Book Notes #65: Factfulness by Hans Rosling

Title: Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World–and Why Things Are Better Than You Think
Author: Hans Rosling
Year: 2018
Pages: 352

Factfulness is one of the books that I recommend the most to people when they ask me about “what to read next?”

Welcome to the world of Factfulness, a book that will challenge the way you think about the world and transform the way you understand global issues. 

With a compelling narrative and eye-opening insights, Factfulness by Hans Rosling, Ola Rosling, and Anna Rosling Rönnlund, will take you on a journey through the myths and misconceptions that shape our perception of the world, and provide you with a refreshing dose of clarity and fact-based knowledge. 

So, if you’re ready to challenge your assumptions, and embrace a more accurate and optimistic view of the world, then buckle up and get ready for an exciting adventure with Factfulness!

As a result, I gave this book a rating of 10/10.

For me, a book with a note 10 is one I consider reading again every year. Among the books I rank with 10, for example, is Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People.

3 Reasons to Read Factfulness

Book Overview

Imagine hearing that nearly 90% of one-year-olds today are vaccinated against at least one disease.

Surprised?

You’re not alone.

In fact, if you were to ask most people—from students to CEOs to doctors—you’d find that their guesses are wildly off.

Not just by a little, but by a lot. That’s the world Factfulness drops you into: one where our worldview is consistently wrong, and often, dramatically worse than reality.

Hans Rosling, with the help of his son Ola and daughter-in-law Anna, sets out not to shame us for our ignorance, but to explain it.

He gently, and sometimes hilariously, walks us through the mental shortcuts that make us see the world in black and white, rich and poor, safe and dangerous.

These shortcuts—what he calls “instincts”—aren’t flaws in character, they’re simply the way our brains try to make sense of complexity.

But the problem is, they’re outdated. They were built for a world of lions in the bush and tribal boundaries, not global data sets and long-term trends.

Take the gap instinct, for example. It’s our urge to divide the world into two camps: developed vs. developing, us vs. them.

Rosling argues that this model is not only obsolete, it’s harmful. Most of the world’s population doesn’t live in extreme poverty or extreme wealth—they’re somewhere in the middle.

Four income levels, not two, tell a far more accurate story. And yet, our brains cling to that binary divide because it’s simple, dramatic, and easier to remember.

That same pull toward drama shows up in our negativity instinct. We’re drawn to bad news like moths to a flame. Even when global child mortality has plummeted and literacy has surged, we assume everything’s getting worse.

It’s not that the world is perfect—far from it—but when we only hear about what’s broken, we lose sight of what’s improving.

Rosling isn’t asking us to ignore problems—he’s asking us to see progress where it exists, so we can build on it rather than despair.

What makes Factfulness so engaging is that Rosling doesn’t just present facts.

He tells stories. Sometimes it’s his childhood memory of almost drowning in sewage water in Sweden. Other times it’s working as a doctor in Mozambique or navigating a machete-wielding crowd in a Congolese village.

These moments bring his points to life. They’re not just colorful anecdotes—they’re windows into how fear, urgency, or blame can cloud even the best intentions.

One of the most eye-opening chapters challenges the idea of destiny. It’s easy to believe that some countries or cultures are simply stuck—too poor, too corrupt, too traditional to change.

But Rosling dismantles that view with data and perspective. Countries that were once written off, like South Korea or Vietnam, have transformed within decades. What looks like destiny is often just a delayed curve of progress.

Another powerful insight comes from what he calls the single perspective instinct. We love one-solution explanations—whether it’s free markets, education, or technology.

But real problems need real-world nuance. Rosling reminds us that the world is not a nail, and we need more than a hammer to fix it.

Sometimes, the right solution isn’t sexy—it’s a better road, a new pricing model, or a nurse in the right place.

Perhaps the most moving part of the book comes near the end, when Rosling shifts from global analysis to a quiet kind of personal wisdom. He talks about humility and curiosity—not as abstract values, but as practical tools.

When we admit what we don’t know, we open the door to learning.

When we stay curious instead of jumping to conclusions, we see patterns others miss.

These aren’t just good habits—they’re survival skills in a noisy world.

So why does this book matter?

Because it changes how you see everything—from news headlines to workplace decisions to conversations with friends.

It doesn’t just teach you about the world—it helps you understand why your brain keeps tricking you, and how to push back.

After reading Factfulness, you start to notice your own instincts kicking in. You hear a statistic and wonder: compared to what?

You see a scary headline and think: is this the exception or the trend? You feel the urge to panic—and instead, you pause.

Factfulness isn’t about becoming a cold, analytical robot. It’s about being more human—more aware, more grounded, and more connected to reality. It doesn’t ask you to memorize numbers.

It asks you to ask better questions. To replace outdated mental pictures with current, fact-based ones.

And maybe most of all, to believe that the world, while far from perfect, is getting better—and that progress deserves our attention just as much as problems do.

The book is structured around ten “instincts” or cognitive biases that humans have, which often lead us to have a distorted and inaccurate view of the world.

These instincts include a tendency to divide the world into two categories, an inclination to fear things that have recently happened, and a tendency to assume that things will continue to be as they have always been.

The Gap Instinct: Our tendency is to divide things into two distinct and often conflicting groups with an imagined gap between them (e.g. us and them).

Factfulness is… recognizing when a story talks about a gap, and remembering that this paints a picture of two separate groups, with a gap in between. This reality is often not polarized at all. Usually, the majority is right there in the middle, where the gap is supposed to be.

The Negativity Instinct: Our tendency is to notice the bad more than the good (e.g. believing that things are getting worse when things are actually getting better).

Factfulness is… recognizing when we get negative news, and remembering what information about bad events is much more likely to reach us. When things are getting better we often don’t hear about them. This gives us a systematically too-negative impression of the world around us, which is very stressful.

The Straight Line Instinct: Our tendency is to assume that a line will just continue straight and ignore that such lines are rare in reality.

Factfulness is… recognizing the assumption that a line will just continue straight, and remembering that such lines are rare in reality.

The Fear Instinct: Our hardwired tendency to pay more attention to frightening things.

Fearfulness is… recognizing when frightening things get our attention, and remembering that these are not necessarily the riskiest. Our natural fears of violence, captivity, and contamination make us systematically overestimate these risks.

The Size Instinct: Our tendency to get things out of proportion, or misjudge the size of things (e.g. we systematically overestimate the proportions of immigrants in our countries.)

Factfulness is… recognizing when a lonely number seems impressive (small or large), and remembering that you could get the opposite impression if it were compared with or divided by some other relevant number.

The Generalization Instinct: Our tendency is to mistakenly group together things or people, or countries that are actually very different.

Factfulness is… recognizing when a category is being used in an explanation, and remembering that categories can be misleading. We can’t stop generalization and we shouldn’t even try. What we should try to avoid is generalizing incorrectly.

The Destiny Instinct: The idea is that innate characteristics determine the destinies of people, countries, religions, or cultures; that things are as they are because of inescapable reasons.

Factfulness is… recognizing that many things (including people, countries, religions, and cultures) appear to be constant just because the change is happening slowly, and remembering that even small, slow changes gradually add up to big changes.

The Single Perspective: Our tendency is to focus on a single cause or perspective when it comes to understanding the world (e.g. forming your worldview by relying on the media, alone).

Factfulness is… recognizing that a single perspective can limit your imagination, and remembering that it is better to look at problems from many angles to get a more accurate understanding and find practical solutions.

The Blame Instinct: Our tendency is to find a clear, simple reason for why something bad has happened.

Factfulness is… recognizing when a scapegoat is being used and remembering that blaming an individual often steals the focus from other explanations and blocks our ability to prevent similar problems in the future.

The Urgency Instinct: Our tendency to take immediate action in the face of perceived imminent danger, and in doing so, amplify our other instincts.

Fearfulness is… recognizing when a decision feels urgent and remembering that it rarely is.

A lot of important and real instincts, right?

They use data and statistics to illustrate how the world has changed over the years, and how these changes have led to an overall improvement in the quality of life for people all over the world.

It’s not a feel-good book. It’s a feel-clear book. And that, it turns out, might be exactly what we need.

Chapter by Chapter

Chapter 1 – The Gap Instinct

Where it all began: one classroom and a data surprise
Hans Rosling takes us back to a classroom in 1995, where a simple question about child mortality opens a deeper conversation about how we see the world. Most students assumed countries like Saudi Arabia and Malaysia had high child death rates. But the data proved otherwise—these countries had made massive improvements over the decades. And yet, even with the facts in front of them, the students couldn’t believe it. Why? Because they had a mental picture of the world that didn’t match reality.

The powerful trap of “us” and “them”
This moment led Rosling to identify what he calls the gap instinct—our habit of dividing the world into two groups: the rich and the poor, the developed and the developing, the West and the rest. It’s a simple story, and that’s why it’s so sticky. But this oversimplified division creates a completely distorted view of global progress. In reality, most countries and people are not on either extreme. They’re in the middle. The idea of a massive gap between “us” and “them” just doesn’t hold up when we look at the numbers.

Debunking the myth with real data
To challenge the gap instinct, Rosling used graphs, bubble charts, and clear data over the years. At first, he used old-school photocopies; later, with help from his son Ola and daughter-in-law Anna, they created animated charts that made the trends undeniable. One of the biggest insights came from a graph comparing fertility rates with child survival rates across countries. Back in 1965, countries fit into two clear boxes: high child death and many children vs. low child death and few children. But that was 1965. Today, most countries are in the same box: smaller families and high child survival. The world has changed—but our mental model hasn’t.

Most people live in the middle
Rosling explains that only 9% of people live in what we call low-income countries. And yet, when asked, people often guess that it’s closer to 50%. The truth is that the majority of the world—about 75%—lives in middle-income countries. Not poor, not rich, but somewhere in between. These people have access to things like electricity, education, vaccines, and clean water. The world isn’t divided between two extremes. There’s a wide range, and most people fall into it.

A better way to understand the world: the four income levels
Instead of splitting the world in two, Rosling proposes a much more useful way to look at it: four income levels.

• Level 1 is extreme poverty—around $1 a day, no running water, and barely enough food.
• Level 2 offers some security—maybe a bike, a stove, and food variety.
• Level 3 means you might own a fridge or a motorbike, and life is more stable.
• Level 4 is where most of us reading this book are—cars, hot showers, and the ability to plan vacations.
  This framework gives a clearer picture of how people actually live, helping us avoid assumptions based on outdated labels.

Why the gap instinct is so hard to shake
So why do we still cling to the idea of a divided world? Rosling believes it’s because our brains love simple categories. We crave drama, and “us vs. them” makes for a powerful story. The media often reinforces this by showing extreme poverty or extreme wealth, skipping over the billions living normal, steady lives in the middle. This tendency to focus on averages or extremes makes us miss the full picture.

The view from the top distorts reality
Another reason the gap instinct sticks is because people on Level 4—those with more comfortable lives—have a hard time seeing the differences between Levels 1, 2, and 3. From up high, everything below looks “poor.” But for someone going from walking barefoot to owning a bike, that’s a massive leap. Rosling emphasizes that we must learn to see those differences. It’s not about rich and poor. It’s about context, nuance, and reality.

Replacing old mental models with better tools
The chapter ends with an important reminder: we can’t just tell people they’re wrong. We have to give them a better way to think. That’s what the four income levels do. They offer a simple but more accurate mental model for understanding the world. The goal isn’t just to correct people—it’s to replace outdated ideas with clearer ones grounded in data.

Factfulness in action
To think factfully, we need to be careful when someone talks about a “gap” between two groups. Instead of falling for dramatic stories or oversimplified categories, we should always look for the majority—that often invisible middle where most people actually are.

Chapter 2 – The Negativity Instinct

Why we think the world is worse than it really is
Hans Rosling starts this chapter with a powerful memory—nearly drowning in a sewage ditch as a child. It’s an emotional opening, but it also serves as a metaphor. Just like that young boy who couldn’t breathe, many of us feel overwhelmed by the dark and messy state of the world. The difference is: Rosling was pulled out and saw things more clearly. This chapter is about helping us do the same.

The negativity instinct is our tendency to focus on bad news more than good news. It’s a mental shortcut that once helped us survive, but now gives us a warped view of reality. According to Rosling, this instinct fuels the widespread belief that the world is getting worse. But that belief doesn’t hold up when we look at the data.

The myth that “everything is getting worse”
Yes, there are serious global problems—war, terrorism, climate change, economic instability. Rosling acknowledges them head-on. But he also makes a striking point: the biggest problem may be our lack of knowledge about how much the world has actually improved. When people across 30 countries were asked whether the world is getting better, worse, or staying the same, the majority said worse. And yet, in area after area—poverty, health, education—the world is in far better shape than it used to be.

The miracle we don’t notice: progress without headlines
Rosling says statistics can act like therapy. They reveal a world that’s quietly getting better, even if it doesn’t make the news. Take extreme poverty. Just 20 years ago, 29% of the world lived in it. Today, it’s 9%. That’s millions of people moving up to better living conditions—but hardly anyone knows this. Life expectancy tells a similar story. In 1800, it was 30 years worldwide. Today, it’s over 70. These aren’t small shifts—they’re massive improvements that get lost in the daily noise.

Sweden’s journey—and why it matters
To show what real progress looks like, Rosling walks us through the story of Sweden, his home country. In 1948, the year he was born, Sweden was like Egypt is today. His grandmother’s generation lived in conditions similar to today’s Lesotho. And his great-grandmother? Her Sweden resembled present-day Afghanistan. These comparisons show how far even wealthy countries have come in just a few generations—and how misleading it is to compare today’s Level 1 countries to modern-day Level 4 societies without recognizing this timeline.

Bad things are decreasing, but we don’t see it
The chapter also includes an eye-opening list of 16 things that are getting better and 16 things that are getting worse. From falling child mortality and shrinking oil spills to rising literacy and democratic participation, the improvements are clear. But most people don’t see them. Why? Because good news doesn’t sell. It’s gradual, often quiet, and not dramatic enough to become headlines. Meanwhile, bad news is immediate, emotional, and everywhere.

The danger of looking only at what’s wrong
Rosling doesn’t deny that real problems exist. He’s not asking us to ignore them. What he warns against is losing hope. When people wrongly believe the world is getting worse, they can stop believing in solutions that are already working. This is especially dangerous in areas like girls’ education. We’ve made incredible progress—90% of girls now attend primary school—but if we believe everything’s still broken, we risk abandoning the very efforts that helped us get this far.

How our memories and the media shape our fear
Part of the problem is how we remember the past. Rosling shows that people forget just how hard life was a few decades ago. Even those who lived it often romanticize their childhoods. In rural India, villagers couldn’t believe old photos from the 1970s were taken in their own neighborhood—so much had changed, but they had forgotten. At the same time, we’re bombarded with stories of disaster, crisis, and decline. The media gives us a stream of the worst moments from around the globe, creating the illusion that suffering is everywhere, all the time.

Bad and better can exist at the same time
One of the most important points in this chapter is that things can be bad and getting better at the same time. Rosling uses the image of a premature baby in an incubator: the baby is still in danger, but she’s improving. Saying that the baby’s health is getting better doesn’t mean she’s fine—it means we’re moving in the right direction. The same goes for the world. It’s far from perfect, but progress is happening. We don’t need to choose between “everything is bad” and “everything is fine.” We can hold both ideas at once.

Expect bad news—but don’t be fooled by it
Rosling offers a few mental tools to fight the negativity instinct. First, we need to expect bad news. The media and activists will always emphasize what’s wrong—it’s how they get attention. But that doesn’t mean the world is falling apart. Second, we should ask ourselves: if something equally good had happened, would we have heard about it? Probably not. So we have to actively look for good news—because it won’t come looking for us.

Gratitude, perspective, and the long view
The chapter ends with Rosling reflecting on his own life. From a ditch in working-class Sweden to a global stage, his journey was only possible because of collective progress: public education, healthcare, and social safety nets. He reminds us that the improvements we see today in many countries are the same improvements his own society once fought for—and achieved. That’s what gives him hope, and that’s what he wants us to see too.

Chapter 3 – The Straight Line Instinct

The danger of assuming lines always go up
Hans Rosling opens this chapter with one of the scariest moments of his career: looking at a graph of Ebola cases in 2014. At first glance, the numbers looked like a simple rise, but then he realized—it wasn’t a straight line at all. It was a doubling curve. Cases were multiplying rapidly, and every delay meant double the impact. This misjudgment, caused by assuming a straight upward trend, delayed not just his reaction, but the world’s. That’s the heart of this chapter: the instinct to believe that trends—especially bad ones—just keep going in a straight line.

The population panic: more people, more problems?
One of the most common places we see the straight line instinct is in discussions about global population. Rosling notes that at almost every sustainability event he attends, people seem sure that the world population is exploding out of control. And it’s true—the number of people is rising. But the idea that it will just keep rising forever is wrong. That little word “just” hides a dangerous assumption: that nothing will stop the growth unless drastic measures are taken. But if we look closer, the data tells a different story.

Most people have no idea what’s really happening
Rosling shares a striking example from a teachers’ conference in Norway. He asked how many children would be in the world by 2100. Only 9% got the answer right. It turns out, most people—teachers, professionals, even experts—think the number of children will keep rising. But the United Nations projects that the number of children will stay flat at 2 billion. Yes, the total population will grow, but not because more kids are being born. It’s because the kids already born will grow up. This is called the “fill-up effect,” and it’s a subtle but powerful concept that most people miss.

Why the world won’t keep growing forever
So if births have already stopped increasing, why does population keep growing? The answer is simple: momentum. The 2 billion children alive today will become 2 billion adults. Then they’ll age into older groups. This will continue for a few generations, but after that, each generation will replace itself. No explosion. No endless climb. The steep rise we see in past population graphs is already flattening out. And that’s not based on guesswork—it’s grounded in real trends around birth rates and family size.

The global shift: from big families to smaller, healthier ones
Rosling points out that in 1948, women had an average of five children. But today, the global average has dropped to just below 2.5. That’s a massive change, and it’s tied to progress. As countries move out of extreme poverty, families have fewer children. Parents no longer need many kids to survive or work on farms. They want fewer, healthier, better-educated children. And thanks to education, access to contraception, and improved healthcare, they can make that choice.

More survivors means fewer people in the long run
Here’s the twist that shocks many: saving children’s lives actually slows population growth. It seems counterintuitive, but when more children survive, parents naturally choose to have fewer. Rosling pushes back hard on the idea that improving child survival will cause overpopulation. He shares how some people—even well-meaning ones—argue against saving lives for fear of population growth. But the data shows the opposite: ending extreme poverty and reducing child mortality is what leads to smaller families. In fact, it’s the only proven way.

A better balance: not dying to stay in balance
For most of human history, we had a grim “balance” with nature—families had many children because most would die young. Today, the balance is different. It’s not based on death, but on survival. Parents have fewer children because they know they’ll live. It’s a beautiful and historic shift. And it means that the world is approaching a new, sustainable population balance—not through control or fear, but through education, health, and opportunity.

Why the straight line instinct keeps fooling us
Our brains are wired to expect straight lines. We do it instinctively. If something is growing, we assume it will keep growing at the same rate. Rosling uses a funny example: his grandson Mino. At birth, Mino grew several inches in just a few months. If that growth continued in a straight line, he’d be a five-foot toddler and a 13-foot pre-teen. That sounds silly—but that’s exactly the kind of thinking we apply to population trends and other global issues.

There’s more than one shape to a curve
The world doesn’t follow neat, straight lines. Rosling walks us through different types of curves that we often confuse with straight trends. Some are S-shaped, like access to vaccines—slow to start, then rapid, then flat once universal. Others are slides, like birth rates—they drop as countries get richer and then stabilize. Some are humps, like car accidents, which spike in mid-income countries and then drop. And of course, there’s doubling curves, like we saw with Ebola. If we assume a straight line when the reality is a hump or an S-curve, we risk misunderstanding everything.

In the end, context is everything
A big message from this chapter is that we often judge global trends using only the part of the curve we can see. But if we zoom out, the shape becomes clearer—and very different. Assuming that any trend will continue just because it has so far is not only lazy thinking, it’s dangerous. Whether it’s population growth, child mortality, or public health, we need to understand the shape of the full curve before we draw conclusions.

Rosling’s message is simple but powerful: the world is full of curves—not straight lines. And if we want to make sense of the future, we have to stop assuming the trends of today will stretch out forever.

Chapter 4 – The Fear Instinct

How fear distorts our view of the world
Hans Rosling begins this chapter with a gripping personal story: a moment in 1975 when, as a young doctor, he mistakenly believed a Russian pilot had crash-landed in Sweden, triggering the start of World War III. In truth, the man was a Swedish pilot recovering from a cold-water crash, and the “blood” on the floor was just dye from a life jacket. But fear had hijacked Rosling’s thinking. He didn’t see what was there—he saw what he feared. That moment stayed with him, because it perfectly illustrated what this chapter is all about: fear is powerful, and it makes us see the world in distorted ways.

Why dramatic stories grab our attention
Rosling introduces the idea of an “attention filter”—a mental screen that protects us from being overwhelmed by the constant noise of the world. But this filter has holes shaped by our instincts, especially the fear instinct. Through those holes, only dramatic, emotional, or scary stories pass through. That’s why news headlines about terrorism, earthquakes, or shark attacks grab us, while quiet progress—like malaria rates falling—goes unnoticed. Our brains are wired to pay attention to potential danger, even if the danger isn’t actually that big.

Fear helped our ancestors—but it misguides us today
Fear was once a survival tool. Being afraid of snakes or dark caves helped keep early humans alive. Even today, on Levels 1 and 2, fear of real threats like wild animals or disease can be useful. But on Level 4, where most people live in relatively safe environments, these ancient instincts often misfire. They can cause phobias, panic, or just a constant sense of unease that doesn’t match reality.

Rosling shares the story of a midwife in rural Tanzania who said the one thing she really needed was a flashlight—to see snakes at night. Her fear was practical. But for people in comfortable cities, the fear of snakes—or even flying—usually has little to do with actual danger.

The media feeds our fear instinct—because we let it
Rosling makes a sharp point: it’s not just the media’s fault for always showing dramatic, scary stories. It’s also our fault for clicking on them. Journalists are simply responding to what grabs our attention. And what grabs attention is fear. Earthquakes and terror attacks make headlines, but slow, positive trends—like clean water reaching more villages—don’t. The result? We end up with a worldview that feels like everything is on fire, even when the data says otherwise.

Natural disasters aren’t deadlier—they’re just more visible
This part is especially eye-opening. Rosling walks us through the data on natural disasters. People assume these events are getting worse, but the truth is, deaths from natural disasters have decreased by over 90% in the last hundred years. Countries like Bangladesh, once devastated by floods, now have evacuation systems that save thousands of lives. Yet when an earthquake hits, the images flood our screens. The tragedy is real—but it’s no longer the norm. Our fear instinct just makes it feel like it is.

Flying is safer than ever—but you wouldn’t know it
Here’s a surprising stat: in 2016, there were 40 million commercial flights—and only 10 fatal accidents. That makes flying 2,100 times safer than it was 70 years ago. But the media never reports the 39,999,990 flights that landed safely. Instead, our minds get filled with the rare and dramatic crashes. As Rosling says, the fear instinct has erased 40 million non-crashes from our view. That’s the power of selective attention.

The world is more peaceful—but it doesn’t feel like it
Despite the conflicts we hear about, the world has actually become more peaceful over the decades. Rosling reminds us that we’re living through the longest period of peace between superpowers in human history. Even war deaths have dropped steadily. The Syrian conflict is devastating, yes—but compared to the wars of the 1980s and 1990s, it’s an outlier, not the rule. Still, because violent images dominate the news, it’s hard to feel that global violence is decreasing. But it is.

Fear of contamination leads to dangerous decisions
Fear doesn’t just distort perception—it can lead to bad choices. Rosling talks about nuclear disasters like Fukushima, where more people died from the fear and evacuation than from the radiation itself. He discusses DDT, a chemical once used to fight malaria. It was overused and then banned, but now, fear of it stops aid agencies from using it—even when it could save lives in refugee camps. In both cases, the fear of invisible substances became stronger than the actual risks, creating harm instead of preventing it.

Terrorism: scary, but rare
Few things trigger our fear instinct like terrorism. But here’s what the data shows: in 2016, terrorism caused 0.05% of global deaths. And most of those deaths happened in just five countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria. On Level 4, terrorism deaths are actually decreasing. Yet fear remains high. After 9/11, Americans believed their loved ones were at major risk—and they still do. But in the U.S., you’re 50 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a terrorist. The fear is real, but the danger is low.

Fear makes us focus on the wrong threats
Rosling ends the chapter with a strong message: fear hijacks our attention. It leads us to overreact to rare dangers and underreact to common ones. When we focus on what’s dramatic instead of what’s deadly, we waste resources, energy, and time. The fear instinct isn’t bad in itself—but we need to learn when to trust it and when to pause, take a breath, and look at the data.

In the face of tragedy, Rosling doesn’t suggest ignoring suffering. Quite the opposite—he says we must help, do everything we can. But once the immediate danger passes, we must return to a fact-based worldview. That’s how we’ll make better decisions—not driven by panic, but by truth.

Chapter 5 – The Size Instinct

Why we often get things out of proportion
Hans Rosling starts this chapter with a difficult memory from his time as a doctor in Mozambique. Faced with extreme poverty, he had to make impossible choices—treat one severely ill child with all available resources, or focus on broader, basic services that could save hundreds more. At the heart of that tension is what he calls the size instinct: our tendency to misjudge the importance of things, especially when we see big numbers or dramatic stories. We’re wired to be impressed by single numbers, without asking: compared to what?

The tragedy of visible victims vs. invisible lives
Rosling tells the story of a disagreement he had with a fellow doctor over treating a critically ill baby. His friend insisted that every possible effort must be made to save the child in front of them. Rosling disagreed—not out of coldness, but because he had done the math. That year, 3,900 children in the district would die. Only 52 of those deaths would happen in the hospital. He was seeing just 1.3% of the problem. If they wanted to save the most lives, they had to look beyond the hospital walls—into vaccination, nurse training, and community care. It was one of those moments when statistics and ethics collided—and Rosling chose the bigger picture.

How lonely numbers mislead us
The media and charities often throw around large, dramatic numbers—like 4.2 million babies dying in one year. It’s heartbreaking. But if you stop there, without asking how this number compares to the past, you might miss the real story. In 1950, that number was 14.4 million. So while 4.2 million is still far too high, it’s also the lowest it’s ever been. That’s progress. The size instinct makes us fixate on the big number in front of us, instead of noticing the huge difference made over time.

Bears get headlines. Domestic violence doesn’t.
Rosling illustrates this with a shocking example from Sweden. On one day in 2004, a woman was murdered by her ex-partner, and a man was killed by a bear. The bear attack made national headlines; the domestic murder barely got any coverage. But statistically, a woman is killed by her partner every 30 days in Sweden. A fatal bear attack? Once a century. That’s a 1,300-fold difference in frequency. The media fed the size instinct, and most people paid more attention to the rare, dramatic death than the far more common one.

Swine flu vs. tuberculosis: the distortion of attention
The same pattern plays out in global health. In one two-week period, 31 people died of swine flu and 253,000 news articles were published about it. In that same period, over 63,000 people died of tuberculosis—almost no media coverage. Rosling calculated that each swine flu death received 82,000 times more attention than each TB death. That’s the size instinct at work again—letting rare but dramatic events overshadow larger, ongoing issues that deserve more focus.

The 80/20 rule: a simple tool to see what matters most
To fight the size instinct, Rosling suggests using the 80/20 rule. In most systems, 20% of causes drive 80% of results. When reviewing aid projects, he always looked for the biggest items first. That’s how he caught major errors—like 4 million liters of baby formula mistakenly ordered for a refugee camp, or 20,000 testicular prostheses sent to a youth clinic. Often, just a few numbers account for most of the budget, the impact, or the risk. Focusing on those gives clarity.

Understanding global population with the “PIN code of the world”
Rosling explains that many people still don’t realize that the majority of the world lives in Asia. To help remember, he offers a simple mental shortcut: the current PIN code of the world is 1-1-1-4. That’s 1 billion in the Americas, 1 in Europe, 1 in Africa, and 4 in Asia. By the end of the century, the code will shift to 1-1-4-5, with Africa seeing the biggest growth. The size instinct often causes people to overestimate their own region’s importance and underestimate Asia and Africa, especially when thinking about markets, resources, and the future.

Why we need to divide to get the full picture
Another way to fight the size instinct is to divide numbers. Instead of looking at total carbon emissions, Rosling argues we should look at emissions per person. He tells the story of a debate at the World Economic Forum where a European minister blamed China and India for climate change based on their national totals. A dignified Indian expert stood up and said calmly, “From now on, we count carbon dioxide emission per person.” That one sentence changed the perspective entirely. Per capita data often reveals a completely different story—and a fairer one.

Global problems need perspective, not panic
Rosling wraps the chapter with a final reflection: when we hear that something terrible is happening “out there,” we need to remember that “out there” is the whole world, not just our neighborhood. Of course bad things happen more often out there—because “out there” is millions of places. But that doesn’t mean everywhere is dangerous. Without comparing and dividing, we’ll keep falling for the same dramatic distortions again and again.

In short, the size instinct can make the world look scarier, messier, and more hopeless than it is. But with two simple tools—comparing and dividing—we can bring it back into proportion and start seeing what really matters.

Chapter 6 – The Generalization Instinct

When a little lie avoids a big offense
Hans Rosling opens this chapter with a hilarious (and slightly stomach-turning) story from the Congo. After a long day interviewing villagers in a remote region, he and his colleague Thorkild were served a generous local meal—roasted rats and, for dessert, giant palm larvas. The rats weren’t bad, Rosling admits, but the larvae were too much for him. To politely avoid offending their hosts, he told a white lie: “In Sweden, we don’t eat larvas—it’s against our culture.” He pointed to Denmark on a map and claimed, with a straight face, that Danes love them. The villagers accepted it. Why? Because people everywhere understand that different tribes have different customs.

This moment introduces the idea that generalizing—creating mental categories for people, places, and things—is something we all do, and often unconsciously. It helps us navigate the world. But when these generalizations go unexamined, they can distort how we see reality.

Why generalization is useful—but also dangerous
Generalizing is a mental shortcut. It helps us speak, think, and function. Without categories, life would be chaos. But Rosling points out the trap: we often confuse a category with the full story. We assume everyone in a group is the same, or we judge the whole group by one example. The result? Misunderstandings, missed opportunities, and stereotypes.

The media, as Rosling says, is the generalization instinct’s best friend. It feeds us tidy labels—“gang member,” “super mom,” “rural poor”—that shape how we think, often without us even realizing it. These mental shortcuts may feel useful, but they block us from understanding complexity.

The cost of lumping people together
Rosling warns that when we lump billions of people into a vague “them” category, we create a mental block. He saw this clearly when he polled experts—including bankers, executives, and policymakers—on a simple question: “How many of the world’s 1-year-olds have been vaccinated against some disease?” Most said 20%. The correct answer? 88%. That massive gap revealed something deeper—many people in high-income countries still picture “the developing world” as if it’s stuck in the 1960s. They remember the worst images from the news and assume that’s still what life looks like for the majority.

Missing out on the real market
Rosling gives an eye-opening business example: sanitary pad manufacturers. Many Western companies focus their innovation on the 300 million Level 4 women who already have access to dozens of pad options. They dream up thinner, sleeker, designer pads for every outfit or activity—yoga, swimming, hiking. Meanwhile, they ignore the 2 billion women on Levels 2 and 3 who have a growing need for reliable, low-cost products. These are women working outside the home, often with unstable electricity and limited access to restrooms. Yet they’re overlooked because companies wrongly assume they’re “too poor” or “too different” to be customers.

It’s the same with other industries. If you think the world’s consumers only live on Level 4, you’re missing the biggest economic shift in history. The majority of the world is moving up the levels. If you don’t update your mental categories, Rosling argues, you risk missing your future customers entirely.

Traveling as a cure for lazy thinking
One of Rosling’s favorite ways to fight generalization is simple: travel. That’s why he brought his global health students to countries on Levels 1, 2, and 3. Many of them, despite being eager to “change the world,” had never stepped into an actual family home outside their comfort zone. They were shocked to find cities with working traffic lights, organized hospitals, and functioning systems. But they were equally shocked when they visited a hospital with no air conditioning, 60 patients per room, and patients who could be diagnosed—but not afford treatment.

In one unforgettable story, a Swedish student tried to stop an elevator door with her leg—expecting it to sense her and open, like in Sweden. Instead, the door kept closing and the elevator started moving. A doctor slammed the emergency stop just in time. His comment? “Your country has become so safe that when you go abroad, the world is dangerous for you.” The point wasn’t to shame the student—it was to show how deeply we generalize from our personal experience and assume it applies everywhere.

Dollar Street: a new way to categorize the world
Rosling’s daughter Anna created Dollar Street, a project that photographs everyday life—beds, stoves, toothbrushes—in hundreds of homes across different income levels and countries. The idea is to line up the world’s households by income, not geography. What you find is stunning: people at the same income level, regardless of country, live in surprisingly similar ways. A Level 2 family in China cooks just like a Level 2 family in Nigeria. Their struggles, aspirations, and solutions are shaped more by income than by culture or religion. This flips our assumptions—and makes it clear how misleading our mental categories can be.

How false generalizations cause real harm
Rosling shares one of the most painful lessons from his own career. In the 1970s, public health experts believed babies should sleep on their stomachs—modeled after unconscious soldiers, who were less likely to choke when lying face down. Doctors, including Rosling, encouraged this practice for years. But babies aren’t unconscious soldiers. They have reflexes and, when on their backs, can turn their heads if they vomit. On their stomachs, some couldn’t. The result? Tens of thousands of preventable infant deaths. The tragedy wasn’t from bad intentions—but from a wrong generalization applied too broadly and too confidently.

Smart solutions can look strange at first
One example Rosling loves is half-built houses. In many Level 2 and 3 neighborhoods, families build homes floor by floor, as they can afford it. They buy bricks over time—adding them to the house right away so they don’t get stolen or lose value. From a Level 4 perspective, it might look sloppy or chaotic. But it’s actually a brilliant way to save, build, and protect assets without a bank. When something looks “wrong,” Rosling says, try asking, “In what way is this a smart solution?”

The fix: better categories, more curiosity
The goal isn’t to eliminate generalizations—it’s to use better ones. Always assume your categories might be misleading. Instead of seeing the world as “developed vs. developing,” think in terms of income levels. Look for differences within groups and similarities across them. Be wary of “the majority,” which might just mean 51%. Be skeptical of vivid examples that don’t tell the whole story. And most of all, don’t assume other people are idiots. What looks strange might be genius in context.

In the end, Rosling reminds us that generalization is a natural instinct—but if we don’t control it, it controls how we see the world. And often, it gets it completely wrong.

Chapter 7 – The Destiny Instinct

When a single comment reveals a deep-rooted bias
Hans Rosling opens this chapter in a ballroom in Edinburgh, giving a lecture to wealthy investors. His goal was to show them that some of the most promising investment opportunities are in Africa—not Europe. He used data to show how countries like Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Ghana had made great social progress and were now poised for economic growth, just like parts of Asia decades earlier. The audience seemed impressed. But after the talk, an older man in a three-piece suit approached Rosling and said, “There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Africa will make it. It’s their culture.” With a pat on the shoulder, he walked off, leaving behind one of the most powerful examples of the destiny instinct in action.

The belief that things can’t change
The destiny instinct is the belief that some people, places, or cultures are just “meant” to be the way they are. That their current situation—whether poverty, conflict, or gender inequality—is part of some unchanging fate. Rosling explains that this way of thinking can feel comfortable because it saves us the effort of updating what we know. It’s an ancient habit from a time when our surroundings didn’t change much, and assuming stability helped us survive. But today, this instinct leads to outdated views of people, cultures, and nations that are actually changing all the time.

Cultures aren’t rocks—they move
Rosling pushes back hard on the idea that cultures or religions are stuck. They’re not static objects like rocks. They evolve—sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. What makes change hard to see is that it often happens just beneath the surface, out of the headlines. Think about mobile phones, social media, or education levels in countries we rarely hear good news from. Change is constant—it just doesn’t always come with fireworks.

Africa is already catching up
One of the clearest signs that the destiny instinct is wrong lies in the data about Africa. Yes, many African countries are behind in average measures like life expectancy. But even within the continent, there are huge differences. Countries like Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt now have life expectancies above the global average. Sub-Saharan Africa has made massive strides, especially in reducing child mortality—faster than Sweden ever did. Still, because poverty remains, progress often gets ignored.

Rosling challenges the idea that Africa is “destined” to stay poor. He reminds us that 50 years ago, countries like China, India, and South Korea were in similar or worse situations. People doubted they could ever feed their populations, let alone become global economic players. And yet, here we are—many of those nations now drive global industry.

Extreme poverty isn’t destiny—it’s circumstance
Rosling points out that the poorest people in the world—like those in conflict zones or farming low-yield land—aren’t stuck because of culture. They’re stuck because of difficult conditions. But even that can change. What feels impossible today has felt impossible before. Bangladesh, Vietnam, and India all once faced what looked like unchangeable poverty. And yet, they transformed. There’s no reason to believe places like Mozambique can’t do the same.

We underestimate others—and overestimate ourselves
One of the sneakiest effects of the destiny instinct is that it makes us assume our own societies will keep progressing, while others won’t. After the 2008 financial crisis, for five years the IMF kept forecasting a 3% growth rate for Western economies, despite repeated underperformance. At the same time, countries in Africa and Asia were booming—but went ignored. Investors kept pouring money into stagnant markets while missing the fastest-growing ones. Why? Because they believed in the “destiny” of Western economic dominance.

Progress can go unnoticed, even at home
Rosling shares a touching story from his classroom. After he mentioned rapid improvements in Iran’s health and education systems, an Iranian-Swedish student came up with tears in her eyes. She told him it was the first time she had ever heard something positive about her country from a Swede. Iran, by the way, had the fastest decline in fertility ever recorded—dropping from more than six children per woman to fewer than three in just 15 years. It also had one of the world’s largest condom factories and required premarital sex education. But because of its politics, none of that made the Western news.

Religion isn’t destiny either
Rosling tackles another assumption head-on: that some religions “naturally” produce larger families. The truth is, there’s no significant difference between the birth rates of Christians and Muslims. What actually affects birth rates is income level. Families on Level 1 tend to have more children—not because of religion, but because of survival. When income and education improve, fertility drops across the board, regardless of belief.

Cultural values aren’t fixed—they evolve
Rosling shows that values we consider “Western” or “modern” today were not always part of Western culture. He shares personal stories about his grandfather, who refused to talk about sex or use a phone. Abortion was illegal in Sweden until the 1970s. Sweden only became the progressive country we know today through years of social change. The same will happen in countries currently seen as “traditional.” In fact, it’s already happening—quietly, but powerfully.

At a lecture in Bangladesh, Rosling spoke to a room full of young women in colorful hijabs. They smiled when he told them about how family size and gender roles had changed in Sweden. Afterward, several Afghan students approached him. They told him they had the same dreams: to find a partner who listens, plan a life together, and raise children who go to school. The point is simple: people everywhere want better lives. Cultures adapt to make that possible.

A lesson in humility—from Africa to Sweden
The chapter ends with Rosling’s humbling experience at an African Union conference. After giving what he believed was an inspiring lecture about ending extreme poverty, the chairwoman of the AU gently told him he lacked vision. Why? Because he still saw Africa’s future through a Western lens—hoping one day his grandchildren might visit on high-speed trains. She corrected him: it’s her grandchildren who will be the tourists, traveling to Europe. Not as refugees, but as curious, confident citizens. Her words reminded him that he, too, was still prone to the destiny instinct—underestimating what others could achieve.

Factfulness means seeing change where others see fate
Rosling closes the chapter with a simple truth: many things appear constant because they change slowly. But slow change is still change. Whether it’s women’s rights, education, health, or prosperity—societies evolve. And if we want to see the world clearly, we must challenge the instinct to believe in fixed destinies. Instead, we should track progress, update our knowledge, and always, always stay open to what’s possible.

Chapter 8 – The Single Perspective Instinct

Seeing the world through just one lens
Hans Rosling starts this chapter by comparing the media’s portrayal of the world to a picture of his foot. Yes, it’s part of him, but it’s hardly the full picture—and not exactly flattering. That’s the danger of relying on a single perspective. Whether it’s media headlines, political ideologies, or expert opinions, viewing the world from just one angle can give us a seriously distorted understanding of reality.

The single perspective instinct is about our natural love for simple ideas. We enjoy clarity, and there’s something satisfying about believing that one idea or solution can explain everything. But that’s where things go wrong. The world isn’t simple, and single explanations rarely work for complex problems. Whether it’s “free markets solve everything” or “inequality is the root of all evil,” the moment we cling too tightly to one idea, we start ignoring facts that don’t fit.

Experts are helpful—but not all-knowing
Rosling is clear: he loves experts. He relies on them. But he also warns that experts are only experts in their specific field—and that’s easy to forget. He tells the story of Nobel Prize winners and science journal readers doing terribly on his fact-based quizzes about the world. Even brilliant people often get global facts wrong if they assume their knowledge stretches into areas they haven’t studied. Being good with numbers, having a PhD, or being a doctor doesn’t mean you understand poverty, climate, or education globally. Everyone, even experts, can fall into the trap of overconfidence.

Activists often exaggerate without realizing it
Rosling has enormous respect for activists. They bring awareness and drive change. But he also highlights a common mistake: exaggerating the problem to keep people engaged. At a women’s rights conference, only 8% of participants knew that globally, 30-year-old women have, on average, just one year less schooling than men. That’s huge progress, but it gets lost when the focus is only on what’s still wrong. The same thing happens in animal rights, climate advocacy, and public health. Many activists don’t know that their work is actually working—because they’re so focused on the problem, they miss the progress.

A toolbox is better than a hammer
Rosling uses a great metaphor: when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Experts, activists, and professionals often see every issue as one their solution can fix. Doctors focus on medicine. Engineers on infrastructure. Economists on markets. But most global problems don’t have a one-size-fits-all answer. Sometimes, the real issue isn’t medical—it’s transportation. Sometimes the solution isn’t a new drug, it’s better pricing. Rosling argues for using a full toolbox—not just one favorite tool. Different problems require different approaches.

Not everything can—or should—be measured by numbers
Rosling loves data. But he’s the first to say: numbers alone aren’t enough. One of the most memorable parts of the chapter is when the prime minister of Mozambique explains how he tracks economic progress: by watching people’s shoes during public marches. He knows statistics can be off, so he looks at signs on the ground—are people still barefoot, or are they wearing better shoes? Are construction sites abandoned or growing? Numbers help, but they don’t replace human observation. Some of the most important signs of progress—like culture, dignity, and trust—can’t be measured.

Real-life examples show the limits of one idea
Rosling shares the story of a failed WHO campaign to fight tuberculosis in India using X-ray vans. It sounded like a smart medical project, but the villagers were upset—why were doctors ignoring broken bones, childbirth issues, or diarrhea, just to X-ray people for something they didn’t understand? The failure taught an important lesson: solving real-world problems means addressing people’s full needs, not just one specific issue. The same goes for pharmaceutical companies that ignore massive markets in Level 2 and 3 countries because they’re stuck chasing breakthroughs instead of business model changes.

Public vs. private? It’s not either/or
This part is fascinating. Rosling explains how both Cuba and the U.S. suffer from the same problem—but in opposite ways. In Cuba, the government does everything, but freedom and economic growth suffer. In the U.S., the market runs the health system, but millions go without basic care. Cuba is “the healthiest of the poor,” and the U.S. is “the sickest of the rich.” Both systems cling too tightly to one idea—either government or market—and ignore the possibility that the answer lies in balance. Neither is perfect. The challenge is to find what works, case by case.

Even democracy isn’t the magic answer
This section might feel uncomfortable for some readers, but Rosling handles it carefully. He argues that while democracy is deeply valuable, it’s not a guarantee of progress. Many countries have made huge strides in health and education without being democracies. South Korea, for example, was a military dictatorship during its fastest period of growth. Rosling’s point isn’t to dismiss democracy, but to show that there’s no single system that guarantees all good outcomes. It’s better to argue for democracy as a goal in itself—not just a path to prosperity.

The world is too complex for single solutions
Rosling wraps up by reminding us: the world cannot be understood by numbers alone. It also cannot be understood through just one idea—whether it’s GDP, freedom, public policy, or technology. The best path forward is to welcome complexity, combine ideas, and think case by case. When we stay curious, challenge our own perspectives, and avoid falling in love with just one explanation, we’re more likely to see reality—and make a real difference.

In short, the single perspective instinct can feel comforting, but it narrows our thinking. To understand the world better, we need fewer strong opinions—and more open minds.

Chapter 9 – The Blame Instinct

Punching the wrong people in the face
Hans Rosling kicks off this chapter with a vivid and funny scene: a group of students at Karolinska Institutet passionately blaming pharmaceutical companies for neglecting diseases that mainly affect the poor. One student shouts, “Let’s punch them in the face.” Rosling plays along—who should he punch? The CEO? The board? Eventually, the blame travels all the way to the shareholders… who, it turns out, are often people’s own grandparents through their retirement funds. So maybe it’s Grandma we should punch? The humor makes the point: we love to find someone to blame, but when we look closely, things are more complicated.

Why blaming feels so good—and does so little
Rosling explains that the blame instinct is our need to find a clear, simple reason—and someone to hold responsible—when things go wrong. It gives us a sense of control in a messy world. But the truth is, most problems are the result of systems, not villains. Blaming someone often stops us from digging deeper. If we point the finger, we stop asking questions. We miss the opportunity to understand how things really work—and how we can actually fix them.

The sleepy pilot problem
Take the example of an airplane crash. If we find out the pilot was sleepy, we might feel like we’ve solved the mystery. But what really matters is asking why he was sleepy. Was he overworked? Was the scheduling flawed? If we don’t look into the system behind the individual, we’re not fixing anything. Rosling stresses that blame blocks learning—and without learning, we’re stuck with the same broken patterns.

Business isn’t always the villain
Rosling shares a story about a tiny Swiss pharmaceutical company that blew his assumptions apart. He was sent by UNICEF to investigate a company selling malaria pills for less than the cost of the raw materials. He was convinced it was a scam. But what he found was a small, innovative company using robotics to automate pill production and clever financial planning to earn profits through bank interest during delivery gaps. No cheating—just smart systems. Rosling realized he had been trapped by the blame instinct, assuming pharma = evil, without checking the facts.

Journalists aren’t lying—they’re misinformed too
Rosling also tackles the common frustration people have with the media. Many believe journalists distort the truth on purpose, but his data shows otherwise. When tested on global facts, journalists scored just as badly as the general public—worse than random guesses. The problem isn’t that journalists are evil. They’re human, with the same instincts and mental shortcuts as everyone else. Plus, they’re under pressure to report dramatic stories that grab attention. It’s a system issue, not a personal failure.

The refugee crisis: a lesson in invisible systems
In one of the most powerful sections of the chapter, Rosling discusses the refugee crisis. In 2015, thousands of Syrian refugees died crossing the Mediterranean. People blamed the smugglers—but few asked the deeper question: why weren’t refugees flying? After all, plane tickets were cheaper and safer than dinghies. The answer? A European directive made airlines financially responsible if passengers showed up without proper visas—even if they were legitimate asylum seekers. The result? Airlines wouldn’t let refugees board. So they turned to smugglers. The system created the problem, but people focused on individual villains. The blame instinct blocked our ability to see the full picture.

Shifting blame to “foreigners” and ignoring our own role
Rosling warns about how easily we blame others—especially those far away. For example, Westerners often criticize rising countries like India and China for their growing CO₂ emissions. But the richest billion people are still responsible for over half of global emissions. Meanwhile, the poorest billion account for just 1%. The fair question isn’t “Why are they polluting?”—it’s “Why are we still polluting so much?” The blame instinct allows people in wealthy countries to ignore their role and instead point the finger at those just beginning to improve their lives.

The “foreign disease” pattern
Rosling uses a historical example to show how deeply rooted this blame instinct is. In the past, syphilis was known by different names depending on where you lived: in Russia, it was the Polish disease; in Poland, the German disease; in Germany, the French disease; and in France, the Italian disease. Everyone blamed someone else—no one wanted to claim it. It’s an old instinct, but it still shapes how we view global problems today.

Leaders aren’t as powerful as we think
Rosling also questions how much credit or blame we give to political and religious leaders. He shows that China’s dramatic drop in birth rates mostly happened before the one-child policy was enforced. In fact, many countries reduced family sizes without any government pressure. The same goes for the Pope’s stance on contraception—despite the Vatican’s position, birth control use is almost identical in Catholic and non-Catholic countries. Even people with great titles don’t have remote control over behavior. Systems and culture shift slowly, and people act based on their needs—not just commands from above.

Institutions and technologies deserve more credit
While we over-credit leaders, we often overlook the unsung heroes: institutions and technologies. Rosling celebrates the role of nurses, teachers, electricians, and bureaucrats—the people who quietly keep societies running and improving. He also honors inventions like the washing machine, which freed up time and transformed lives. His mother and grandmother saw it as a miracle—and for many around the world, access to electricity and machines is still a life-changing goal. Development isn’t about superheroes. It’s about systems that work, and innovations that scale.

Let’s stop blaming—and start understanding
Rosling ends the chapter with a clear message: if you want to change the world, forget about punching anyone in the face. Don’t get distracted by scapegoats. Don’t waste energy blaming the media, the CEOs, the politicians, or the journalists. Step back and look at the system. Because only when we understand how things really work can we start to make meaningful changes.

Chapter 10 – The Urgency Instinct

The need to “do something now!”—and when it goes wrong
Hans Rosling opens this chapter with a heartbreaking memory from 1981, when he was the only doctor serving a huge population in rural Mozambique. A mysterious illness was paralyzing and even blinding people, and although he suspected it wasn’t contagious, he wasn’t sure. Acting out of fear and urgency, he advised the local mayor to set up a roadblock to protect the city. That decision unintentionally led to dozens of women and children drowning when they took risky boat routes to get to market. Rosling admits this moment haunted him for decades—and taught him a painful lesson: rushing to act, without thinking it through, can do more harm than good.

When fear + urgency = disaster
The urgency instinct makes us want to act fast in the face of danger. It’s deeply human. If you think there’s a lion in the bush, the ancestors who stopped to analyze it didn’t survive. But today, most of the problems we face aren’t immediate threats—they’re complex and long-term. And the urgency instinct, when triggered in the wrong moment, pushes us toward dramatic, poorly thought-out responses.

Rosling shows how this instinct amplified damage during other health crises too, like in 1995 during an Ebola outbreak in Congo, and again in 2014 in Liberia. In each case, calls to “do something now” led to roadblocks that worsened poverty, blocked essential supplies, or created mistrust among people who needed to cooperate. In contrast, it was slow, careful, local trust-building and accurate data tracking that actually helped end the outbreaks.

The false promise of “now or never”
We’ve all heard this pitch: “Act now or miss the chance forever.” Whether it’s sales, politics, or activism, this framing pressures people to respond quickly, often without thinking. Rosling invites us to pause when we hear it. The truth is, it’s almost never that urgent. Learning, changing your mind, and taking action are still options tomorrow—and often, better done after thinking calmly.

The urgency instinct narrows our focus, heightens our emotions, and blocks analysis. It also amplifies the other dramatic instincts—fear, blame, size—and makes us more vulnerable to bad decisions. Rosling’s message is not to ignore problems, but to act smarter by slowing down and asking better questions.

Al Gore, climate change, and the danger of overdramatizing
One of the most memorable stories in this chapter is Rosling’s conversation with Al Gore. Backstage at a TED conference, Gore asked Rosling to help visually dramatize the worst-case future for climate change using animated graphs. Though Rosling admired Gore deeply and shared his concern about the climate, he refused.

Why? Because exaggeration, even for a good cause, undermines credibility. Rosling believed strongly in showing all the scenarios—best case, worst case, and most likely—because when people feel manipulated or misled, they stop listening altogether. Climate change is serious. But we don’t need to exaggerate it. We need better data, better decisions, and cool heads.

Urgency distorts action—and attention
Rosling explains that the urgency instinct also leads to strange priorities. For example, countries carefully track their GDP every quarter, but some don’t measure carbon emissions for years. Sweden now tracks emissions quarterly because Rosling pushed for it—because what gets measured gets attention. He argues that improving how we track problems is often more valuable than shouting louder about them.

He also warns against turning every new crisis into a “climate issue.” For example, linking refugees or conflicts too heavily to climate change may backfire. These issues are real—but exaggerating their link to climate risks making people skeptical of the whole climate movement. The more we cry wolf, the less people believe us—even when the wolf is finally real.

Even in real crises, urgency can mislead
During the 2014 Ebola outbreak, fear and poor data made the world panic. As “suspected cases” climbed, people assumed the worst. But no one had checked whether the cases were actually confirmed. Rosling and his son Ola dug into messy spreadsheets from labs and discovered that confirmed cases were actually dropping. The panic was based on bad data. Thanks to this insight, relief workers were encouraged to continue their efforts—they were working, but no one knew it yet.

This moment shows how urgent situations need better data, not just louder alarms. Rosling also criticizes organizations like the CDC that insisted on showing only the scary curve, fearing that donors would stop paying attention. He argues that long-term trust depends on transparency, not manipulation.

What really deserves urgency?
Rosling isn’t against taking action—he’s all for it. But he wants our attention focused on the right things. He names five global risks that do deserve attention, not because of panic, but because of evidence:

• Global pandemics – Flu, in particular, is a serious airborne threat.
• Financial collapse – Our economic systems are too complex and fragile.
• World War III – We must protect peace through collaboration.
• Climate change – Real, dangerous, and solvable—but needs calm strategy.
• Extreme poverty – Not a future threat, but a present reality we can end.

He also reminds us there’s always the unknown risk—the next big thing we haven’t even imagined. That’s why we need resilient systems, curious minds, and global cooperation.

Progress takes patience—and works
Rosling ends on a hopeful note. He reminds us that we’ve already made huge strides on things like leaded gasoline, ozone protection, and poverty reduction. We don’t need to panic—we need to keep going. Many of the tools we need already exist. Ending poverty, for example, doesn’t require groundbreaking inventions. It requires delivering health care, education, electricity, water, and safety to the last billion people—just as we’ve done for billions already. Urgency isn’t the answer. Practicality, trust, and persistence are.

When you feel urgent—pause
Rosling closes with a final lesson: when something feels urgent, take a breath. Ask for data. Ask what’s being left out. Don’t rush into drastic action. Because usually, there’s still time to think—and in most cases, thinking clearly is the best action you can take.

Chapter 11 – Factfulness in Practice

A machete, a misunderstanding, and a brave voice
Hans Rosling opens this chapter with a tense story from the remote village of Makanga in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo. He was there in 1989, studying a disease called konzo, which causes permanent paralysis. Everything was set for the research—equipment, approvals, translators—except one crucial piece: proper communication with the villagers. Without context, rumors spread. A crowd gathered. Accusations flew. Some men raised machetes, convinced Rosling was there to steal blood and harm them.

In that life-threatening moment, a woman stepped forward. Calm, strong, and wise, she cut through the fear. She reminded the villagers how vaccines had once saved their children from measles. She explained how science—what Rosling called “research”—had made that possible. And then she offered her own arm: “Take my blood.” Her courage saved not only the research, but Rosling’s life. She had no formal education, but she embodied the heart of factfulness: rational thinking under pressure, rejecting fear and blame in favor of curiosity and logic.

Factfulness isn’t about knowing everything—it’s about how you think
This chapter shifts from personal story to practical application. Rosling wants us to know that factfulness isn’t about memorizing statistics or being right all the time. It’s about recognizing our own instincts—fear, urgency, blame—and choosing to pause, ask questions, and think clearly. That’s what the woman in the village did. And if she could do it, Rosling argues, then so can you.

Teaching factfulness: why it should start early
Rosling is passionate about education. He argues that while we teach kids about volcanoes, stars, and dinosaurs, we often fail to teach them how the world actually works today. He makes the case for including factfulness in schools—not just geography or history, but real, current global data. What is life like on different income levels? How is the world changing? What’s improving? What’s not?

He shares a list of essential things we should teach children: that most people live in the middle income levels; that life used to be far worse in the past; that progress and problems can exist at the same time; that stereotypes are misleading; and that knowledge gets outdated and must be updated. Above all, we should teach two values: humility and curiosity.

Being humble means admitting what you don’t know, staying open to correction, and not pretending to have all the answers. Being curious means being excited by what you don’t know, asking better questions, and learning from mistakes instead of hiding them. It’s not just smart—it’s liberating.

Updating adults: we need mental “recalls” too
Rosling jokes that when a car part is faulty, the manufacturer sends a recall notice. But when your mental model of the world becomes outdated, no one sends you a letter. He imagines companies sending memos that say, “Please return your worldview for a free upgrade.” Because many of the things we learned about the world decades ago are simply no longer true. Schools, employers, and society need to find better ways to help adults refresh their global understanding.

Forget sombreros—show real life
Rosling critiques the way we teach kids about other cultures. Those old maps with people in folklore costumes (like sombreros) may have good intentions, but they make people seem exotic, stuck in the past. Instead, he suggests using resources like Dollar Street—an online tool that shows how people live across income levels around the world. It helps kids (and adults) see that similarities often stretch across borders, while big differences can exist within the same country. That’s real, useful understanding.

For business: replace old-world thinking with data
Rosling calls out businesses that still operate with a 1960s worldview. He’s seen executives who put a billion people on the wrong continent in a presentation—and still get promoted. He argues that understanding global trends is no longer optional. Whether it’s hiring, marketing, production, or investment, success today means knowing that the future is in Asia and Africa.

He challenges European companies to rethink their branding, move headquarters, and stop assuming global talent will be impressed just because a company is American or European. Globalization isn’t over—it’s shifting. Countries like Bangladesh and Cambodia will soon pass their textile production baton to Africa. Business leaders must stay agile, informed, and humble—or risk falling behind.

For journalists, activists, and politicians: check your own instincts
Rosling doesn’t blame the media for dramatizing the world. He acknowledges that journalists, activists, and politicians are human too. They fall into the same mental traps as the rest of us. Still, he believes they should try harder to check their own facts and instincts.

Journalists can add context, show trends, and resist panic headlines. Activists can acknowledge progress without weakening their cause. Politicians can avoid exaggerations and find more meaningful ways to engage citizens. But Rosling is also realistic—these professions run on urgency, drama, and stories. So, he flips the responsibility back to us, the consumers: if we want to understand the world better, we must learn to read the news more factfully.

Your organization: start asking questions that matter
This part is a call to action for all teams, companies, and communities. Rosling encourages readers to run their own knowledge tests—not to embarrass anyone, but to inspire curiosity. Start with the basics: what are the most important facts in your area of work, and does your team know them? When people discover their mental models are off, they usually don’t get defensive. They get excited. They want to learn more.

Rosling tells the story of asking Swedes how much their elderly population will grow in ten years. Almost everyone overestimated it—assuming a straight line based on past increases. But the number will remain the same. Ignorance like this affects national planning. Now imagine the small, silent misunderstandings inside every organization—and how easily they could be corrected by asking good questions.

Final reflections: why factfulness matters
Rosling closes the book with warmth and hope. Fighting ignorance, he says, has been frustrating at times, but deeply meaningful. The more he learned about the world, the more joy and clarity he found. And despite how difficult it is to change worldviews, he believes it’s possible.

A fact-based worldview isn’t just more accurate—it’s more useful. It creates less stress and fear because it shows not just what’s wrong, but what’s improving. It doesn’t make you naïve. It helps you act more effectively. Just like a good GPS helps you navigate the city, factfulness helps you navigate life.

4 Key Ideas from Factfulness

6 Main Lessons from Factfulness

My Book Highlights & Quotes

There’s no room for facts when our minds are occupied by fear

As a possibilist, I see all this progress, and it fills me with conviction and hope that further progress is possible. This is not optimistic. It is having a clear and reasonable idea about how things are. It is having a worldview that is constructive and useful

Forming your worldview by relying on the media would be like forming your view about me by looking only at a picture of my foot

The world cannot be understood without numbers. But the world cannot be understood with numbers alone

Things can be bad, and getting better

Here’s the paradox: the image of a dangerous world has never been broadcast more effectively than it is now, while the world has never been less violent and safer

Being intelligent—being good with numbers, or being well educated, or even winning a Nobel Prize—is not a shortcut to global factual knowledge. Experts are experts only within their field

There was a balance. It wasn’t because humans lived in balance with nature. Humans died in balance with nature

Think about the world. War, violence, natural disasters, man-made disasters, corruption. Things are bad, and it feels like they are getting worse, right? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer; and the number of poor just keeps increasing; and we will soon run out of resources unless we do something drastic. At least that’s the picture that most Westerners see in the media and carry around in their heads. I call it the overdramatic worldview. It’s stressful and misleading. In fact, the vast majority of the world’s population lives somewhere in the middle of the income scale. Perhaps they are not what we think of as middle class, but they are not living in extreme poverty. Their girls go to school, their children get vaccinated, they live in two-child families, and they want to go abroad on holiday, not as refugees. Step-by-step, year-by-year, the world is improving. Not on every single measure every single year, but as a rule. Though the world faces huge challenges, we have made tremendous progress. This is the fact-based worldview

When things are getting better we often don’t hear about them. This gives us a systematically too-negative impression of the world around us, which is very stressful

Never leave a number all by itself. Never believe that one number on its own can be meaningful. If you are offered one number, always ask for at least one more. Something to compare it with

Cultures, nations, religions, and people are not rocks. They are in constant transformation

We like to believe that things happen because someone wanted them to, that individuals have power and agency: otherwise, the world feels unpredictable, confusing, and frightening

When abortion is made illegal it doesn’t stop abortions from happening, but it does make abortions more dangerous and increase the risk of women dying as a result

That is all there is to the 80/20 rule. We tend to assume that all items on a list are equally important, but usually, just a few of them are more important than all the others put together

The world seems scarier than it is because what you hear about it has been selected—by your own attention filter or by the media

The majority of people live neither in low-income countries nor in high-income countries, but in middle-income countries. This category doesn’t exist in the divided mindset, but in reality, it definitely exists

Beware comparisons of averages. If you could check the spreads you would probably find they overlap. There is probably no gap at all

Beware comparisons of extremes. In all groups, of countries or people, there are some at the top and some at the bottom. The difference is sometimes extremely unfair. But even then the majority is usually somewhere at the bottom, right where the gap is supposed to be

When in the past whole species or ecosystems were destroyed, no one realized or even cared. Alongside all the other improvements, our surveillance of suffering has improved tremendously. This improved reporting is itself a sign of human progress, but it creates the impression of the exact opposite

Good things are not news. Good news is almost never reported. So news is almost always bad. When you see bad news, ask whether equally positive news would have reached you

Gradual improvements is not news. When a trend is gradually improving, with periodic dips, you are more likely to notice the dips than the overall improvement

More news does not equal more suffering. More bad news is sometimes due to better surveillance of suffering, not a worsening world

Parents in extreme poverty need many children for the reasons I set out earlier: for child labor but also to have extra children in case some children die. It is the countries with the highest child mortality rates, like Somalia, Chad, Mali, and Niger, where women have the most babies: between five and eight. Once parents see children survive, once the children are no longer needed for child labor, and once the women are educated and have information about and access to contraceptives, across cultures and religions both the men and the women instead start dreaming of having fewer, well-educated children

Don’t assume straight lines. Many trends do not follow straight lines but are S-bends, slides, humps, or doubling lines. No child ever kept up the rate of growth it achieved in its first six months, and no parents would expect it to

For the first time in world history, data exists for almost every aspect of global development. And yet, because of our dramatic instincts and the way the media must tap into them to grab our attention, we continue to have an overdramatic worldview. Of all our dramatic instincts, it seems to be the fear instinct that most strongly influences what information gets selected by mews producers and presented to us consumers

Yet here’s the paradox: the image of a dangerous world has never been broadcast more effectively than it is now, while the world has never been less violent and more safe

In 1986 there were 64,000 nuclear warheads in the world; today there are 15,000. So the fear instinct can sure help to remove terrible things from the world. On other occasions, it runs out of control, distorts our risk assessment, and causes terrible harm

The Scary World: fear vs reality. The world seems scarier than it is because what you hear about it has been selected-by your own attention filter or by the media-precisely because it is scary

Get calm before you carry on. When you are afraid, you see the world differently. Make as few decisions as possible until the panic has subsided

Be especially careful about big numbers. It is a strange thing, but numbers over a certain size, when they are not compared with anything else, always look big. And how can something big not be important?

Beware of “the majority.” The majority just means more than half. Ask whether it means 51 percent, 99 percent, or something in between

Beware of vivid examples. Vivid images are easier to recall but they might be the exception rather than the rule

Assume people are not idiots. When something looks strange, be curious and humble, and think, in what way is this a smart solution?

The destiny instinct is the idea that innate characteristics determine the destinies of people, countries, religions, or cultures. It’s the idea that things are as they are for ineluctable, inescapable reasons: they have always been this way and will never change

Factfulness is… recognizing that many things (including people, countries, religions, and cultures) appear to be constant just because the change is happening slowly, and remembering that even small, slow changes gradually add up to big changes. To control the destiny instinct, remember slow change is still change

Keep track of gradual improvements. A small change every year can translate to a huge change over decades

Talk to grandpa. If you want to be reminded of how values have changed, think about your grandparent’s values and how they differ from yours

Collect examples of cultural change. Challenge the idea that today’s culture must also have been yesterday’s, and will also be tomorrow’s

Hammers and nails. If you are good with a tool, you may want to use it often. If you have analyzed a problem in depth, you can end up exaggerating the importance of that problem or of your solution. Remember that no one tool is good for everything. If your favorite idea is a hammer, look for colleagues with screwdrivers, wrenches, and tape measures. Be open to ideas from other fields

The blame instinct makes us exaggerate the importance of individuals or of particular groups. This instinct to find a guilty party derails our ability to develop a true, fact-based understanding of the world: it steals our focus as we obsess about someone to blame, then blocks our learning because once we have decided who to punch in the face we stop looking for explanations elsewhere. This undermines our ability to solve the problem, or prevent it from happening again, because we are stuck with oversimplisitc finger pointing, which distracts us from the more complex truth and prevents us from focusing our energy in the right places

Look for causes, not villains. When something goes wrong don’t look for an individual or a group to blamr. Accept that bad things can happen without anyone intending to. Instead spend your energy on understanding the multiple interacting causes, or system, that created the situation

Look for systems, not heroes. When someone claims to have caused something good, ask whether the outcome might have happened anyway, even if that individual had done nothing. Give the system some credit

I don’t tell you not to worry. I will tell you to worry about the right things. I don’t tell you to look away from the news or to ignore the activists’ call to action. I tell you to ignore the noise, but keep an eye on the big global risks. I don’t tell you not to be afraid. I tell you to stay coolheaded and support the global collaborations we need to reduce these risks. Control your urgency instinct. Control all your dramatic instincts. Be less stressed by the imaginary problems of an overdramatic world, and more alert to the real problems and how to solve them

Insist on the data. If something is urgent and important, it should be measured. Beware of data that is relevant but inaccurate, or accurate but irrelevant. Only relevant and accurate data is useful

Beware of fortune tellers. Any prediction about the future is uncertain. Be wary of predictions that fail to acknowledge that. Insist on a full range of scenarios, never just the best or worst case. Ask how often such predictions have been right before

Conclusion

Reading Factfulness won’t just change what you know about the world—it will change how you think.

Rosling doesn’t ask us to be blindly optimistic, but to be factfully realistic—to stay curious, challenge our assumptions, and make decisions based on what’s true, not what feels true.

In a time when information is everywhere but clarity is rare, this book is a guide to both sanity and action.

And once you see the world this way, you can’t unsee it—in the best possible way.

I am incredibly grateful that you have taken the time to read this post.

Support my work by sharing my content with your network using the sharing buttons below.

Want to show your support and appreciation tangibly?

Creating these posts takes time, effort, and lots of coffee—but it’s totally worth it!

If you’d like to show some support and help keep me stay energized for the next one, buying me a virtual coffee is a simple (and friendly!) way to do it.

Do you want to get new content in your Email?

Do you want to explore more?

Check my main categories of content below:

• Book Notes
• Career Development
• Essays
• Explaining
• Leadership
• Lean and Agile
• Management
• Personal Development
• Project Management
• Reading Insights
• Technology

Navigate between the many topics covered in this website:

Agile Art Artificial Intelligence Blockchain Books Business Business Tales C-Suite Career Coaching Communication Creativity Culture Cybersecurity Decision Making Design DevOps Digital Transformation Economy Emotional Intelligence ESG Feedback Finance Flow Focus Gaming Generative AI Goals GPT Habits Harvard Health History Innovation Kanban Large Language Models Leadership Lean Learning LeSS Machine Learning Magazine Management Marketing McKinsey Mentorship Metaverse Metrics Mindset Minimalism MIT Motivation Negotiation Networking Neuroscience NFT Ownership Paper Parenting Planning PMBOK PMI PMO Politics Portfolio Management Productivity Products Program Management Project Management Readings Remote Work Risk Management Routines Scrum Self-Improvement Self-Management Sleep Social Media Startups Strategy Team Building Technology Time Management Volunteering Web3 Work

Do you want to check previous Book Notes? Check these from the last couple of weeks:

• Book Notes #126: Inevitable by Mike Colias2025-03-24
• Book Notes #125: Revenge of the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell2025-03-21
• Book Notes #124: Radical Candor by Kim Scott2024-09-04
• Book Notes #123: The Personal MBA by Josh Kaufman2024-05-09
• Book Notes #122: The First 20 Hours by Josh Kaufman2024-05-02

Support my work by sharing my content with your network using the sharing buttons below.

Want to show your support tangibly? A virtual coffee is a small but nice way to show your appreciation and give me the extra energy to keep crafting valuable content! Pay me a coffee: