Fact Check
... on the persistence of myths
Once the public has decided to accept something as an interesting fact, it becomes almost impossible to get the acceptance rescinded. The persistent interestingness and symbolic usefulness overrides any lack of factuality.
Geoffrey Pullum
Over 3 decades ago, linguist Geoff Pullum published The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, describing a spectacular game of Chinese whispers. Franz Boas had casually mentioned a handful of Inuit root words for snow in 1911. By the time the factoid had passed through enough textbooks and dinner parties, Eskimos had hundreds of words for snow—proof, apparently, that language shapes perception in profound ways.
The actual number? Roughly the same as English. Snow. Sleet. Slush. Powder. English, it turns out, is not vocabulary-impoverished.
But Pullum’s insight wasn’t about snow per se. It was about us. We don’t always use facts because they’re true; we use them because they’re useful. A good fact is like a tool for driving home a message, and once it’s doing that job, no amount of correction can dislodge it.
Until I came across Pullum’s work recently, I had blithely repeated this Eskimo vocabulary false-ism many many times. And I did this without verifying the fact. So I went looking to see what else was out there—dubious but entertaining.
I found at least seven other survivors.
Bird brain means stupid. False. Bird brains are packed with neurons at a density that would make primates envious. Crows fashion tools, parrots count and categorise, and some species pass knowledge across generations. Pound for pound, birds are our cognitive equals. About an year ago, I explored why birds don’t crave Bentleys or Beethoven1—they were smart enough to choose wings instead. But bird brain survives because we need a two-word insult for stupidity more than we need accuracy.
Napoleon was short. He wasn’t at five-foot-seven—perfectly average for his time. The myth began as British propaganda caricature and stayed because short man compensates with ambition is too good a story to surrender.
Carrots improve eyesight. British WWII disinformation, invented to explain why RAF pilots could spot German bombers at night. The real reason was radar. Eighty years later, parents still weaponise it at dinner tables.
Lemmings hurl themselves off cliffs. A Disney film crew staged this in 1958, throwing the animals off a ledge for a documentary. The metaphor—blind conformity leading to destruction—was too potent. Lemmings are still dying for a figure of speech.
Einstein failed maths. He didn’t. But even geniuses struggled in school is catnip for motivational posters, so the correction never stood a chance.
We use only 10% of our brains. Neuroscience has been screaming false for decades. The myth persists because it implies vast untapped potential—a flattering thought we’d rather keep.
The Great Wall is visible from space. Astronauts have repeatedly said it isn’t. But it makes the Great Wall sound like it deserves to be on the itinerary, so we keep saying it.
Each of these facts works less like knowledge and more as rhetoric—a pre-packaged argument dressed in fancy clothing. Napoleon proves that power compensates for inadequacy. Carrots prove that mothers know best. Einstein proves that failure is a stepping stone. The 10% myth proves you’re capable of more. Bird brain implies you’re an idiot.
Kill the fact, and you also kill the sermon.
Pullum called the Eskimo story a linguistic myth that refuses to die a quiet death. But quiet deaths are not the problem here. These facts are more alive than the truth—more memorable and more useful.
Truth often requires nuance. The myth fits on a bumper sticker.
And between the two, the bumper sticker has much better distribution.
MR.RAJESH ACHANTA’s Selective Amnesia essay—FACT CHECK—deep dives research of both myths and real, and reveals the surprisingly deep roots of the facts that are made, not born.Made by Myths and Truths. Made by Intelligence and [now] AI.
MR.RAJESH essay brilliantly demonstrates the AI Paradoxes.When we use google or other AIs’—there’s always a disclaimer /warning by TECH CO —AI overviews are experimental. Info quality may vary./ AI responses may include mistakes" or similar, which advise users to verify information.
I may be wrong,as of now,it appears to me that AI facts/truths are based on cherry-picked Training—sort of library—full of theory and devoid of practice.When I interact with AI who knows more than me,it’s able to shape my thinking, my ideas and opinions about a subject. Many a times my perception of reality changes and “because I act on the basis of our perceptions” AI force changes not only my thinking but my actions.
The truth is not as straightforward as it seems. There are many truths, some of them more honest than others. “On most issues,” writes Hector Macdonald in his book Truth: How the Many Sides to Every Story Shape Our Reality, “there are multiple truths we can choose to communicate. Our choice of truth will influence how those around us perceive an issue and react to it.”
We are often left with several truths, some more flattering to us than others. What we choose to see, and what we share with others, says a lot about who we are.
“There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it.”
— William James
I Admire MR.RAJESH’s contributions on AI impact on our world.
MR.RAJESH logically sums it —Truth often requires nuance. The myth fits on a bumper sticker.And between the two, the bumper sticker has much better distribution.