Misleading visualizations go way back!

The ones who like to visit a museum and study paintings may already know that misleading visualizations go a long way back. A few years ago, I was that person, walking through a museum, wondering about all cues in paintings. In this blog, I want to show you what I learned from it. Therefore, I would like to take you to Paris in the 17th century. At that moment, Louis XIV was the king of France. Most people know him as the Sun King. For now, let’s say he got that nickname because he claimed that Versailles (his palace) and himself were the bright and shining center of the world (Koops, 2019). His point of view led to some exciting stories, but above all, some visualizations which had a huge impact on the centuries that followed.

The center of the world
Portraits and paintings, at that time, were the way to show others your wealth and status. Besides that, a painting is a product that should last forever, and therefore it was also the way to be immortalized (NPO, n.d.). Louis XIV (of course given his reputation) made use of this manner of communication, and so there are many portraits and paintings of him. I understand, you now may wonder what this has to do with misleading visualizations. Well, be patient I’ll come to that in a bit. First, I want to show you one example of such a painting of Louis XIV. Which figure do you think he is in the painting ‘Louis XIV’s Dutch War’?

It shouldn’t be a surprise that he is the man on the white horse, more or less in the center, but definitely painted brighter than the other figures. That brings me to some literature about visualizations. The salience principle, described in an article by Hegarty (2011), can be applied to this painting perfectly. The appearance of Louis XIV in this scene is made more salient than that of the bystanders. Besides that, I want to add that the position Louis XIV takes in this painting is in line with what Tversky (2011) calls central-peripheral organization. This basically means that important figures are more likely to put in the center and less important figures on the side. Interesting isn’t it that the external display was already manipulated in the 17th century! However, with this, the story of Louis XIV has not come to an end yet. We still have to discuss what this has to do with misleading the audience.

Image-building
Even though I think Louis XIV is an interesting person to talk about, this is not the main reason I wanted to mention him. Throughout his reign, Louis XIV was very focused on image-building. Let’s take his nickname, the Sun King, as an example here. Louis XIV and his ministers came up with a well-tried strategy for building-up his image as the Sun King, namely propaganda (Ziegler, 2015). Propaganda is a deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve the desired response (Historiek, 2019). Before I go on, I must say that propaganda includes visualizations, but can be found in all kinds of communication. Nevertheless, this kind of communication has a biased or misleading nature. For the sake of this blog’s topic, I’ll stick to discussing propaganda in the form of a visualization. In the case of Louis’ propaganda, an example can be found in the image in which the king is identified with the sun. By using such visualizations, he manipulates people’s cognitions and let them believe that he was the most powerful person.

Sounds like a good plan for building-up your imago, right? However, propaganda also has its downside, which is that it is hard to use it unobtrusively. Louis XIV experienced this too in the late 1660s. Back then, resistance against the methods of Louis’ policy arose (Ziegler, 2015).  However, this hasn’t stopped people from using propaganda, because centuries later, it is still here. Hitler used it often in World War II, and also Donald Trump is familiar with it.

Sometimes unconsciously, but often deliberately
That said, let’s get back to misleading visualizations. Cairo (2015) argues that misleading visualization can be created on purpose, but also by accident. They call this the difference between a lie and a mistake. They define that a person who makes a misleading visualization on purpose is a liar. On the other side, someone who intends to communicate a message but doesn’t have the skills to represent it correctly can make an honest mistake (Cairo, 2015). For example, I can imagine that truncating an axis in a graphic, as described in a study by Yang et al. (2020) can be a mistake. Especially because, when creating a graph, sometimes the default option of a computer program is already misleading. No one will notice that this is the case until you are made aware of it, right? However, in the case of visualized propaganda, which is meant to manipulate, can this also happen by mistake? Or is the distinction Cairo makes not applicable to this form of a misleading visual, and is it always on purpose?

References

9 thoughts on “Misleading visualizations go way back!

  1. I think it’s an interesting blog post and it’s fun to read how you connect the misleading data visualization hundreds of years ago in comparision to now. Your blog post shows that this is not a ‘problem’ of our time, but that it has been going on for much longer.

    I think that propaganda, which is meant to manipulate, can this also happen by mistake because people always can make a mistake and the possibilty of a mistake is always there. But most of the time it is meant to misleadI think, because people want to make themselves appear better than the rest through propaganda. And with a misleading graph for example this can happen. I think misleading the people through propaganda is most of the time on purpose.

    Like

  2. You made a really interesting connection in your blog between misleading data visualizations and propaganda even in history. In my secondary school, I took an art history class so I found it very interesting to look at the painting with the concepts from the articles in mind.

    As far as your concluding remark, I agree with Jasper’s comment in the sense that I think misleading happens intentionally most of the time. At least from governmental institutions, I would expect that they are very considerate in publishing information (and the data visualizations). However, I do believe that on a smaller scale, individuals make a lot of mistakes as they are not trained to be critical and interpret data visualizations. So in that sense, I think that still propaganda can spread very easily and become stigmatized knowledge even though the spread was maybe unintentional.

    Like

  3. Super cool to read about how you refer to the history of misleading information! I also think the article really makes the reader think, at least that worked for me 🙂

    Throughout the blogpost, I kept thinking about modern personal ‘propaganda’. The importance of personal branding has skyrocketed, and many trainings are given about how to ‘brand’ yourself on Social Media. I think for professionals LinkedIn is such a place where people try to come across as the best version of themselves, leaving out many vulnerabilities. Interesting to link that to historical figures.

    Like

  4. Hi Marielle,

    Very interesting blog! This is the most creative subject about misleading visualizations that I’ve read today.

    Funny to read that the external display was already manipulated in the 17th century. I immediately though, that this still happens now, but in a different form on social media just like Tim. I really do not think that visualized propaganda can happen by mistake. Before publishing content, articles written by journalists would be checked against possible mistakes to prevent spreading misinformation. I would say that potential propaganda coming from governments that do not have the intentions to spread propaganda will therefore be filtered and adjusted.

    Like

  5. I liked your blog! Your writing style was encouraging me to keep attention to your story. I found it interesting (and surprising) to read that visualized data were already manipulated in the 17th century! Now, we know for sure that misleading data (visualizations) does not have anything to do with time.

    I think that visualized propaganda’s are mostly manipulated for the main reason stated in your blog: “By using such visualizations, he manipulates people’s cognitions and let them believe that he was the most powerful person”. I cannot state it more clearly.

    However, there is always a chance that data (visualisations) are not manipulated on purpose. Because, as said earlier in the comments, people do make mistakes. Unfortunately, we would never know this for sure.

    Like

  6. Just like everyone who commented before me, I love the connection made to 17th century visualizations, very original! (pun intended)

    I believe that visualized propaganda cannot be misleading by mistake, because if something is not presenting information in a certain way to shape how it is interpreted, it is by definition not propaganda. Propaganda always has a goal, and always wants you to interpret the information in a certain way. If this deception happens by mistake, it would still be misleading, but not propaganda.

    However, this does need to be nuanced a bit, since I believe almost every visualization is some form of propaganda. Every visualization is made with a certain goal in mind, otherwise it wouldn’t have been made. They are also always made by someone with a certain perspective, which means not everyone will look at it from the same point of view. Most of the time this is harmless, and the maker tries to be as objective and informative as possible, but I still see that as some form of propaganda.

    Like

  7. Love the insight into the history of misleading visualizations! I wonder if the distinction made by Cairo (2015), between a lie and a mistake, can also be made that harshly for the propoganda by Louis XIV, or images in general. Especially if you take the example of the painting: it is definitely on purpose, but is it really a lie? It’s similar to photography nowadays in which the rule of thirds is used to make a more interesting image. I wouldn’t say it is lying, but it can definitely put more emphasis on a certain subject and therefore influence us.

    Like

  8. Hi Marielle,

    Very interesting topic! You really took a different approach than other students, because you incorporated history in your blog post. This made it a lot of fun to read, with a lot of new information. I found the example of the Sun King especially very strong. Louis XIV’s nickname makes it seem like he is the most powerful man on earth. Nicknames can be misleading because their origin is not always clear.

    In addition, I think it is very difficult to estimate what a mistake is and what on purpose. Especially when it concerns subjects where you do not have much general knowledge of. For example, I didn’t know anything about Louis XIV yet, so it is difficult to estimate what is true and what is not.

    Like

  9. Hi Mariëlle,

    Like the above comments, I also really liked your creative writing style and thinking. Connecting the misleading adaptations of paintings with misleading data visualization is very interesting.
    To come back to your questions, the definition of propaganda already contains the answer, namely that it is deliberate and conscious. So in my opinion, propaganda happening by mistake is not possible. I think by using propaganda, there is always a goal to reach and in mind.
    It would be interesting to dive deeper in this subject, and find out if this is actually the case. Maybe there are examples in which propaganda was used unintentionally!

    Like

Leave a comment