Warning! Warning!

I was just thinking about something that really bugs me. I hate it when people blindly pass on information without thinking about whether that information is good information and/or whether the source of the information they're being fed is a reliable one for that type of information or not.

Let's say, for example, that a friend you'd known for years told you that microwaving water on its own (i.e., without a hot chocolate or soup mix or anything else in it) was a bad idea because she had read about someone who did that who ended up with bad burns all over his face because the very hot water "exploded" all over him when he took it out of the microwave. This friend might then give you a scientific explanation involving the way that microwaving water to boil it can end up "superheating" the water, and how that "superheating" can lead to the water essentially jumping out of the cup when given the right conditions. She might then tell you precautions she had heard about, such as putting a wooden spoon into the cup or heating the water with something else in it (such as sugar or the mix of whatever it is you're trying to make). How would you respond to being told this?

Most people that I know immediately take this warning-complete-with-scientific-warning straight to heart. The next time that they use a microwave for anything related to heating a liquid, they remember what their friend told them. They also pass on the warning to others. The first time I came across this warning, it was when someone had taken an e-mail they had received containing said warning, printed it out and posted it near the microwave in the kitchen at Tyndale College (now Tyndale University College), where I was in residence for a semester. That was in the winter semester of 2000. The most recent time I encountered it, I was sitting in the senior science prep room at my old high school (where I was doing some volunteering), listening to one of my old chemistry teachers pass on this warning to a physics teacher. That was in the winter semester of 2006.

Let us consider a couple of things about this "jumping water" warning. First of all, where is this information coming from? As far as I can tell, everyone who has been passing this warning along has received their information through an e-mail. Let me ask you this: when you get an e-mail telling you that you should buy a particular stock because its value is going to be going through the roof on Monday (I get at least one of these e-mails every weekend, and I suspect the rest of you do, too, though if you have a good spam filter you might not see it), do you go out and buy it? No! Most people know enough to be skeptical of such an e-mail. However, I have seen that most people seem to take as fact any e-mail that contains a warning like the "jumping water" warning...or one that tells you to beware because there is a group of people drugging people's drinks in bars and harvesting their kidneys...or one that tells you that if you see someone at night who is driving with their lights off that you should not flash your highbeams at him/her to tell him/her to turn their lights on because there is a gang doing such driving and killing anyone who flashes their lights at them...or one that tells you not to open any e-mail with the subject line "A Virtual Card for You" because it contains a virus that will burn up your hard drive.

Why are people skeptical of one type of e-mail, but not of another?

• Is it because no money is involved in heeding the "jumping water" warning, but there is in heeding the one advising you to "buy this stock now"? In response to being shown that a particular e-mail is not to be believed, people tend to tell me, "Well, it's better to be safe than sorry." It didn't cost them anything to believe or heed the information they were given, so why not be cautious, in other words. Okay, I guess that is fair enough, but why choose to live in fear when such fear has no basis in reality? "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind," says 2 Tim. 1:7 (NKJV).
  
• Is it because the "jumping water" warning claims to have science behind it, or because that e-mail warning you about the computer virus claims that CNN has done a story about said virus? Well, just a minute: it is easy for someone to say that CNN has done a story about something...it is harder to back it up, and not so hard to find out if the claim is true or not. It is easy to make up a scientific-sounding explanation to back up a claim you are making...it is harder to back it up in the face of good research.
• Is it because you are receiving the warning from a good friend, who you feel would have no reason to lie to you, and whom you trust to have your best interests at heart? Well, I am glad that you have good, solid, trusting relationships with your friends. Keep in mind, however, that good intentions are only that...and that your friend did not write the e-mail warning they are forwarding to you...and that he or she may well fully believe the contents of said e-mail warning, but that doesn't mean that they haven't been duped, however intelligent a person they may be otherwise.

Of course, bad information doesn't just come to us through e-mail; it comes through the spin doctors hired by cigarette companies, through the media, and through word-of-mouth. The media are sometimes treated skeptically; the spokespeople of cigarette companies, thankfully, usually are. So why do we trust information that our friends give us on which they have no authority to speak? I am not restricting you to speaking only on areas in which you work and/or study in school or professionally, either, here; if you have done your research on a particular topic or at least done a basic checking-out of the information you are passing on and found it to be valid, then by all means, share it and enrich our minds and lives as a result. If, however, you are just repeating what you read in an e-mail and are merely trusting that forwarded e-mail to be valid and accurate, I'm sorry, I'm really not interested in such information. In fact, in repeating it to me, you run the risk that I will be interested enough to do my own research to see whether it is valid or not, and letting you (and others you passed the information on to) know if the "information" turned out to be wrong. If you don't mind being wrong, then I suppose that is fine. If, however, you would be embarrassed or otherwise upset by my responding to your e-mail forward to me and 10 more of your friends with an e-mail telling you and your 10 other friends not to worry about such-and-such (and to see such-and-such for more accurate information), then please do not get me involved in the first place. Okay, I can hear you now: "If you don't like my e-mail, then just delete it and ignore it." Rest assured, I do use that policy when it comes to the "forward this e-mail to 10 people to tell them that you value their friendship"-type e-mails when I am not in a sappy mood (I think it is far more valuable to show a friend you value them by sending them a piece of real correspondence to catch up with how they're doing or by spending time with them than by sending them a cutesy "yes-I-love-you-even-though-I-never-talk-to-you" e-mail forward, after all). However, when it comes to the hoax virus warnings and so on that you are passing on to me and 10 of your friends, I don't get why you would want me to use that policy...why would you want your friends to believe lies and live in fear rather than have the truth?

Yes, I admit it, I am not fully guilt-free of this myself; I do avoid diet soft drinks even though I have not looked up the paper that I have heard has been published in a scientific journal documenting research through which scientists have allegedly found that drinking soft drinks actually does cause you to gain weight (i.e., it's not just that larger people drink diet soft drinks, but that said drinks actually contribute to their problem even though they have few calories and these people are drinking them instead of regular soft drinks to try to lose weight). I do try to avoid aspartame even though I haven't taken time to look into the issue of whether it causes problems in the body or not (I did ask a friend who is a biology major what they are taught in their classes on the subject in the hopes that that information would be better than word-of-mouth, but that is hardly enough). And I do generally read the paper without taking time to question bias (though I don't really trust film critics' reviews anymore). However, I can tell you where to find information confirming or denying the information in pretty much any e-mail forward out there, and some rumors that come through other channels as well. Is it the scientist in me that makes me question things so much? Perhaps, but other (non-scientific) academic disciplines emphasize research as well, such as history. "Garbage in, garbage out"...the information we take in influences our worldview, our interactions with others, and the way we live our lives. I am very glad because of this that I am not the only person who likes quality information...I just wish a few more people preferred it, too.

I have a couple of links here on my blog page that deal with "urban legends"; you can see them in one part of my "Links"section on the right-hand side of the home page of my blog. The one that is labelled "Good article on urban legends" links to a critical thinking bit posted on the website that acts as a companion to my first-year psychology textbook and includes discussion of the claim that "On average, men think about sex every seven seconds." The other link is to Snopes.com, a great resource for checking out whether a particular rumor is true. I trust the Snopes site because they put references to the materials from which they get their information at the bottom of every article (check out some of the articles I give links to below for some examples). Using the Snopes site, I can give you some well-researched answers on many of those rumors you've heard, including the following:

• To find out more about the "jumping water" warning, read http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave.asp. I found this by using the search box on the Snopes site to search for "microwave water" (without the quotes).
• To find out more about the e-mail warning you against e-mails with the subject line "A Virtual Card for You," read http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/invitation.asp. Originally I found this by doing a search for "Olympic torch" (without the quotes) due to the version of the e-mail I received (which you can read about on that page).
  
• To find out if you should worry about someone trying to harvest your kidneys, read http://www.snopes.com/horrors/robbery/kidney.asp. I simply searched for "kidneys" (without the quotes).
• To find out if it really is a bad idea to flash your highbeams at a motorist driving at night without his or her lights on, see http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/lightsout.asp (easily found by doing a search for "flash lights," without the quotes and comma).
• Oh, look, they do have an article on aspartame! I haven't read it yet, but here it is: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp. I simply did a search on "aspartame" (without the quotes).
• The links I've given so far in this list all refer to the rumors I mentioned ealier in this blog entry. As a little bonus, however, here is a link to all the stories about Coke that Snopes covers (including the rumors that "Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine," "A tooth left in a glass of Coca-Cola will dissolve overnight," and "Coca-Cola's name was translated into Chinese as "bite the wax tadpole"): http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cokelore.asp. Enjoy!

Oh, I have also heard about http://www.truthorfiction.com/ , but I haven't used it myself (the Snopes site is enough for me); still, you could check it out if you're interested.

Phew, it feels good to get that out of my system (or maybe reading some of the "Coke lore" is what made me feel better). Ending rant now :).