Is this three stones are a wall, or is this just three random stones.

Back in 1972 Magnus Magnusson published Introducing Archaeology which I eagerly read. One of the few elements I consciously carry with me today was his introduction of a mental model which I find enduringly useful.

He introduced an adage which supposedly was a common piece of archaeological folklore:

One stone's a stone. Two stones are interesting. Three stone's are a wall.

Obviously the adage cannot be strictly accurate. There are plenty of instances where three coincidentally located stones do not constitute a wall.

But in mentally pondering the adage, it forces to the fore a much more useful mental model.

When confronted by uncertain and ambiguous information, there is an epistemic continuum. A single evidentiary datum point has hardly any evidentiary value. An accumulation of data points becomes suggestive. An abundance of data points, absent any conflicting data, becomes usefully truthful. While always acknowledging that all truth is contingent (on yet unknown data which may or may not be consistent).

What is the actual numeric trigger point for each transition? It is always going to be different and based on context.

But three media events in close proximity to one another brought Magnusson's adage to mind.

First there was a sudden furor within the media over Trump's reference to Chinese Flu or Wuhan Flu. All of sudden this was deemed by journalists to be insensitive and racist despite most flu's being named in some fashion for their points of origin. The striking thing seemed to be that the Chinese government itself had suddenly launched a campaign against identifying the new flu based on its point of origin, going so far as to enlist WHO in the effort.

The Chinese government wants to rename the flu and suddenly American journalists are outraged that the president is referring to the flu in the same fashion as the press itself had done.


Double click to enlarge.

That was the first stone. Lots of possible explanations for why journalists suddenly banned their own language in order to criticize Trump. Hardly consequential and barely notable but somewhat jarring.

The second stone seemed to gain traction this past weekend. Last week I saw China Bought the West Time. The West Squandered It. by Ian Johnson. Seemed a strange case to try and make given the Chinese government's early and enduring penchant for hiding the scope and nature of the outbreak until it became impossible to hide. But opinion writers have to have opinions. And then it began to get traction among all the other bubbleheads. We know that China delayed information sharing for as long as they could. They did not buy us any time.

We know that no one can be certain what is the correct containment approach. This is all playing out in real time.

Back in January Trump began limiting travel to hot zones, principally China and was roundly criticized. Now he is being criticized for being too tardy even though Europe is only now getting around to imposing the travel restrictions America implemented weeks ago. It is worth noting that the meme that China bought us time also seems to be one the Chinese government is pushing as well as well.

Then there is the third stone The Coronavirus Called America’s Bluff by Ann Applebaum. She steps out far on the limb of her long held belief that the US is nigh on a failed nation state and that the only good policies arise from authoritarian states or in Europe. It does not matter how persistently wrong she is, she is always ready to make one more charge into the face of the evidence.

All these are simply samples of mainstream journalists seeming to carry Chinese government water, or at the very least to be willing to go along with the propaganda of the Chinese government. We are accustomed to journalists being innumerate, to be data unaware, to be hard partisan advocates, and to being far more prone to opinion than to reporting.

Still, three such big clangers so quickly in a row?

I go back to Magnusson. Is this evidence of a wall (i.e. the hypothesis that the mainstream media are taking their marching orders from China)? Of course not. There are dozens of alternative explanations, simple emergent order being the most obvious. But the cascade of indefensible positions can't help but be suggestive.

A final example of the epistemic uncertainty.

In early February when the dimensions of the Covid-19 outbreak were yet unclear, this video suddenly went viral. It was a week after the first case showed up in Italy.


Double click to enlarge.

Slickly done, it was one of those saccharine, 'can't we all get along' kind of videos. I did not think much of it at the time other than to speculate about the obstinate conviction of the Left that everyone is biased and the high status attached to meaningless gestures.

I only recently became aware that the video was produced by a Chinese news outlet.

And all of a sudden, a month later, with Italy being one of the most at-risk hot spots, the treacly-sweet feel-good video takes on another whole aspect.

Was this an insidious effort to get Italians to self-expose themselves to the disease? If so, it worked like a charm.

Was this feel-good propaganda which turned out to be spectacularly ill-timed? Quite possible.

Was this simply a random event with no import? Quite probably.

In a time of near universal uncertainty and perceived threat, there are an inordinate number of dots that can be connected which should not be at the very same time that there important dots which should be connected and are not being.