What does the science actually say about...?
How Consensus is working to democratize access to scientific knowledge
Today, I’m thrilled to be doing a joint post with our friends from Consensus. Eric Olson CEO and founder of the company joined me on this week’s episode of the podcast.
The idea for Consensus came from wanting instant answers to the question: "what does the science actually say about XYZ?" Consensus is a really promising new search tool that quickly and accurately aggregate scientific consensus around a topic. It does through scouring scientific literature and journals using natural language processing and AI, and the results are impressive, even for this early app. In short, you get a super charged research tool. And while in beta, it’s free to use. I highly recommend.
You can check the episode out here: How Tech can Democratize Scientific Knowledge. The conversation is fascinating - we dig into the rise and evolution of natural language processing (NLP) tools and start-ups, what it means to take on search engines and why we need to, developing the tech for Consensus and where everything is headed.
We wanted to put Consensus through the ringer with some myths we commonly hold about people and asking what does the research say about....
Using Anthropology to Bust Myths about Human Nature
Anthropology as a field of study contains some of society's most interesting research questions. It pushes us to enquire about all sorts of questions from the history of human society to existential questions about the nature of the human race.
Simply put, anthropology is the study of humanity - our diverse cultures, language, biology and stuff - past and present, and what this means for our future. How could it not be interesting?!
I sent Eric a list of myths about humans we commonly share in society, but rarely examine, to see what comes up.
Let’s see what the literature says..
Myth #1: The human mind is separate from the body (click the link to run the search yourself!)
Anthropology can get surprisingly existential. The top results suggest that:
Consciousness is a body-wide, biological process not limited to individual organs
The integration of signals within and outside of the body define consciousness
Takeaway: The definitions of the mind/body split are arbitrary, and it is more helpful to think of them as being fully interconnected.
Myth #2: Humans can be divided into biological races
The top results suggest that:
While population differences exist, they do not map to what we know traditionally as race
There is no evidence for delineation of race based on regional phenotypes
If you just divided humans by uniqueness, there would be a "very large" number of races
Takeaway: Population differences exist but there is not a biological basis for the way we currently define “race” as a society.
Myth #3: Humans are naturally violent
Side note: Eric notes the product definitely doesn't do as well this question, bringing in some irrelevant claims. We are still a new product and have a lot we need to improve!
Adam’s response - this is something for social and human sciences to think about too - how clear are the claims we make in our peer reviewed literature? To me this suggests a good opportunity to compare how different disciplines write and format claims. What’s clearer or more confusing and why? How can we improve?
Back to the myth! The top results suggest that:
Violence emerges through specific genetic and environmental conditions, like any other behavior
Violence is better traced to societal factors than our “nature”
Humans are not violent by nature, but that violence emerges from societal conflict
Genetic and biological difference can explain some variance in aggressive behavior
Takeaway: The literature is certainly more split on this topic than the others - however, the research we highlighted suggests that humans are not necessarily aggressive by nature. While biological factors predispose an individual to aggression or violence, violence is generally better explained by environmental factors like societal conflicts.
Bonus anecdote: Eric once heard an evolutionary biologist make an argument for humans not being “naturally” aggressive by saying humans and bonobos were the only animals in the world that you could put in a room with 100 others animals of the same species and not have pure chaos break out.
TL;DR Why question myths about humans?
Here’s the trick about myths - they are stories we use to explain why things are the way they are. But because they inform how we understand the world, we may rarely question them. Myths about mind/body separation, race and aggressiveness have massive implications for how we organize our societies. They shape how we structure learning and educate our kids, who gets to live in what neighborhood, how we relate to one another and even what metaphors we use for unrelated topics - think about the “war on poverty” or “market domination.”
Anthropology helps bust myths about people by focusing on holistic context. That means tuning in to just what a story says, but who’s telling it, when and where, to whom, and how the story impacts wider society. This is why it is so important that we build tools like Consensus that democratize access to scientific literature and knowledge and empower everyone to dig deeper and, in the words of anthropologist Nancy Scheper-Hughes, “speak truth to power.”
Have you checked out Consensus.app yet? What searches are you running and what are you finding? Sound off in the comments below or shoot me a message at thisanthrolife@gmail.com. Cant wait to see what you’re learning.