Factfulness

Since some time ago, the term “fact check” has frequently appeared in news articles and newspapers. A fact check literally means verifying the facts. In many cases, what is being verified is someone else’s claim. In other words, in reality, fact checking often means digging into whether what “the other side” is asserting is actually true.

There is a book that emerged with the ambition of fact-checking the long-rooted fake news in people’s minds. Its title is Factfulness. Written by Hans Rosling, Ola Rosling, and Anna Rosling Ronnlund, the book almost feels like a comprehensive gift set of facts just from its title alone, as if checking one or two facts was not enough.

Among the three Swedish co-authors, the central figure is Hans Rosling, a statistician and physician who devoted his career to correcting widespread misunderstandings about the world through the use of data. Ola Rosling is his son, and Anna Rosling Ronnlund is Ola’s wife and Hans Rosling’s daughter-in-law. Together, Ola and Anna founded the Gapminder Foundation, an organization dedicated to promoting a worldview grounded in facts through the use of statistical data. In short, these three are not only a family but also academic collaborators who have committed themselves to helping people understand the world based on facts rather than feelings or prejudices. Hans Rosling, the eldest among them, passed away in early 2017 while finishing this book.

Returning to the book itself, what exactly are the authors trying to fact-check in Factfulness? What kind of fake news are they targeting? The main misconception they challenge is the common belief that the world is steadily becoming a darker and more hopeless place. You have likely encountered such narratives in the news: that the gap between the rich and the poor is constantly widening, that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent year after year, and that global conditions are deteriorating overall.

Contrary to this prevailing perception, the authors argue that the world is actually becoming a better place to live. They claim that people simply do not recognize this reality. To demonstrate this dramatically, the book opens with 13 multiple-choice questions about the world we live in. Each question offers three possible answers and covers topics such as the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, the average years of schooling for women, life expectancy, and the number of deaths caused by natural disasters.

The authors reveal that the average accuracy rate for these questions hovers around 10 percent. Even among well-educated individuals, the results are not significantly better. At this point, a “chimpanzee” enters the discussion. Since a chimpanzee that cannot read would choose randomly among three options, it could be expected to score about 33 percent correct. By comparison, the authors conclude that humans’ understanding of the world is often worse than that of a chimpanzee.

Of course, the authors are not claiming that humans are intellectually inferior to chimpanzees. Rather, they argue that people are largely misinformed about the facts of the world. They present a wide range of statistical data to encourage readers to confront the positive developments taking place globally. They call this effort to base one’s worldview on accurate data “factfulness,” which is also the title of the book.

However, as I read the book, I could not shake a lingering sense of discomfort. What we often call “facts” frequently turn out to be closer to “claims” upon closer inspection. Facts that exist somewhere in the world are often shaped by someone’s perspective before they reach us. If we break down that process, it looks something like this.

First, certain aspects of reality are processed into statistics. At that stage, someone decides which parts of reality will be turned into data. Subjectivity already enters here. Next, statistics themselves are interpreted. Not every element of the data is analyzed, and the choice of what to interpret is again influenced by someone’s perspective. Finally, claims are drawn from those interpretations. How the interpretation is handled and how it is translated into an argument are also shaped by subjective judgment. In short, what we call “facts” are often the result of multiple layers of subjective selection and interpretation.

The authors insist that, contrary to popular belief, the facts show that the world is steadily improving. They support this with the latest statistical data. Yet, if we look closely, statistics illuminate only a small fraction of the vast reality of the world. Moreover, the selection and interpretation of those statistics are carried out by authors who are inclined to view the world positively. In other words, what they present as facts may reflect only part of reality, filtered through their own interpretive lens.

Therefore, accepting the book’s central claim—that the world is undeniably getting better—as an unquestionable truth would not be a truly fact-based attitude. It may be more faithful to the spirit of factfulness to treat the authors’ argument as one possible perspective among many.

Let us return to the beginning of this essay. The reason fact-checking has become so common today is that there is so much information that may not be factual. Yet determining what is truly a fact and what is fake news is not easy. One side labels the other’s claims as fake news, and the other responds in kind. Each presents seemingly convincing evidence, often backed by neat and precise statistical figures.

In such situations, rather than hastily branding opposing views as fake news, perhaps we should pause and think, “Someone might reasonably see it that way.” And before challenging others, it may be wiser to fact-check the facts we ourselves believe. That, perhaps, is the most genuine way to practice factfulness.