From a must-read new article by Ezra Klein at Vox: How politics makes us stupid showing that often what conditions us to resist changing our minds in response to new information (i.e. learn) is partisanship …
Imagine what would happen to, say, Sean Hannity if he decided tomorrow that climate change was the central threat facing the planet. Initially, his viewers would think he was joking. But soon, they’d begin calling in furiously. Some would organize boycotts of his program. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of professional climate skeptics would begin angrily refuting Hannity’s new crusade. Many of Hannity’s friends in the conservative media world would back away from him, and some would seek advantage by denouncing him. Some of the politicians he respects would be furious at his betrayal of the cause. He would lose friendships, viewers, and money. He could ultimately lose his job. And along the way he would cause himself immense personal pain as he systematically alienated his closest political and professional allies. The world would have to update its understanding of who Sean Hannity is and what he believes, and so too would Sean Hannity. And changing your identity is a psychologically brutal process.
It is Keynes who is quoted as saying, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”
Well, not so easy! As Klein points out: “Individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values.”
Yeah, that’s the whole thing with allowing (suffering from?) our paradigms which act to filter out facts that don’t support them. See this post, Negative campaigning and comments following.
Throw in a bunch of membership-of-this-club-means-I-let-others-do-my-thinking-for-me and, well, a recipe for ignorance. Wilful ignorance.
– P
h/t John Gruber
By the way, this, from Steven Price, The news according to Mike Hosking, is well worth a read.
I loved the main point of Ezra Klein’s article, “How politics makes us stupid”, but was also not surprised to see his own partisan stance in his example, climate change.
Carefully labelling those sceptical as “denialists”, he concludes: “The ice caps don’t care if it’s rational for us to worry about our friendships. If the world keeps warming, they’re going to melt regardless of how good our individual reasons for doing nothing are.”
I suppose it’s too partisan or denialist to want to consider NASA’s announcement of Antarctica’s record growth? Or this wonderful headline: “Arctic sea ice avoids last year’s record low; Antarctic sea ice edges out last year’s high”? Doesn’t this mean that both of those pesky ice caps have actually increased?
So you’re a climate change partisan Graeme? You and Mike Hosking? Gee.
Yes, I am sceptical, Peter, even though it would provide wonderful material for my end-times teaching! When I was a teenager, the climate scientists were using the historical data to prove we were headed into another ice-age. I think Upton Sinclair’s adage is appropriate, isn’t it? “It’s difficult to get a pro-climate-change scientist to admit something when his job and research-funding depends on not admitting it”?
Great cartoon and I wholeheartedly agree we should each work to improve and take better care of our world. My objection is to the unnecessary vitriol against any disagreeing about how that should be done, As I see it, childish name-calling usually reveals a desire to bluff rather than properly debate an issue. Oh, and I also object to the funding of only believers in HICC.
Name-calling? I’m not impressed with Crichton-esque smearing of the scientific community as so craven that a chase for ‘funding’ sees it surrender integrity.
Chris Trotter’s article today is worth a read for what it says about conservative reactions to ecologism as a political ‘project’.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/chris-trotter/9964566/The-Greens-are-out-on-their-own
Have to disagree mate … history teaches us in spadeloads that august bodies of learned people can be driven to deceitful and self interested behaviour due to funding needs. They are after all – human.
Professor Herbert Green and the National Womens Cervical Cancer experiment … example not of funding – but perhaps (allegedly) an example of a “profession” flying in the face of scientific realities in order to preserve or prove a previously held assumption. People died apparently – most horribly.
“Smearing of the scientific Community” … thats a rubbish assertion Peter …. there are plenty of examples of learned groups and individuals proving corruptible or self interested and less than truthful … just ask Bjorn Lomborg … given the equivalent of a “heresy trial” in his native land.
The Nazi Party had at its heart (and at the Wansee Conference) holders of doctorates and other lofty titles … Education or qualification is no guarantee of morality or commonsense …
Most impressive summary to me .. was the the doco recently on Bjorn Lomberg author of the “sceptical environmentalist” … an impressive guy who slates the scaremongering and entrenched views of the scientific establishment.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323485704578258172660564886
See his wiki reference … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
I am personally very sceptical about Climate Change … and only see it as part of a ‘wider’ part of the ‘shock doctrine’ … bread and circuses to keep the unwashed mob occupied.
Thanks for your input Ivan.
Interesting observation from a doco i spotted on the nature of reality and quantum mechanics … apparently reality changes when it is observed?
Figure that one out.
Lombergs observations are a victory for commonsense over dogmatic scientific observation.
By the way – that cartoon is very funny … and indeed has a small kernel of truth to it … but its a trite broadbrush addressing of the issue at stake and is unfortunately the sort of shorthand answer people often offer … (not a criticism … just an observation)
Many of the cartoons observations hark back to ignorance and superstition and accepted traditions. These days – as many highly qualified and enquiring scientific minds refute the climate change dogma (and it is looking more like religious dogma these days) as similar minds and entities stand for it and support it. I’m suspicious of anything where certain corporates and vested interests stand to profiteer off fear and a sense of impending doom.
Here is the trailer for the lomborg doco “Cool It” … the full doco is worth a watch ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZR3gsY98VU