5 ms·

I really don't 'get' this anti-infographic movement - What's the difference between text-based content and graphical content? Gaming sites like Digg etc is alwa

• mikemol 16y ago
  In general, I think the problem breaks down this way: 1) Humans respond in intuitive, predictable ways to graphics, particularly with a greater emphasis on emotional response. (As opposed to an analytical response.) 2) All information sources have bias, and any marketing competence on the part of the infographic creator will tend to subconsciously amplify the bias of the graphic's creator. 3) Combining the creator's bias with the infographic's tendency to more easily invoke emotional responses over analytical ones results in a reaction more couched in that emotion than in logic. IIRC, USA Today was criticized for this, decades ago. [edited to fix concatenation of numbers to a single line.)
  • tommizzle 16y ago
    Wow, so people are getting upset that content is causing a greater emotional response, with a direct influence on the graphic's creator? To me that seems as if the designers and marketers are doing their job properly.
    • mikemol 16y ago
      Sure, as long as you're aware that you're reading marketing material, and are aware of the bias that goes with that. People often are more sheeple than critical thinkers, though. [I think] The anger is generally on the part of the critical thinkers against those exploiting sheeple. You can think as critically as you like, but that doesn't mean you won't be drowned out by those who don't.