’t read Three Felonies a Day from what I’ve read in reviews his argument seems to be that vaguely-written laws and the latitude given to prosecutors has resulted in the over-criminalization of Americans. I went down a couple of rabbit holes trying to establish the veracity of the “three felonies a day” claim, and could easily have spent much more time on that question.
But the three felonies are not the most important mis/disinformation in Biggs’ post; it’s the argument he’s advancing in his second sentence. Trump was on trial in state court, not federal court. Biggs has been subpoenaed (but not indicted) in Arizona’s fake elector scheme, another state-level charge. Congress is not involved, and the argument about Congressional overreach is a response to a different discussion.
My assumption is that Biggs’ is trying to appeal to anti-big government sentiment, as well as Congress’ incredibly low approval ratings. While that may be an effective strategy, it’s irrelevant to the events he’s responding to. The “three felonies a day” line is likely not true, but it does serve as an effective emotional hook for framing an argument that Trump’s legal troubles are Congress’ fault, and part of an attack being coordinated by President Biden and the Department of Justice. The folks focusing on the inaccuracy of “three felonies a day” are missing an opportunity to engage with the larger mis/disinformation efforts being advanced by Biggs.
When teaching people to identify and avoid mis/disinformation it’s easy to focus on the felonies, but much more important to focus on the framing. The temperature of the water is much less important than the frogs’ missing brains.
Flying what now?
Even if you’re not afraid of spiders, this headline is designed to tap into whatever arachnophobia might be hiding in a corner of your brain.
Are Joro spiders large? For spiders, yes. The females range in size from 17–25 millimeters; they’re larger than the average house spider, but at most their bodies are less than an inch (for reference, tarantulas are approximately 2 to 4 inches). Four-inch legs are certainly long, but they’re not the longest spider legs out there.
Are they venomous? Yes. Nearly all spiders are, but very few are harmful to humans (including this one).
Do these spiders fly? Well, it depends on how you define “fly.” Like many spiders, young Joro spiders do something called “ballooning” where they catch a ride on the wind. Adult Joro spiders are not going to be flying through the air under their own power.
So, fact check on the headline: Are these spiders large? Yes. Venomous? Yes. Flying? Yes. Are they something we should be worried about? No.
Is this story misinformation? Disinformation? Neither? Both?
Identifying and avoiding mis/disinformation is much more nuanced than simply checking the facts. The facts may be irrelevant to the argument (as they were with the felonies) or they may be true but lacking important context (as with the spiders).
Being able to identify and analyze arguments is a crucial skill and it needs to be a part of every conversation we have about mis/disinformation. Using your brain to determine that the water is getting warmer isn’t going to help much if you don’t realize that you’re being experimented on and need to get out of the pot.
Thanks for reading! Want to work with me to help your community develop the skills they need to be savvy consumers and creators of information? Get in touch!
Reply