Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
A fascinating study by Nature magazine reveals that people with greater science literacy and numeracy tend to be more polarized over the issue of global warming than their less science-literate counterparts. Conventional wisdom would seem to indicate the opposite, that greater science literacy would reduce polarization as science-minded individuals all converged on the facts. But no! The exact opposite is true.
The study looked at 1,540 US citizens. It first measured the respondents’ values on a scale of hierarchy-egalitarianism, which roughly translates into how conservative or liberal they were. It then measured their science literacy and numeracy (“their capacity to comprehend and use quantitative information”), then asked the question, “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety or prosperity?” The results are summarized in the figure below: egalitarian-minded people tended to perceive greater risk as their science literacy and numeracy increased, while hierarchy-minded individuals tended to perceive less risk as their science literacy and numeracy increased.
The explanation, according to the article, is that people’s perception about the risk of global warming is primarily determined by—surprise, surprise—self interest!
On the contrary, our findings could be viewed as evidence of how remarkably well-equipped ordinary individuals are to discern which stances towards scientific information secure their personal interests…
For the ordinary individual, the most consequential effect of his beliefs about climate change is likely to be on his relations with his peers. A hierarchical individualist who expresses anxiety about climate change might well be shunned by his co-workers at an oil refinery in Oklahoma City. A similar fate will probably befall the egalitarian communitarian English professor who reveals to colleagues in Boston that she thinks the scientific consensus on climate change is a hoax. At the same time, neither the beliefs an ordinary person forms about scientific evidence nor any actions he takes—as a consumer, say, or democratic voter—will by itself aggravate or mitigate the dangers of climate change. On his own, he is just not consequential enough to matter. Given how much the ordinary individual depends on peers for support—material and emotional—and how little impact his beliefs have on the physical environment, he would probably be best off if he formed risk perceptions that minimized any danger of estrangement from his community.
A long-established body of work examining motivated cognition supports this conjecture. Both to avoid dissonance and to secure their group standing, individuals unconsciously seek out and credit information supportive of “self-defining… values [and] attitudes”, such as the shared world-views featured in the study of cultural cognition. The predictive power of cultural world-views implies that the average member of the public performs these tasks quite proficiently.
Our data, consistent with that observed in other settings, suggest that those with the highest degree of science literacy and numeracy perform such tasks even more discerningly. Fitting information to identity-defining commitments makes demands on all manner of cognition—including both system 1 and system 2 reasoning. For ordinary citizens, the reward for acquiring greater scientific knowledge and more reliable technical-reasoning capacities is a greater facility to discover and use—or explain away—evidence relating to their groups’ positions.
It’s a pretty good article that makes reference to Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2 thinking, and also supports Shermer’s “belief-dependent realism” model. And my position that all human behavior can ultimately be explained entirely in terms of self interest…
There’s also a secondary finding in the study, one which appears to be delighting the global warming deniers: that greater science literacy/numeracy in general (independent of hierarchy-egalitarianism values) correlates to less perceived risk of global warming. The purpose of the study was to see if the opposite was true:
Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.
The correlation between greater science literacy/numeracy and perceived risk, however, isn’t as dramatic as the polarizing effect the former has on the latter:
Rather, they [members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity] were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.
Note that self-interest in this case is not limited to climate change deniers: “A hierarchical individualist who expresses anxiety about climate change might well be shunned by his co-workers at an oil refinery in Oklahoma City. A similar fate will probably befall the egalitarian communitarian English professor who reveals to colleagues in Boston that she thinks the scientific consensus on climate change is a hoax.”
So before you go claiming your position on global warming is based on facts and evidence, take a good, hard look at the people you surround yourself with. It’s likely that your position on global warming has more to do with their positions than on facts and evidence—regardless of what the facts and evidence actually show.
I think perhaps it’s a problem of having enough literacy to understand appealing graphs and figures, but still not quite enough literacy to really understand the significance of a scientific consensus.
I think perhaps it’s a problem of having enough literacy to understand appealing graphs and figures, but still not quite enough literacy to really understand the significance of a scientific consensus.
The article suggests otherwise, that graphs and figures and scientific consensus all take a back seat to self-interest.
I think perhaps it’s a problem of having enough literacy to understand appealing graphs and figures, but still not quite enough literacy to really understand the significance of a scientific consensus.
The article suggests otherwise, that graphs and figures and scientific consensus all take a back seat to self-interest.
Did they actually survey people on their awareness of what a scientific consensus means? I’ll try to read the article when I’ve got a little more time, but you may well be right - neither answer would be surprising to me!
A fascinating study by Nature magazine reveals that people with greater science literacy and numeracy tend to be more polarized over the issue of global warming than their less science-literate counterparts. Conventional wisdom would seem to indicate the opposite, that greater science literacy would reduce polarization as science-minded individuals all converged on the facts. But no! The exact opposite is true.
Not having looked into it at all yet, that depends upon where there was consensus. If the consensus is that global warming is a problem, and/or is a human-produced problem, then I’d agree. But if the consensus is global-warming denial I’d say ideologues winning the social climate/socialization battle could explain it (could).
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 May 2012 08:56 AM
The study looked at 1,540 US citizens. It first measured the respondents’ values on a scale of hierarchy-egalitarianism, which roughly translates into how conservative or liberal they were. It then measured their science literacy and numeracy (“their capacity to comprehend and use quantitative information”), then asked the question, “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety or prosperity?” The results are summarized in the figure below: egalitarian-minded people tended to perceive greater risk as their science literacy and numeracy increased, while hierarchy-minded individuals tended to perceive less risk as their science literacy and numeracy increased.
I’m intentionally not reading ahead ...
The question How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety or prosperity? by-passes the issue of “controversy” in US society though. The “controversy is whether global climate change is natural or human-caused, and in some circles even whether or not it’s actually happening. For those who don’t deny it, though, whether or not it’s considered a threat can vary for multiple reasons. those who think it could be a threat might think we’ll manage to address it before it becomes too much of a threat, or simply that Humanity can overcome the threat, for example.
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 May 2012 08:56 AM
The explanation, according to the article, is that people’s perception about the risk of global warming is primarily determined by—surprise, surprise—self interest!
Well, for more intellectually rigorous types self-interest would likely include things that will seriously adversely effect planetary livability. For more short-sighted, egocentric, self-deceptive types more interested in personal dogma and short term personal pleasure, not so much. So “self-interest” seems to say a lot less here than things like “realistic”, “responsible”, or “rational”.
The question How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety or prosperity? by-passes the issue of “controversy” in US society though. The “controversy is whether global climate change is natural or human-caused, and in some circles even whether or not it’s actually happening.
I wondered the same thing. The real controversy in my mind is whether it’s human caused, but the question didn’t bring that aspect in. I’m not sure why they worded it the way they did.
SkepticX - 31 May 2012 04:26 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 May 2012 08:56 AM
The explanation, according to the article, is that people’s perception about the risk of global warming is primarily determined by—surprise, surprise—self interest!
Well, for more intellectually rigorous types self-interest would likely include things that will seriously adversely effect planetary livability. For more short-sighted, egocentric, self-deceptive types more interested in personal dogma and short term personal pleasure, not so much. So “self-interest” seems to say a lot less here than things like “realistic”, “responsible”, or “rational”.
Except that “neither the beliefs an ordinary person forms about scientific evidence nor any actions he takes—as a consumer, say, or democratic voter—will by itself aggravate or mitigate the dangers of climate change. On his own, he is just not consequential enough to matter. Given how much the ordinary individual depends on peers for support—material and emotional—and how little impact his beliefs have on the physical environment, he would probably be best off if he formed risk perceptions that minimized any danger of estrangement from his community.”
In other words, it’s actually more self-deceptive to believe you can make a difference.
I’m thinking this is pretty obvious. What would be weird is if a complex issue such as the impacts of global warming (as posed in the question) were agreed upon by all intelligent, well-educated people. This is like saying, “Why don’t the smartest, best-informed Senators of both parties agree on how to fix the economy?...or how to deal with Islamic terrorism? etc.”
I guess, when it comes down to hard evidence, if you live on the Marshall Islands (which are being inundated due to rising sea level), you’d think the impacts are BAD. But if you were searching for oil in the Arctic (where a decrease in the ice pack has made the exploration possible), you might think the impacts are GOOD.
In other words, it’s actually more self-deceptive to believe you can make a difference.
Which is really only pertinent to my comments if you presume that’s what they, and I, think, and that’s what motivates them. Most know better (even if they often pretend otherwise—those types will often “slip up” and admit they can’t make any real difference), in fact I think those who don’t realize this are pretty unusual. In fact that seems more like a partisan stereotype, actually—a social straw man kinda thing.
Yeah making a difference is a problem. Especially when climatologists have been telling us that the carbon emissions we are putting into the atmosphere now, and have been for hundreds of years, will be there for about 1,000 years or so.
As James Hansen has alluded to….we are past the tipping point. There is no going back now, what will happen with global climate will happen.
This does not mean we should not change our behavior towards trying to better understand and support the possibility of a somewhat stable climate however.
In other words, it’s actually more self-deceptive to believe you can make a difference.
Which is really only pertinent to my comments if you presume that’s what they, and I, think, and that’s what motivates them. Most know better (even if they often pretend otherwise—those types will often “slip up” and admit they can’t make any real difference), in fact I think those who don’t realize this are pretty unusual. In fact that seems more like a partisan stereotype, actually—a social straw man kinda thing.
If I presume they and you think and are motivated by what? Self deception? Or the knowledge that you can’t make a difference?
If your peers will ostracize you for believing global warming is a significant risk, and if you think and are motivated by the knowledge that you can’t make a difference, then you’ll be more likely to believe global warming isn’t a significant risk.
If, on the other hand, your peers will ostracize you for not believing that global warming poses a significant risk, then it doesn’t matter whether you think you can make a difference. You’ll be more likely to believe global warming is a significant risk.
Science literacy and numeracy increase an individual’s ability to discern that being ostracized has a greater impact on his own well-being than trying to save the planet. That’s what the study shows (just look at the graph). But it’s not necessarily a conscious decision, since it involves both type 1 and type 2 thinking.
Which leads to the article’s conclusion:
It does not follow, however, that nothing can be done to promote constructive and informed public deliberations. As citizens understandably tend to conform their beliefs about societal risk to beliefs that predominate among their peers, communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group’s values. Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance.
Which has the global warning deniers gleefully proclaiming that global warming is a hoax which can only be propagated through the use of “culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility” instead of through actual science. Which is true—not because it’s a hoax or because the science is necessarily bad, but because we’re social animals.
It’s an intriguing paradox if you can step back from your own beliefs and look at it from the point of view of a disinterested observer. It’s akin to political theater with the survival of the planet (possibly) hanging in the balance.
Edit: all of this dovetails perfectly with Shermer’s belief-dependent realism: “We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs come first, explanations for beliefs follow.”
Our beliefs come from type 1 thinking; we then rationalize our beliefs with type 2 thinking.
In other words, it’s actually more self-deceptive to believe you can make a difference.
Which is really only pertinent to my comments if you presume that’s what they, and I, think, and that’s what motivates them. Most know better (even if they often pretend otherwise—those types will often “slip up” and admit they can’t make any real difference), in fact I think those who don’t realize this are pretty unusual. In fact that seems more like a partisan stereotype, actually—a social straw man kinda thing.
If I presume they and you think and are motivated by what? Self deception?
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 May 2012 05:06 PM
In other words, it’s actually more self-deceptive to believe you can make a difference.
There are a couple things going on. I’m a hierarchy-minded individual myself and can tell you my knowledge of Science and History makes me want to laugh at the alarmist’s views.
Pragmatically there are three questions:
(1) Whether the Earth is warming (consensus is 1-2 degrees Globally)
(2) Whether it’s Anthropogenic (i.e. man-made).
(3) If it is a danger to Humans, either directly or indirectly (eco system).
It has been concluded by us that your alarmism is bullshit and fueld by the want of libs to destroy corporations and the Government’s need to create a new stock-market bubble in order to sell carbon credits.
It is bullshit because anyone with a brain knows the Earth’s climate changes for a variety of reasons (1) Continental Drift (2) The cooling off of Earth’s Core (3) Solar variance (4) other cycles and (5) Catastrophe’s.
This is evident because anyone with a fucking brain cell knows Earth has gone through warmer periods and glacial periods before humans ever drove a model T ford.
Also some of us are old enough to remember the O-Zone scare, and before that the DEET Scare, and the Global Cooling Scare in the 70’s. So we are burnt out with the world coming to an end.
Finally, nobody cares that Chicago will have Miami like weather.
There are a couple things going on. I’m a hierarchy-minded individual myself and can tell you my knowledge of Science and History makes me want to laugh at the alarmist’s views.
But according to the study, your “knowledge of Science and History” is determined by your desire to avoid being ostracized by your peers for not laughing at the alarmists’ views. There’s plenty of “Science and History” to support both the alarmists’ and the deniers’ claims. Which “Science and History” you believe depends on your peers. If you and SkepticX traded peer groups, you’d be the alarmist and he’d be the denier.
There are a couple things going on. I’m a hierarchy-minded individual myself and can tell you my knowledge of Science and History makes me want to laugh at the alarmist’s views.
But according to the study, your “knowledge of Science and History” is determined by your desire to avoid being ostracized by your peers for not laughing at the alarmists’ views. There’s plenty of “Science and History” to support both the alarmists’ and the deniers’ claims. Which “Science and History” you believe depends on your peers. If you and SkepticX traded peer groups, you’d be the alarmist and he’d be the denier.
You have a point there, that was what the study concluded. I wouldn’t be in that group since I speak my mind although some of my peers are leftist hipsters.
