(NOTE COPYPASTA: This discussion is getting a bit long in the tooth, I'm happy to argue indefinitely because this topic happens to be my hobby horse, but I'm more than happy to declare a truce of sorts so you can gracefully exit and get on with more interesting things. I very much thank you for arguing though, I've found it helpful in clarifying my thinking on some items.)
> Because I find the idea of taking human psychology into account interesting
Ok good, because this is mostly my point, so it's nice to have found one person who can see it as worthwhile to consider
> as long as it is goal-oriented. I had hoped I'd learn something from this thread and from you on how to deal with others who either think climate change isn't a thing or who think that we could improve how we deal with this. This is what you're all about, right?
Well, so far I'm primarily trying to discover if it is even possible to get people to consider whether human psychology is a relevant variable in the problem. I would say this thread was the first time I've had some success. But you're right, I haven't even attempted to shock and amaze anyone with my brilliant theoretical solutions to how to deal with the anti-AGW camp, you might be the first person who's actually expressed any interest (will have to review the discussions).
> You claimed repeatedly that people who think climate chance is a thing are too absolute, too certain and that they should listen to the sceptics, or at least try to understand the sceptics and how they work and influence this discussion. Then, you state that the very absolutes are the problem, because they are exploited through memes and whatnot.
Pretty much, but I get the sense you see this as somehow contradictory? If so, could you explain?
> This entire discussion has one problem: It's asymmetric. Like with everything where conspiracy theories come up easily. One weak study that shows different results, or results taken out of context and boom, you have the cannon fodder to attack everything around "climate science". Thing is: The counter side sometimes even uses lies as their weapons.
I agree, it is an unfortunate truth that people are not rational actors, on both sides (but mostly the anti-AGW of course).
> There is no easy solution to that. It's the problem of many complex and invididually unverifiable topics. Whether it's climate science, vaccines, homeopathy or the moon landing.
Correct. So, what shall we do about this situation? Nothing, except more of the same? Is it working, within the time constraints nature seems to be forcing upon us? My gut tells me no.
> And now you claim that the scientific community needs to be open to the arguments of the naysayers or at least take into account how the discussion can be made more productively? Please, I still challenge you: Enlighten us with a clear path on how to handle this discussion, if one side isn't willing to educate itself at least somewhat?
For fun, ask yourself this: if it is a fact (for the sake of argument) that I do not have a clear path to a solution, does it then logically follow that the problem does not exist? Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
Joking aside, you treat it like any other project: analyze the requirements, come up with plausible solutions, test and iterate. If your response is that we're already doing that, here is just a few ways in which I would disagree:
a) Not only have I seen no initiative (to understand the true anti-AGW mindset) in the public sphere, I've seen none of it even in smaller, intelligent communities like HN. Perhaps no one have thought of this before, which is fine if true, but when the notion is raised (look through the entirety of this thread and judge for yourself), the response seems to be either null, wilfully ignorant (refusal to discuss the idea via changing of the subject), or ~hostile.
b) When I encounter discussions (in the media, or online) about people in the anti-AGW camp, it is like there is some sort of mass delusion going on. The entirety of the anti-AGW camp is described as if they are mouth-breathing idiots (which shouldn't be too surprising really, at least if you've done any reading on how perceptions of reality work).
> Because you make it sound as if you've found a way to "exploit the human brain".
Well, I've managed to get at least three people on HN to engage in conversation on this topic. So yes, I believe I may actually be acquiring skills in the field, but it's too early to form any strong opinions.
I'll ask you a similar question: you make it sound like you know something about climate change. Is it true, do you actually believe that? If so, care to explain how you think you accomplished that?
> Because I find the idea of taking human psychology into account interesting
Ok good, because this is mostly my point, so it's nice to have found one person who can see it as worthwhile to consider
> as long as it is goal-oriented. I had hoped I'd learn something from this thread and from you on how to deal with others who either think climate change isn't a thing or who think that we could improve how we deal with this. This is what you're all about, right?
Well, so far I'm primarily trying to discover if it is even possible to get people to consider whether human psychology is a relevant variable in the problem. I would say this thread was the first time I've had some success. But you're right, I haven't even attempted to shock and amaze anyone with my brilliant theoretical solutions to how to deal with the anti-AGW camp, you might be the first person who's actually expressed any interest (will have to review the discussions).
> You claimed repeatedly that people who think climate chance is a thing are too absolute, too certain and that they should listen to the sceptics, or at least try to understand the sceptics and how they work and influence this discussion. Then, you state that the very absolutes are the problem, because they are exploited through memes and whatnot.
Pretty much, but I get the sense you see this as somehow contradictory? If so, could you explain?
> This entire discussion has one problem: It's asymmetric. Like with everything where conspiracy theories come up easily. One weak study that shows different results, or results taken out of context and boom, you have the cannon fodder to attack everything around "climate science". Thing is: The counter side sometimes even uses lies as their weapons.
I agree, it is an unfortunate truth that people are not rational actors, on both sides (but mostly the anti-AGW of course).
> There is no easy solution to that. It's the problem of many complex and invididually unverifiable topics. Whether it's climate science, vaccines, homeopathy or the moon landing.
Correct. So, what shall we do about this situation? Nothing, except more of the same? Is it working, within the time constraints nature seems to be forcing upon us? My gut tells me no.
> And now you claim that the scientific community needs to be open to the arguments of the naysayers or at least take into account how the discussion can be made more productively? Please, I still challenge you: Enlighten us with a clear path on how to handle this discussion, if one side isn't willing to educate itself at least somewhat?
For fun, ask yourself this: if it is a fact (for the sake of argument) that I do not have a clear path to a solution, does it then logically follow that the problem does not exist? Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
Joking aside, you treat it like any other project: analyze the requirements, come up with plausible solutions, test and iterate. If your response is that we're already doing that, here is just a few ways in which I would disagree:
a) Not only have I seen no initiative (to understand the true anti-AGW mindset) in the public sphere, I've seen none of it even in smaller, intelligent communities like HN. Perhaps no one have thought of this before, which is fine if true, but when the notion is raised (look through the entirety of this thread and judge for yourself), the response seems to be either null, wilfully ignorant (refusal to discuss the idea via changing of the subject), or ~hostile.
b) When I encounter discussions (in the media, or online) about people in the anti-AGW camp, it is like there is some sort of mass delusion going on. The entirety of the anti-AGW camp is described as if they are mouth-breathing idiots (which shouldn't be too surprising really, at least if you've done any reading on how perceptions of reality work).
> Because you make it sound as if you've found a way to "exploit the human brain".
Well, I've managed to get at least three people on HN to engage in conversation on this topic. So yes, I believe I may actually be acquiring skills in the field, but it's too early to form any strong opinions.
I'll ask you a similar question: you make it sound like you know something about climate change. Is it true, do you actually believe that? If so, care to explain how you think you accomplished that?