Menus Subscribe Search

Book Reviews

data-set

(Photo: Joe Baker)

Through a Data Set, Darkly

• January 08, 2014 • 6:00 AM

(Photo: Joe Baker)

Is quantitative analysis the secret to understanding culture?

What to do with all this data? There’s now so much digital information being produced (about a terabyte per capita per year worldwide) that a major industry has arisen in response, promising to mine it for insight. A widely cited paper published in 2011 by the World Economic Forum and Bain & Company called personal data “the new oil.” According to its many boosters, Big Data—the neologism refers both to the bounty of information and to its analysis—is on the cusp of revolutionizing health care, scientific research, education, insurance, public health, energy policy, and national security.

The humanities are also jumping on the Big Data train. With museum archives, ancient manuscripts, and whole libraries being digitized, some researchers argue that data analysis will let studies of culture finally claim some of the empirical certainty traditionally associated with “hard” sciences like chemistry and physics. In their new book, Uncharted: Big Data as a Lens on Human Culture, Erez Aiden, a mathematician and geneticist, and Jean-Baptiste Michel, a data scientist, echo that argument, expressing total confidence that “Big data is going to change the humanities, transform the social sciences, and renegotiate the relationship between the world of commerce and the ivory tower.” Access to unprecedented amounts of information, they contend, will give rise to “culturomics,” a new form of cultural history that wrings its insights from sophisticated data analysis.

uncharted_bookThe main culturomic tool Aiden and Michel discuss is one they invented themselves: the Google Ngram Viewer, which lets users search a selection of the enormous Google Books archive for incidences of words over time. Type in a word and you get a handsome chart ostensibly showing how that word rose or fell in popularity through the years. When Ngram launched in 2010, it received millions of hits in its first 24 hours online, was covered on the front page of The New York Times, and was heralded as a fun—and potentially revolutionary—tool for exploring lexicographic history.

Aiden and Michel are enamored of their creation; just as the telescope helped us unlock the secrets of the night sky, they write, Ngram will help us unlock the secrets of culture. In their enthusiasm, however, they gloss over some of the program’s practical limitations. Early in Uncharted, they admit that Ngram’s data set, drawn from more than five million books published in seven languages between 1500 and 2000, is far from perfect. For starters, it uses only a small fraction of the Google Books reservoir of 30 million titles; major swathes remain inaccessible because of copyright concerns. (Plus, about 100 million books remain undigitized, according to Google’s estimate.) But after some early mentions, these shortcomings hardly come up again, as if merely acknowledging their existence solved them for good.

Attempting to showcase the exciting potential of culturomics, the authors use Ngram to detect when certain words and phrases replaced others (when, for example, World War I became more popular than the Great War); when certain irregular verbs (burnt) became regularized (burned); and when notable personalities’ fame waxed and waned. Combining Ngram charts with a potted history of Nazi censorship, they try to show how Jewish artists like Marc Chagall were briefly erased from history.

These are interesting observations, but too often, even the findings cherry-picked by Ngram’s creators are inconclusive or merely confirm things we already know. Dictators get written about a lot. Hollywood fame is typically fleeting. Charles Dickens helped popularize the greeting Merry Christmas. And some of the observations are just meaningless: At one point, we learn, the term Bill Clinton appeared almost as frequently as lettuce.

Aiden and Michel also fail to ask some basic questions about their own methods. Ngram counts the number of books in which a term was used, but it doesn’t consider the context in which the term was used within an individual book, nor how widely a book was read. And what about the influence of other media—television, film, radio, newspapers—in word usage?

Perhaps the most serious problem with Uncharted is that, like many Big Data enterprises, it introduces numerous correlations without illuminating much about their causes. Aiden and Michel come up with some evocative results, but then barely dig beneath the topsoil for explanations. When a causal mechanism isn’t immediately apparent, they’re far too willing to chalk it up to the mysteries of a still-developing field— something to be solved by the Ngram’s descendants—rather than their own limited curiosity or unwillingness to engage with “traditional” history.

A prime example can be found in their treatment of a finding about the persistence of calendar years in public consciousness. 1872, they tell us, was a big deal in 1872, but steadily declined in mentions thereafter. Same for 1873, and so on. Hopping forward a century, Aiden and Michel notice a change. Starting in 1973, it appears that “the half-life of collective forgetting” began to decrease. Years, and their histories, seemed to start disappearing faster from public memory.

“What caused that change?” Aiden and Michel ask. It’s a potentially fascinating question, and one that probably couldn’t have been posed without Big Data’s help. But in addition to ignoring the possible flaws in their sample, Aiden and Michel ignore history itself. The fact is, 1973 was a momentous year: the Yom Kippur War started (and ended), the United States began its pullout from Vietnam, Salvador Allende was overthrown, and the Watergate investigation was plastered across newspapers’ front pages. But it also came early in the era of satellite news, cable TV, and personal computing. Surely these factors had some effect on how history was written and published; perhaps the flowering of real-time, televised reporting came at the expense of longer, book-length treatments of history. But Aiden and Michel mention none of these events—nor anything else from 1973. “We don’t know,” they write. “For now, all we have are the naked correlations. … It may be some time before we figure out the underlying mechanisms.”

Uncharted ends on a note of intense optimism, with its authors looking beyond Google Books to the “tidal wave of data that will soon break over the social sciences.” After all, we are all data producers now—you and I and everyone we know. Aiden and Michel suggest that culturomics—armed with information from our tweets, Facebook updates, and perhaps devices that will record “every sensory experience, every beat of our heart, every rumble in our stomach, and even every thought that crosses our mind”—could make it possible to foresee the future of civilization.

That’s a lofty endnote for a thin book whose specific conclusions are limited and not particularly surprising. But this is typical of arguments on behalf of Big Data, which are prone to overstatement. The media scholars Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford convincingly argued in a 2011 paper that Big Data “encourages the practice of apophenia: seeing patterns where none actually exist.” The lure of deeper patterns leads almost invariably to the collection of more data. Or, as General Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, put it recently, regarding widespread government surveillance of citizens: “You need the haystack to find the needle.”

In academia, overenthusiasm for suggestive correlations makes for shoddy scholarship. Out in the wider world, it affects lives, as when the government puts you on a no-fly list because the latest algorithm says your digital profile resembles that of a terrorist, or when a mortgage company denies you a loan based on patterns in your social media presence. Uncharted is, unwittingly, a cautionary tale for Big Data enthusiasts of all stripes. In their rush to inaugurate a powerful new discipline, Aiden and Michel overlook the fact that digital data and computer code are human inventions, incorporating human error, biases, and modes of thought—the stuff of history.


This post originally appeared in the January/February 2014 issue of Pacific Standard as “Through a Data Set, Darkly.” For more, consider subscribing to our bimonthly print magazine.

Jacob Silverman
Jacob Silverman is writing a book about social media and digital culture, which will be published by HarperCollins later this year.

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

August 20 • 2:00 PM

Oil and Gas Companies Are Illegally Using Diesel Fuel in Hundreds of Fracking Operations

An analysis by an environmental group finds hundreds of cases in which drillers used diesel fuel without obtaining permits and sometimes altered records disclosing they had done so.


August 20 • 12:00 PM

The Mystery of Britain’s Alien Big Cats

In a nation where the biggest carnivorous predator is a badger, why are there so many reported sightings of large cats?


August 20 • 10:00 AM

Death Row in Arizona: Where Human Experimentation Is the Rule, Not the Exception

Recent reports show that chemical roulette is the state’s M.O.


August 20 • 9:51 AM

Diversity Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Perception of group diversity depends on the race of the observer and the extent to which they worry about discrimination.


August 20 • 8:40 AM

Psychopathic or Just Antisocial? A Key Brain Difference Tells the Tale

Though psychopaths and antisocial people may seem similar, what occurs in their brains isn’t.


August 20 • 8:00 AM

What the Cost of Raising a Child in America Tells Us About Income Inequality

You’ll spend nearly a quarter of a million dollars to raise a kid in the United States, or about five times the annual median income.


August 20 • 6:00 AM

In Praise of ‘American Greed’

While it remains semi-hidden on CNBC and can’t claim the car chases of Cops, American Greed—now with eight seasons in the books—has proven itself a worthy endeavor.


August 20 • 4:00 AM

Of Course I Behaved Like a Jerk, I Was Just Watching ‘Jersey Shore’

Researchers find watching certain types of reality TV can make viewers more aggressive.


August 20 • 2:00 AM

Concluding Remarks About Housing Affordability and Supply Restricitions

Demand, not supply, plays the dominant role in explaining the housing affordability crisis. The wages are just too damn low.


August 19 • 4:00 PM

Can Lawmakers Only Make Laws That Corporations Allow?

There’s a telling detail in a recent story about efforts to close loopholes in corporate tax laws.




August 19 • 12:00 PM

How ‘Contagion’ Became Contagious

Do ideas and emotions really spread like a virus?


August 19 • 10:00 AM

Child Refugees: The New Barbarians

The disturbing rhetoric around the recent rise in child refugees into the United States from Central America may be shaping popular opinion on upcoming immigration reform.


August 19 • 8:00 AM

Making Police Departments More Diverse Isn’t Enough

Local police departments should reflect the communities they serve, but fixing that alone won’t curb unnecessary violence.


August 19 • 7:15 AM

Common Knowledge Makes Us More Cooperative

People are more inclined to take mutually beneficial risks if they know what others know.


August 19 • 6:00 AM

Seeking a Healthy Public School Lunch? Good Luck

Mystery meat will always win.


August 19 • 4:00 AM

The Positive Effects of Sports-Themed Video Games

New research finds sports-themed video games actually encourage some kids to get onto the field.


August 19 • 1:00 AM

DIY Diagnosis: How an Extreme Athlete Uncovered Her Genetic Flaw

When Kim Goodsell discovered that she had two extremely rare genetic diseases, she taught herself genetics to help find out why.



August 18 • 3:30 PM

Mister Rogers’ Heart-Healthy Neighborhood

Researchers find living in a friendly, cohesive neighborhood lowers seniors’ chances of having a heart attack.


August 18 • 2:00 PM

Wealth or Good Parenting?

Framing the privileges of the rich.


August 18 • 12:00 PM

How Much Did the Stigma of Mental Illness Harm Robin Williams?

Addiction treatment routinely fails people with mental illnesses, while mental health care often ignores addiction. And everywhere, stigma is rife. Can a tragic death prompt a more intelligent approach?


August 18 • 10:00 AM

Punished for Being Poor: The Problem With Using Big Data in the Justice System

Correctional departments use data-driven analyses because they’re easier and cheaper than individual assessments. But at what cost?


August 18 • 8:00 AM

What Americans Can Learn From a Vial of Tibetan Spit

Living high in the mountains for thousands of years, Tibetans have developed distinct biological traits that could benefit all of us, but translating medical science across cultures is always a tricky business.


Follow us


Diversity Is in the Eye of the Beholder

Perception of group diversity depends on the race of the observer and the extent to which they worry about discrimination.

Psychopathic or Just Antisocial? A Key Brain Difference Tells the Tale

Though psychopaths and antisocial people may seem similar, what occurs in their brains isn’t.

Common Knowledge Makes Us More Cooperative

People are more inclined to take mutually beneficial risks if they know what others know.

How a Shift in Human Head Shape Changed Everything

When did homo sapiens become a more sophisticated species? Not until our skulls underwent "feminization."

Journalists Can Get PTSD Without Leaving Their Desks

Dealing with violent content takes a heavy toll on some reporters.

The Big One

One in two full-time American fast-food workers' families are enrolled in public assistance programs, at a cost of $7 billion per year. July/August 2014 fast-food-big-one
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.