On Hans Rosling's "Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset" Lecture

Daniel Rivera

1 October 2012


On Hans Rosling's "Let My Dataset Change Your Mindset" Lecture
  

  A lecture by Hans Rosling, a public health professor of the University level, shares his finding of his student's perspectives from overhearing their conversation. The students have an interesting mindset of the world of this duality; the "Western World", and the "Developing World", or more simply "Us and Them". Through his research, Hans Rosling aims to point out the flaw in what information this perspective is based on, what preconceived notions have skewed their perception, and how to reach a more diverse but specific understanding of this globalized view, with the purpose of finding more effective strategies to help these specific regions in health.
     The view that Rosling's students have developed is strongly based ont their preconceived notions of the world. Rosling explains that one of his students explained it best, as seeing the globalized world of public health in two simple groups; the Western World (Us), and the Developing World (Them). However, the first flaw that Rosling points out in this perception of the students is simply where they find this perception. This idea comes from information they have accepted as valid and accurate, despite the fact that it is outdated over 50 years old, as it comes from the perception of the world from their teachers' perspectives. They fail to acknowledge that the world has changed vastly since 1950, and their information is skewed. Also, Rosling adds, breaking or dividing the world into two simple groups lead to an inaccurate perception that is too broad and vague. Possibly, one may dare to say, a little too globalized. Furthermore, Rosling implores the students to stop generalizing perspective of the "developing world", as he compares to cramming the entire history of the U.S. into two chapters; the chapter of the "present and President Obama", and the chapter of "the past", cramming everything else from Washington to Eisenhower all under a single chapter. This comparison helps brings the point across, that the generalization is indeed quite vast.
     Through the lecture, Rosling reinforces his research with very detailed charts and graphs, with the purpose of bringing a more specific understanding of "the developing world". He shifts the representation of huge regions to a more narrow representation of countries instead (shown in the graphs as bubbles). This narrowing of regions shows the viewer of the research that they are no longer looking at the African continent as a whole, but rather at every single country specifically, providing much more detailed and specific perspective on the public health of these countries and where they stand. This challenges his students to view the globalized world through a more focused perspective, and it leads them to see that through this perspective, the research yields vastly different results. For instance, the effect of malaria on child mortality and a specific comparison between Singapore and Sweden. His research allows one to pinpoint where and why the problems rise in public health.
     The data that Rosling shows challenges the common assumptions of public health in correlation to continents and their location, their income, and other demographics. With the results provided in his charts, Rosling challenges the assumption proven to be inaccurate, and shows that when looking at countries specifically, the correlation of issues like child mortality and income, are not necessarily tied at the level that people assume. More importantly, he provides a solution, a better strategy aimed to improve public health, which he shares through a promising figure of "reducing child mortality with two thirds in 25 years, equal to 4.3% per year". Another common assumption in global health that he challenges is the correlation of wealth or income to an HIV epidemic in Africa. When narrowing down to countries, Rosling shows that 20% of South Africa has HIV, despite of high income, but there is "no such thing as an HIV epidemic in South Africa". He states that there are 5 to 10 countries in Africa that have the same level of HIV as we do in America. (17:00). he is able to narrow down the issue to different countries and compare them, like the Congo, where there is war and compared to Botswana and Zambia where there is peace and the level of HIV is reducing. He is able to prove that, unlike the common preconception, the economy is not the cause, or is in direct correlation of HIV. It is these specific details found through a new perspective, that Rosling is able to challenge the assumptions of health and development around the globe.
     Based on his research, Rosling provides insight as to what would happen when we are sure to collect thorough and specific data. We are able to narrow down the source, locate the problem and where the issue originates in terms of countries and demographics. More importantly, we can pinpoint a solution and find a more effective way to improve the things that need to change in order to birng better health to these countries. The data provides clarity and helps decide the next step as we realize the world is converging, but the "bottom billion" lags behind in desperate need of aid.
     Hans Rosling achieves a very significant connection and a contributing conclusion from the simple curiosity of what his students' perspectives are. He delves into demistifying a broad perspective his students have, to pointing out why their information is skewed, and ultimately connect to the public health issues of our globalized world and find better solutions. His challenging of our preconceived notions and desire to seek more accurate information is an idea we can all follow as improving writers, to refute assumptions as accepted updated truth, and instead delve into a more refined new perspective; a new higher understanding.