I get all sorts of queries about preserved wood because my phone number is on the TPAA website.
Earlier this month, while responding to a query about the safety of preserved wood, I was also challenged about why the industry continues to use chemical preservatives instead of natural alternatives. This exchange illustrated the challenge of addressing scepticism and misinformation around preserved wood.
I fought back valiantly with an observation that bitumen is an unhealthy brew of cancer-inducing compounds, but that doesn’t stop the stuff from being used way more than preserved wood.
We don’t let children play on preserved (CCA) wood, but we are OK with walking barefoot on bitumen. I also pointed out that if the so-called natural preservatives were any good, they would be on the market, making producers heaps of money.
When someone holds an opinion, it feels very real to them. Even when presented with evidence, it is extremely difficult to change their mind—especially on topics such as preserved wood, where opinions are emotional and deeply held. This is a central challenge in addressing misinformation.
I was complaining to a colleague about how hard it is to change someone’s opinion when the evidence is on your side, and the response I got was, “Ahhhh!” Brandolini’s Law!!
I had to Google Brandolini’s law to see if I was being played, and I learned that in 2013 Brandolini formulated the law, also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle. Brandolini’s Law states that ‘The amount of energy needed to refute Bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it’. Put another way, it is much easier and quicker to spread nonsense, false claims, or complex theories than to gather evidence, formulate a coherent argument, and educate the public to disprove them.
Unlike a liar who knows that he is uttering a falsehood, Brandolini’s law is not about reporting facts – rather, it is Bullshit intended to ‘shape the beliefs and attitudes of listeners in a certain way’. The problem with good Bullshit is that it appeals to our emotions and our existing view of the world, and if these opinions align with our emotions and world view, they become very hard to dislodge.
Let’s say that someone whose opinion you are inclined to believe tells you that preserved wood will end civilisation as we know it. You get the idea! Think about the effort that we as an industry would have to expend just to refute this nonsense.
Think of the words we would have to craft in a readable, cogent way. The internet makes the problem worse as it is incredibly easy to publish a nonsensical opinion, and even though something is “published,” it could still be nonsense (or Bullshit).
Rather than go to all the effort of refuting a nonsense statement, a better approach may be to place the burden of proof on the person making the claim. An even better tactic would be to educate our product users, but that would be very expensive.
