Why Do We Believe in Ground Hog Predictions?

Ground Hog Day is a neat little holiday for many folks around the country who like to place the slothish behavior of a rodent on a pedestal. He's cute. Its old fashioned. Its tradition. There are top hats. Who wouldn't like to be a part of that?

So why do we like Ground Hog Day so much?

Our brains are hard-wired for simple stories. Go back to our earliest ancestors. Information was passed through stories.

We desire a good weather story (a feel-good forecast with some folklore) versus something data/science driven.  Why is this? A data driven paragraph by itself only activates the language processing centers (Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area ) of the brain. Brain scans show that if you incorporate stories with descriptive metaphors, it will active multiple sensory parts of the brain like the Motor Cortex (body movements) and the Insular Cortex (emotional region) at once. In other words, descriptive story with less data make our brains work harder by relating the story to our our own personal experiences! Given that personal stories make up more than 65% of our conversations, this makes perfect sense.

What does this have to do with weather forecasts?

Typically, our brains work much better with a theme or a story that has a beginning, middle and an end. In this daily forecast example, we visualize a line of showers that moves in at a specific time; it stays for a select amount of time and then moves out without fanfare. Our brains involuntarily take this weather story and creates a visualization by melding our personal experiences with the information. The forecast instantly becomes relatable!. It becomes personal!  Unfortunately, weather events rarely behave in this manner.

For our minds to grasp weather probabilities, we need to be able to handle multiple possible outcomes at once. Weather has many, many outcomes over a large area over a significant period of time. Change the initial weather conditions (humidity, wind flow, frontal position, upper level energy, etc) and you create more uncertainty. Factor in time and the probability becomes significantly higher. Unfortunately, when meteorologists attempt to use a data driven narrative to explain why something did or didn't happen, the emotional centers of the brain described above are not activated. The emotional centers of our brain are not activated when presented with probabilities. Our brains simplify the probability using a story (narrative) that we can relate to. If not, there is no nice and tidy story here for our brains to trigger an emotional response.  Simply put, we feel uneasy.

Instead, we favor more simplified stories like the folklore of the Ground Hog or the Old Farmers Almanac.  Without asking your brain subconsciously shrugs off probability and uncertainty narratives and replaces them with predictions and stories from the Old Farmers' Almanac or Punxsutawney Phil.

So why do we believe Ground Hog predictions? It makes us feel good.

Human Nature and the Uncertainty in this Weekend Forecast

A hurricane off the east coast, strong cold front, gulf moisture, Atlantic moisture. These are just a few of the factors that will drive the rain and wind this weekend. In my opinion, one of the most difficult forecasts in recent memory.

The various computer projections are taking Hurricane Joaquin and the other tropical disturbances in all sorts of directions as it begins its interaction with the other variables above. Each line represents a different computer model representation of each outcome.  Are you confused yet? 

Our minds don't easily handle probability. We especially hate probabilities in our weather forecasts especially when confronted with a map like this.

Why is this?

For our minds to grasp probabilities, we need to be able to handle multiple possible outcomes at once. Just our luck. Weather has many, many outcomes over a large area over a significant period of time. Change the initial weather conditions (humidity, wind flow, frontal position, upper level energy, etc) and you create more uncertainty. Factor in time and the probability becomes significantly higher.

Typically, our brains work much better with a theme that is linear: A story that has a beginning, middle and an end. We want to visualize a line of showers that moves in at a specific time, stays for a select amount of time and then moves out without fanfare. Unfortunately, rain events rarely behave in this manner.

Much to the chagrin of the general public—probabilities are the only way to tell the weather story. We use 90% chance of rain, 40% chance of rain, etc. Yet if it doesn't rain over their house when the probability is 90% chance of rain, the forecaster is wrong even if the rest of the area was hit with a good downpour. We want to know if it will rain or not; a black and white scenario without caveats. Yet the behavior of some small scale weather events like warm frontal rain/storms can behave semi-independently of the overall large scale pattern. Meteorologist try to convey this idea on the air. Most of the time this falls on deaf ears.

It all goes back to basic human nature. A good weather narrative (a feel-good forecast with some folklore) is desired versus something data/science driven. Nebulous weather data and science makes most of us feel uncomfortable even if the on-air meteorologist has the best of intentions.

In recent years,  some highly sophisticated models of the atmosphere have been developed that can make some very good “probabilistic” outcomes for weather events. Yet a level of uncertainty still remains and we humans don’t like it!  We try to rationalize the irrational. Our biases quickly dismiss the probabilistic science as irrelevant or at the very worst, an excuse.

Instead, we favor more simplified stories even though that story might gloss over important details. Our minds involuntarily cherry-pick elements of the story so that it fits our biases. Think of a time when someone told you a weather fact or forecast which you didn’t believe. You felt uneasy. Your mind shrugged it aside only to be replaced by a story, forecast or explanation that made you feel better…accuracy be damned.

* Narratives (straight forward simple weather forecasts) are about hitting emotional buttons making the reader feel good by focusing on less qualitative aspects (weather science and probability) of an issue.

* Narratives (weather forecast) are/is about the outcome not the process (explanation of the science and probability)

* The process (weather science) is important in developing solid results

So remember the psychology. How you react when you hear a weather forecast?  Do you dismiss the science? How do you handle probability?  Do you like hearing an explanation to why the weather does what it does? Do you overly simplify the weather? Are you aware of your biases?

Why Are We Skeptical About Weather Forecasts? How To Fix It

(2nd Edition)

Weather is just as much psychology as it is science. Call it "Behavioral Meteorology".

Most people find it very difficult to grasp the fact that the weather is one big approximation. Not surprisingly, we humans hate approximations and probability. Why? For our minds to grasp probabilities and randomness, we need to be able to handle multiple possible outcomes at once.  The problem is that we are all wired to simplify uncertainty. We want life to be basic and easy to understand. Weather is no different. We all want a forecast that fits a nice and neat one-size-fits-all package.  Unfortunately, weather has many, many outcomes over a large area over a significant period of time. Change the initial weather conditions (humidity, wind flow, frontal position, upper level energy, etc.) and you create more uncertainty. Factor in length of time and the probability becomes significantly higher. We envision an area of rain approaching as a uniform “blob” which moves over our house at say 5:20pm and leaves at 7:15pm. Unfortunately, the actual rain area (or lake effect snow stream) rarely evolves into a tidy, uniform entity.  Instead, it has jagged edges, dry pockets and other random protrusions that impact local forecasts in a few minutes time.  See the problem?

I'd like to say that I make a forecast, short or long term, with a cold, rational, scientific eye but I don't.  I take into account how the general public will react to EVERY word knowing that most people selectively perceive the weather to fit their "sphere of reality". The more we selectively perceive the weather to fit our negative connotation (cognitive bias), the more hyper critical our reaction and the more rigid our bias becomes. It’s a vicious circle that feeds on itself. Throw in the thousands of weather apps out there that claim to provide the forecast for YOUR location along with the Old Farmers' Almanac and the laundry list of cognitive biases (some mentioned above) and you have the confluence of many psychological elements that are difficult to overcome with rational discussion. 

How do we navigate these rough waters of perception and weather bias? 

It all goes back to basic human nature: We all simplify complex, probabilistic themes. We all love a good story with pictures. It’s hardwired in our DNA. Bullet points and/or data without strong associative elements only trigger the Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area of the brain. This area is involved in language processing ONLY.  Brain scans show that if you incorporate emotional elements into your story telling, it will active multiple sensory parts of the brain like the Motor Cortex (body movements) and the Insular Cortex (emotional region) all at once producing chemicals that make us feel good in response specifically Cortisol, Dopamine and Oxytocin. Each one responsible for our involuntary reactions to a good story. We instinctively turn the story into our own personal experience! Given that personal stories make up more than 65% of our conversations, this makes perfect sense.  Here's a great quote that summarizes this up very well:

"THE POWER OF ANECDOTE IS SO GREAT THAT IT HAS A MOMENTUM IN AND OF ITSELF."..."NO MATTER HOW BORING THE FACTS ARE," WITH A WELL-TOLD STORY, "YOU FEEL INHERENTLY AS IF YOU ARE ON A TRAIN THAT HAS A DESTINATION."

A weather forecast is no different. Your brain wants a good story not boring data. This is why we use colorful, pictorial driven graphics like this one. 

Often times if the weather presentation becomes too data intensive, our brain doesn't produce the chemical that make us feel good. Our biases can surface quickly which can alter our perceptions fast. All of this happens in seconds and you've lost the viewer even if the on-air meteorologist has the best of intentions. !

Spaghetti Plot showing forecast uncertainty

Bottom line is a narrative or story is desired versus something that is solely data/science driven. 

Each day, I analyze the science and remember the psychology. I try to tell a compelling, relatable weather story with a dash or two of data, some description of probability and a bit of historical perspective. Human nature is a powerful beast. Each person is different. Sometimes it works for the viewer. Sometimes it doesn’t. 

How do you react when you hear a weather forecast? Do you dismiss the science? Do you like the story? How do you handle probability? Do you like hearing an explanation to why the weather does what it does? Do you overly simplify the weather?

Let me know what you think. 

Why Do We Dismiss The Science Of Weather So Easily?

Weather is just as much psychology as it is science. I've written about this several times HERE, HERE, and HERE. 

 I call it "Behavioral Meteorology".

Most people find it very difficult to grasp the fact that the weather is one big approximation.  Weather should be exact right?  Well, we humans hate probability.  Why? For our minds to grasp probabilities and randomness, we need to be able to handle multiple possible outcomes at once. We all want a forecast that fits a nice and neat one-size-fits-all package.  Weather has many, many outcomes over a large area over a significant period of time. Change the initial weather conditions (humidity, wind flow, frontal position, upper level energy, etc) and you create more uncertainty. Factor in time and the probability becomes significantly higher. We want to visualize a line of showers that moves in at a specific time, stays for a select amount of time and then moves out without fanfare. Unfortunately, rain events especially the hit and miss storms that we’ve had across the area recently rarely behave in this manner.

I'd like to say that I make a forecast whether short or long term with a cold, rational, scientific eye but I don't. I take into account how the general public will react to EVERY word knowing that most selectively perceive the weather to fit their "sphere of reality". I learned that quickly years ago. For all of the simulations, super-computers, highly detailed satellite data, it doesn't matter how exact your forecast is or what scientific reasoning you used in coming to your conclusion, people will ignore the facts and the data that disagree with their perceptions and will "rationalize" what they want and react accordingly. More often than not, the reactions are very critical. Worse still, its accumulative. The more we selectively perceive the weather to fit our negative connotation, the more hyper critical our reaction and the more rigid our bias becomes. Its a vicious circle that feeds on itself.  I’ve notice this change over the last 10-15 years. This is called the Disconfirmation Bias. Its the tendency to accept supportive evidence of a belief uncritically, but to discount evidence that challenges that belief.  

Recently, many have already postulated that this string of 80+ degree warmth is proof that this summer will be warmer than we thought.  Its a classic example of the RECENCY EFFECT: This is the tendency to think that more recent trends and patterns we observe (which are more recent in our minds like our recent mild winters) are a very good representation of the entire period in question. We believe our memories and observations--recent warmth and humidity--are excellent predictors of what the near future will bring.  Throw in the thousands of weather apps out there that claim to provide the forecast for YOUR location along with the laundry list of cognitive biases (some mentioned above) and you have the confluence of many psychological elements that are difficult to overcome with rational discussion.

It all goes back to basic human nature. A good weather narrative or story is desired versus something data/science driven. Nebulous weather data and science makes most of us feel uncomfortable even if the on-air meteorologist has the best of intentions.  Sophisticated computer models of the weather have made some very good “probabilistic” outcomes for weather events and situations.. Yet a level of uncertainty still remains and we humans don’t like it! We try to rationalize the irrational. Our biases quickly dismiss the probabilistic science as irrelevant or at the very worst, an excuse.

Each day, I analyze the science and remember the psychology. How you react when you hear a weather forecast? Do you dismiss the science? How do you handle probability? Do you like hearing an explanation to why the weather does what it does? Do you overly simplify the weather?

Deep thoughts this morning...Hmmmmm.

.