Why people fall for misinformation Joseph Isaac

In 1901, David Hänig published a paper

that forever changed
our understanding of taste.

His research led to what we know
today as the taste map:

an illustration that divides the tongue
into four separate areas.

According to this map,

receptors at the tip of our tongues
capture sweetness,

bitterness
is detected at the tongue’s base,

and along the sides, receptors capture
salty and sour sensations.

Since its invention, the taste map
has been published

in textbooks and newspapers.

The only problem with this map,
is that it’s wrong.

In fact, it’s not even
an accurate representation

of what Hänig originally discovered.

The tongue map is a common misconception—

something widely believed
but largely incorrect.

So where do misconceptions
like this come from,

and what makes a fake fact
so easy to believe?

It’s true that the tongue map’s
journey begins with David Hänig.

As part of his dissertation
at Leipzig University,

Hänig analyzed taste sensitivities across
the tongue for the four basic flavors.

Using sucrose for sweet,
quinine sulfate for bitter,

hydrochloric acid for sour,
and salt for salty,

Hänig applied these stimuli to compare
differences in taste thresholds

across a subject’s tongue.

He hoped to better understand
the physiological mechanisms

that affected these four flavors,

and his data suggested that sensitivity
for each taste

did in fact vary across the tongue.

The maximum sensation for sweet
was located at the tongue’s tip;

bitter flavors were strongest at the back;
salt was strongest in this area,

and sour at the middle
of the tongue’s sides.

But Hänig was careful
to note that every sensation

could also be tasted across the tongue,

and that the areas he identified offered
very small variations in intensity.

Like so many misconceptions,

the tongue map represents a distortion
of its original source,

however the nature of that distortion
can vary.

Some misconceptions
are comprised of disinformation—

false information intentionally designed
to mislead people.

But many misconceptions,
including the tongue map,

center on misinformation—
false or misleading information

that results from unintentional
inaccuracy.

Misinformation is most often shaped
by mistakes and human error,

but the specific mistakes
that lead to a misconception

can be surprisingly varied.

In the case of the tongue map,

Hänig’s dissertation was written
in German,

meaning the paper could only be
understood by readers fluent in German

and well versed in Hanig’s
small corner of academia.

This kicked off a game of telephone
that re-shaped Häing’s research

every time it was shared
with outside parties.

Less than a decade after his dissertation,

newspapers were falsely insisting
that experiments

could prove sweetness was imperceptible
on the back of the tongue.

The second culprit
behind the tongue map’s spread

were the images
that Hänig’s work inspired.

In 1912, a rough version of the map
appeared in a newspaper article

that cautiously described
some of the mysteries

behind taste and smell research.

Featuring clear labels across the tongue,
the article’s illustration

simplified Hänig’s more-complicated
original diagrams.

Variations of this approachable image
became repeatedly cited,

often without credit or nuanced
consideration for Hänig’s work.

Eventually this image spread
to textbooks and classrooms

as a purported truth
of how we experience taste.

But perhaps the factor that most
contributed to this misconception

was its narrative simplicity.

In many ways,

the map complements our desire for clear
stories about the world around us—

a quality not always present
in the sometimes-messy fields of science.

For example,

even the number of tastes we have is more
complicated than Hänig’s work suggests.

Umami— also known as savory—
is now considered the fifth basic taste,

and many still debate
the existence of tastes

like fatty, alkaline, metallic,
and water-like.

Once we hear a good story,

it can be difficult to change
how we see that information,

even in the face of new evidence.

So, next time you see a convenient chart
or read a surprising anecdote,

try to maintain a healthy skepticism—

because misconceptions
can leave a bitter taste

on every part of your tongue.

1901 年,David Hänig 发表了一篇论文

,彻底改变
了我们对品味的理解。

他的研究导致了我们
今天所知的味觉地图:

将舌头
分成四个独立区域的插图。

根据这张地图,

我们舌尖的感受器
捕捉到甜味,

在舌根检测到苦味

,沿着两侧,感受器捕捉到
咸味和酸味。

自发明以来,味觉地图

在教科书和报纸上发表。

这张地图的唯一问题
是它是错误的。

事实上,它甚至不是

Hänig 最初发现的准确表示。

舌头地图是一种常见的误解——

人们普遍相信
但在很大程度上是不正确的。

那么像这样的误解
从何而来

,是什么让虚假的事实
如此容易相信呢?

的确,舌头地图的
旅程始于 David Hänig。

作为莱比锡大学论文的一部分,

Hänig 分析
了四种基本风味的舌头味觉敏感性。

Hänig 将蔗糖用于甜味、
硫酸奎宁用于苦味、

盐酸用于酸味
和盐用于咸味,

Hänig 应用这些刺激来比较受试者舌头
上味觉阈值的

差异。

他希望更好地了解

影响这四种味道的生理机制

,他的数据表明,
每种味道的敏感性

实际上在舌头上确实有所不同。

对甜味的最大感觉
位于舌尖;

后面的苦味最强;
盐在这个区域最强

,在舌头两侧的中间是酸的。

但哈尼格小心翼翼
地注意到,每一种感觉

也可以通过舌头尝到,

而且他所识别的区域
在强度上的变化非常小。

像许多误解一样

,舌头图代表
其原始来源的扭曲,

但这种扭曲的性质
可能会有所不同。

一些误解
是由虚假信息组成的——

旨在误导人们的虚假信息。

但许多误解,
包括舌头地图,都

集中在错误
信息

上——由于无意的不准确而导致的虚假或误导性信息

错误信息通常是
由错误和人为错误造成的,

但导致误解的具体错误

可能千差万别。

就舌图而言,

哈尼格的论文是
用德语写的,

这意味着只有
精通德语

并且精通哈尼格
学术小角落的读者才能理解这篇论文。

这拉开了一场电话游戏的序幕
,每次与外界分享海因的研究时,它都会重新塑造海英的研究

在他的论文发表不到十年后,

报纸错误地坚称
,实验

可以证明甜味
在舌背上是难以察觉的。 舌头地图传播

的第二个罪魁祸首

是 Hänig 的作品所激发的图像。

1912 年,该地图的粗略版本
出现在一篇报纸文章

中,该文章谨慎地描述

味觉和嗅觉研究背后的一些奥秘。 文章的插图

在舌头上有清晰的标签,

简化了 Hänig 更复杂的
原始图表。

这种平易近人的形象的变体
被反复引用,

通常没有对 Hänig 的工作给予任何荣誉或细致入微的
考虑。

最终,这一形象传播
到教科书和教室,

作为
我们如何体验品味的所谓真理。

但也许
造成这种误解的最大因素

是其叙述的简单性。

在许多方面

,地图补充了我们对周围世界的清晰故事的渴望——

这种品质并不总是存在
于有时混乱的科学领域。

例如,

即使是我们的口味数量也
比 Hänig 的研究表明的要复杂。

鲜味——也被称为咸味——
现在被认为是第五种基本味道

,许多人仍在争论

脂肪、碱性、金属
和水样味道的存在。

一旦我们听到一个好故事,

就很难
改变我们看待这些信息的方式,

即使面对新的证据。

所以,下次当你看到一张方便的图表
或读到一个令人惊讶的轶事时,

试着保持健康的怀疑态度——

因为误解

在你舌头的每个部位留下苦涩的味道。