

Denial of Science - sanj
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

======
ChuckMcM
"Given the power of our prior beliefs to skew how we respond to new
information, one thing is becoming clear: If you want someone to accept new
evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a
defensive, emotional reaction."

This was a fascinating read. I've snipped out what I consider the bonus quote
above because I run into it so often. If someone is engaged in an issue
emotionally then having a rational discussion with them becomes problematic at
best.

Here on HN we've seen the nuclear power and currency discussions which both
clearly have an emotional component.

I was a bit annoyed that the article focused a bit much on the climate
discussion, clearly it is the one the author has the most emotion invested in
:-) I think my views on it are pretty well known so I won't bother going into
that.

But that brings us to the subtext, which is that emotions interfere with
reasoning. You react emotionally before you react rationally (purportedly
because it made evolutionary sense to do so). On the show 'Big Bang Theory'
the character Sheldon Cooper is a stereotype of a brilliant, OCD, Asberger's
Syndrome scientist. That stereotype works because it seems fairly common that
technologists, as a population, have a higher incidence of folks who have a
difficulty emotionally interacting with other humans. It makes me wonder if
this could be the mechanism by which breakthrough science and/or technology
gets done.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_If someone is engaged in an issue emotionally then having a rational
discussion with them becomes problematic at best._

What I find most ironic about the article is that they seem to go out of their
way to induce many of their readers to react emotionally to the article.

The first few paragraphs compare climate skeptics and the Seeker cult. Most of
the examples given are misconceptions held only by people on the political
right. Places where the political left is simply wrong (no, I won't derail the
conversation by mentioning them explicitly) are ignored, except for one minor
example included to feign objectivity.

Did the author really think his article wouldn't lead most readers to react
emotionally (the comments suggest they did)? Was he completely unable to think
of neutral examples besides vaccines->autism?

This article seems perpetually relevant:
<http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/>

~~~
thaumaturgy
> _What I find most ironic about the article is that they seem to go out of
> their way to induce many of their readers to react emotionally to the
> article._

I think "out of their way" is a stretch, but, of course it did. It had to
present the topic in a way that would be compelling to readers. If you think
anthropogenic global warming is bunkem, then the use of terms like "denier" is
going to be a trigger for you. If you think that vaccines cause autism, then
you'll find similar terminology, and have a similar trigger.

Regardless of the issue or which side of the issue that you're on, if you had
an emotional reaction to the article, then that mostly just proved it right on
the actual subject that it was talking about: that people react emotionally,
not logically, when their convictions are confronted.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_It had to present the topic in a way that would be compelling to readers._

Lets consider two possibilities.

a) The author wishes to induce an emotional reaction in his readers to
demonstrate this effect. In that case, he should attack taboos on both sides
of the political aisle, in an effort to maximize the number of readers having
an emotional reaction.

b) The author wishes to intellectually discuss some psychological findings. In
that case, he could simply focus on a few small obscure groups with irrational
beliefs (e.g., 9/11 truthers, UFO abductees) in order to minimize the number
of readers who react emotionally.

I can't figure out what purpose he is serving by exposing only half his
readers to the negative emotional reaction, while exposing the other half to
the positive emotional reaction that comes from criticizing their political
opponents and affirming their already held beliefs. (Unless of course the
latter reaction is what he is going for.)

~~~
ChuckMcM
However in case b, wouldn't it allow folks to rationalize themselves as 'not
as weird' as perhaps some extreme groups you mention? And then not think about
applications of these findings to themselves?

It seems the point of the article was that this issue is a spectrum issue and
can trip up folks who may otherwise believe themselves to be approaching
something scientifically but in fact have been pre-biased by their emotions on
the issue. At least for me (and I do consider myself open minded) it was
useful to think about the mechanism behind the 'irrational' response, which
certainly could help me in influencing change in organizations where such
change would be emotionally difficult.

"I can't figure out what purpose he is serving by exposing only half his
readers to the negative emotional reaction, while exposing the other half to
the positive emotional reaction that comes from criticizing their political
opponents and affirming their already held beliefs. (Unless of course the
latter reaction is what he is going for.)"

Perhaps he was going for people to step back and say "Hmm, I'm responding
emotionally, let me compare that emotion to whether or not I think his point
valid, and how my emotions influenced that thinking." Sort of a step outside
your own complexes kind of thing.

------
thaumaturgy
I'm mostly going to side-step criticisms of the article (I enjoyed it),
because, ironically, it will present itself as emotionally-charged to most
people that read it.

Instead, if anybody's interested in trying to limit the effects of this kind
of psychology in themselves, I think there's a way to do it that involves a
subtle but persistent shift in your state of mind. I think I first read about
it in, of all things, "How to think like Leonardo da Vinci" many years ago.
The trick is to drop all of your personal desire in _being right_ , and
instead adopt a sort of state of constant curiosity. Put less effort into
defending your views, and more effort into trying to learn something from
everyone and everything around you.

I was a conservative Republican. Now I'm closer to a liberal (I prefer
"progressive") Democrat. I used to be a climate "skeptic"; now I think the
majority of the science behind the theories is solid, although there's
certainly a lot of room for more research. I've flipped on some things several
times; the important thing, to me, is not my opinion on them, but whether I'm
still open to new information in the field. For example: I used to believe
that wind farms were a subsidized waste because all of the energy costs of
production and maintenance must eclipse the energy they produce, especially
when half of them don't seem to be turning ever. Then I got curious at how the
numbers actually worked out, and found that, in terms of EROI, they seem to be
one of the most efficient sources of energy we've got. If something else comes
along that presents new information, I like to think that I'll be open to re-
considering my opinion on it, because mostly, I'm intensely curious about what
the truth of the issue really is -- even if I never discover the "truth" about
it.

It's taken me a while to change my thinking this way, and I still haven't
gotten it 100%. I still can get charged-up about some things, but, much less
so than I used to.

~~~
rgarcia
Well said. I'm curious about your decision to affiliate with a political party
in light of your approach to avoiding these psychological pitfalls. Personally
I try to avoid thinking of myself as either liberal or conservative in order
to avoid the same pitfalls that you describe, i.e. by affiliating with a
party, to some extent you close yourself off to considering certain viewpoints
(out of a desire for your party to _be right_ ).

~~~
thaumaturgy
Yeah, that's fair. I decided to become politically active because I have
certain values, and I would like to live in a society that values the same
things I do. e.g,. equality, high socioeconomic mobility, education, etc.

It didn't look like society would do those things on its own, and if I
criticized it for not doing those things but didn't at the very least vote on
issues and candidates, then I was a hypocrite.

Given the things that I value, the Democrats more often at least _claim_ to
represent them. In California at the time, I had to register with one of the
two major parties, or my voting options would be seriously limited.
Thankfully, this just got fixed during the last election cycle.

I'm totally disillusioned by politicians, though. The only candidate for any
political office that I've had strong positive feelings about since I started
voting was Brown, and that was mostly based on what I found of his track
record and what I think this state needs.

So I chose a political party out of necessity, and because even though I
consciously try to hold my convictions lightly, I do still have some.

But I would still feel an overwhelming urge to wash after shaking a
politician's hand.

------
mynameishere
I wonder why he kept bringing up abortion. Is that a question in any sense
solvable by observation, testing, etc? No more than the question of, say,
legally requiring the use of child safety seats, though in an extremely
opposite sense. Just pandering to his audience, I suppose. There are
definitely a few beliefs liberals tend to hold dearly against all evidence, to
the point that they would be unthinkable to the author and his audience.

Anyway, political questions are a subject of politics, which is a matter of
power and practicality, not all-too academic truth seeking. If imposing carbon
credits cuts GDP growth in half, gives vast power to international regulators,
and provides Goldman Sachs with another 50 billion dollar-worth trading desk,
I can put up with two extra weeks of summer.

------
justina1
I like how the comments (on mj.com) go off on crazy ideological tangents as if
only to prove the article's point.

------
kenjackson
This article does apply greatly to HN, being a discussion board. Like the
author states, I often tend to find myself reacting emotionally to arguments
made. But one thing I do find that I also do is synthesize the arguments over
time.

It has happened several times where I've completely flip flopped my position
over the span of a week or two. It's rarely apparent in the context of a given
thread, but I do try to really consider the arguments when "offline".

In politics this rarely happens as the ideology underlying the politics is
usually more important than the political issue at hand. In tech though, there
is a greater chance of discussion actually having real change.

------
jleader
I think it's interesting how many people react to the article as if it's
saying "those other people use emotion rather than rational thought, we're not
like them", when it actually says that reasoning and emotion are inseperable.
For all of us.

------
burgerbrain
Extremely well written article, though I'm not convinced it really tells
anything new to someone who has had experience dealing with these sorts of
people.

~~~
skunkworks
"These sorts of people" is an interesting way to distance ourselves from this,
as though we the tech-enlightened were somehow hardened against weaving our
reasoning through the maze so that it reaches our predetermined conclusion.

I actually caught myself doing this last week while I was writing a response
to a HN comment. I was emotionally invested in my assertion (that fat people
are fat because they overeat, rather than the overeating being a symptom of
some people's propensity to store more fat). It started out with constructing
an argument that satisfied my conclusion, and each time I encountered some
thought-roadblock, I diverted traffic down an alternate street. After several
times of doing this, it dawned on me just how disingenuous this entire process
was becoming, so I decided the better attitude is that of a fence sitter:
committed to hearing future arguments from both sides -- made by people who
are smarter than I, no less -- and then deciding which argument was more
convincing.

~~~
yakto
It's been said in many ways by many authors, but this has helped me: "Imagine
everyone is enlightened, except you. Then try to figure out what they were
sent to teach you."

