Maps Distort How We See the World

Re:Maps Distort How We See the World by sicariusnoctis on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:30AM (#36430106)

The issue isn't possible bias on the part of educated cartographers and differential geometers. It's the bias of the majority, i.e. everyone else, that matters. A vast majority of people in the "Western world" perceive their countries as being bigger than they are. Thus from a primal, tribal perspective this further inflates their perception of "their peoples" being more important than the peoples of other areas.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maps Distort How We See the World by bentley on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:56AM (#36430287)

> A vast majority of people in the "Western world" perceive their countries as being bigger than they are. Thus from a primal, tribal perspective this further inflates their perception of "their peoples" being more important than the peoples of other areas.

That’s a fun hypothesis, but is there actually data supporting (1) that “a vast majority” of westerners misperceive country size in this way, and (2) that specifically such a perception causes them to consider foreigners to be unimportant?

Although implicit bias exists, studies show its impact on the real world is much smaller than commonly believed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maps Distort How We See the World by usrbinbash on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:31AM (#36430535)

> Thus from a primal, tribal perspective this further inflates their perception of "their peoples" being more important than the peoples of other areas.

And now I would like to see some data, peer reviewed study, or similarly supported source for this statement.

Because I don't see many people claiming that greenland or antarctica are super important powerhouses in the world.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Maps Distort How We See the World by sicariusnoctis on Thursday June 22, 2023 @10:18AM (#36432539)

Nearly no one inhabits Greenland and Antarctica, which might help explain why the only visible relative increase in Arctic/Antarctic nationalism comes from enthusiastic polar bears and mildly racist penguins.

I'm not sure there could even exist a particularly satisfying source for this. One of the issues with "soft" sciences is that it can be quite tricky to measure any effects, much less design a viable study that demonstrates causation.

I suppose a social scientist (i.e., not me) could support this claim using ideas from psychology or finding related studies. But I doubt anything will ever be particularly convincing unless we lived in a universe where people told the objective truth and a mandatory survey was asked with the explicit question, "Have the distortions induced by map projections influenced your beliefs regarding people in other countries?"

[ Parent | on HN ]