 Hi, everyone. I'm Diana. Everyone of us has seen this world map before, maybe in your geography classroom, your school books, or when you zoom out of Google Maps. What many people don't know is every time you try to put a globe on a squared space, you create some kind of distortions. So just imagine that you try to peel an entire orange and then put that peel on a squared space. It's impossible. So this projection we see here is called the Mercator Projection, and it's the most common and the most used projection. It distorts the size of the countries. Every time you see this world map, the sizes are wrong, the relative sizes. So this is a world map that adjusts for the size of the countries. We see now that Africa is way bigger than on a previous map, and Europe is kind of more negligible. And the same holds for North and South America. So every time we try to draw a world map on a squared space, you must make some kind of decisions. Which country do you put in the north? Which distortions are worse? And so we have to ask ourselves, who are the people who create world maps, and why do they keep on using the same projection over and over, representing some countries more favorably than others? And in the end, does it even matter how the world looks like on a world map? So imagine I ask you about your opinion on relations between Africa and Europe. To be more specific, I give you an example. I ask you, how would you distribute resources between Africa and Europe? For you to form an opinion, many things will matter. For instance, your knowledge about the current economic and political situation will matter, your political preferences, what do you think is fair, how to distribute resources, maybe even your own experience in these continents, and your expectations, how these continents will develop in the future. But most certainly not the size of the continents depicted on an ordinary world map. So this is exactly what I tested in a very small experiment. So I asked people a couple of questions on distributional preferences between Africa and Europe. And I showed them a map of Africa and Europe. Everything was the same. The only thing I randomized was the projection used. In one question I asked them, imagine the international community tries to fight climate change altogether. For this, they agreed on the maximum amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be emitted by the world. And now I ask you, how would you distribute these emissions, how would you distribute the right to emit greenhouse gas emissions between Europe and Africa? So what we can see is that in a control group where people saw the Mercator projection we all know, they would distribute more than half of the emissions to Europe. Well, if they've been exposed to this other projection for a couple of minutes they would distribute nine percentage points more of emissions to Africa. Maybe this doesn't seem a lot to you, to me it is actually it seems a lot. But what if you think about, you know, those guys saw this map for a couple of minutes, what if we extrapolate if they've seen this map all their lives? So what I want people to take away from this little exercise is that we are sophisticated creatures and we form our opinions over time with education and experience. But we're not unaffected by small manipulations such as size or position of objects. So every time we consume some kind of information we must, you know, take into account who's the creator of the information. No matter how scientific or neutral this information appears in the first place. And that's it, thank you.