Slashdot Mirror
Political Ideology Shapes How People Perceive Temperature
benfrog writes "In what likely isn't that much of a surprise, a study has shown that political ideology shapes how we perceive temperature changes (but not drought/flooding conditions). (An abstract of the study is here. 8,000 individuals were asked about temperatures and drought/flood events in recent years, then their political leanings. Answers regarding drought/flood events tended to follow the actual changes in conditions, while answers regarding temperature tended to follow people's political beliefs."
...when looked at by political groupings, did any particular political grouping's perceptions of the temperate correlate more closely to reality than the others?
i.e. was there one or more political ideologies that was more divorced from reality than the others, by any meaningful statistical deviation? Or were they all off, just in different directions based on political ideology?
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
That Republicans and Tories are all cold-hearted?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
while answers regarding temperature tended to follow people's political beliefs.
It's been wicked hot lately, so I'm thinking of becoming a Republican and denouncing global-warming to cool things off. :-)
You can thank me later. Note: I also want a fancy pony - like Mitt.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Individuals who followed George W. Bush all thought the temperature was "awesome".
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
This seems like a bit of a stretch. Wouldn't it be easier to assume:
People who are inland are more likely to be republicans.
People who are inland are more likely to have different perceptions of temperature.
Why would you make this mental leap?
Republicans perceive temperature differently because they are indoctrinated ("changes in local temperatures have been more heavily politicized")
The correlation/causation seems all out of whack.
I really really really really despise articles that are subjective analysis of data that don't include any sort of access to the data itself. "Trust us the numbers say X" is the single most intolerable statement to a rational human being.
Basic cognitive dissonance modelling has demonstrated repeatedly that when a person encounters incontrovertible facts that contradict deeply held beliefs, the facts are discarded.
I am officially gone from
except when taxes come due, then I feel a lot of cold water on my plans.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
I think the REAL correlation is people who were polled tended to BELIEVE the stance of the political party they ascribe on climate but having not been swayed by their party on drought/flooding one way or the other simply answered according to their observations.
or not..
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Conservatives don't believe in climate change. News at eleven.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I cannot access TFJA, just websites talking about it. What was the significance level of their results? I mean, I've seen articles with very low significance and high p values (that the article says that there is no evidence what they measured exist) but the press still passed it around like it blew open entire fields.
...made by some Dutch professor in Social Sciences right ? Lately 2 professors turned out to be frauds, exactly in this area, and this article could be another: unfunded conclusions by a vague questionnaire... :)
Not saying that it is of course, but erm... just saying
Look at a political map of the US, and what's the first thing that pops out at you? A lot more conservatives live in the southern US. Most of the places where conservatives tend to live are warm, while liberals tend to live in cooler areas. People in areas that are normally cooler would be more likely to notice an increase in temperature than people in areas that are generally warmer. Personally, I'm used to 80%+ humidity and upper 90s-low 100s myself, so this summer has actually seemed pretty mild in comparison to what I'm used to. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in global warming. It has more to do with the kind of weather I am acclimated to.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
...of cold and we move to Florida.
It seems the other way for me. I'm a rather left-leaning type and I say it's 33 right now, but the conservative in the next cube over keeps saying it's 97.
Maybe its easier to member things like the house being under water, or there not being rain in 50 something days in an location that averages rainfall multiple times per week is just easier to remember than on average it is 1 degree warmer each day this month than last year or the year before when there is a 15 degree swing on the highs during the month. So when it comes to temperature people fall back on their political beliefs in the accuracy of temperature records, etc.
It's kind of hard to miss a flood when you live in your parents' basement. It gets damp and the sump pump wakes you up at night. But temperature? I'd have to actually go outside to know what it is. Otherwise, all I have to go on is my belief in global warming.
So can I save on air conditioning, by having a cold political ideology in the summer?
And save on heating costs, by having hot political ideology in the winter?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
People with a vested interest in the sky falling, notice something that could at the wildest extrapolation mean the sky is falling.
People without such interest, disregard such signs.
Or it could be that some are pantywaists that get in a twist over trivia, and some aren't.
-Styopa
Global warming alarmists are the ones who decided to politicize the issue.
Thanks for nothing, guys.
Correlation is not causation...
Gee. I think a bit of warming would be a good thing. But it has nothing to do with politics. I simply live in the cold north lands. Warming would open up more of our season to being able to grow things. City folk and southern folk don't understand this aspect. Not surprisingly, most liberals come from urban areas.
I'm pro-Global Warming. Think about it. The greatest biodiversity has been during periods of warming. The greatest die offs, not caused by things like astroids, was during ice ages. Warming is good.
Oh, and no, I'm not a political conservative.
Chronological Age Shapes How People Perceive Temperature
"You just don't get the summers we used to get when I was a lad..."
Financial Circumstances Shape How People Perceive Temperature
"Almost froze my ass off last winter, didn't have enough newspapers stocked up since everybody's reading the bloody online bloody news these days..."
and
Number of Children / Grandchildren / Pets Shape How People Perceive Temperature
"Well, Susie has her skating class, then Molly has her hockey game, but Andy and Billy were invited to that Winter Festival / tobogganing birthday party at the same time...oh, and could you walk Rover when you get home?"
Face it, 'perception' of temperature is a pretty worthless measure overall. Stick with the measurements, assign a margin of error (note: not 'corrections') suitable for the technology / location, and go from there.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
People who work in well air conditioned offices don't feel as hot as those who have to perfotm manual labor outside, or in less well cooled (and dehumidified) environments
And people who are very wealthy aren't concerned about global warming, they can just build a new summer home firther north.
And it's melting...
No, it's half empty and it's thawing.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
... because they are slightly closer to hell.
When someone tells me it's never been hotter, or colder, than now, I always look up the relevant local stats and history. It's almost always been hotter, or colder, on any given day, at some point in the past 100 years, than it is today. Even when the local weather report says it is a record breaking day, I've come to the conclusion based that their records only go back as far as 10 or 20 years - there's almost always a day in the longer term record that beats it.
I've always thought that facts are facts, and not subject to whims or belief.
So, research funds are being spent on measuring (and eventually manipulating?) public sentiment? Rather than actually counting tree rings, measuring glacial melt, refining atmospheric and oceanic models, etc.
This is what is meant by 'science'?
Have gnu, will travel.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/05/climate-weather-warmest-year-on-record-/1
so I guess people who were motivated by their political ideology to minimize the temperature are what's known as reality-deny fanatics.
Yeah, that's pretty much all there is to say on that topic.
If you're dumb enough to believe the Earth is really getting warmer fast enough for you to feel it.
Oh and just for good measure, this:
http://act.350.org/signup/reckoning/?akid=2086.624457.CWuv92&rd=1&t=2
Here's the analogy. We're all on a ship in the ocean. Engineering below has alerted the captain that we're definitely headed for an iceberg. The rich people who are partying on the ship don't want the party to stop.
Since they're the Big Money on board and have the Big Connections , they have outsized say in what the captain decides to do. They shout down the engineers, accusing them of being jealous of the first class passengers.
The rest of the passengers are worried but unable to get captain to change course.
After a while, engineering gets more and more agitated and the passengers can see the panic in their faces. The first class passengers become more even recalcitrant and adamant because now it's a matter of pride.
The rest of the passengers start quietly meeting amongst themselves, talking in low voices, moving about the ship in small groups.
You guess how this movie finishes.
OK times up. It finishes with a lot of well heeled people floating lifelessly in the frigid waters as the ship veers safely past the iceberg with the passengers on board, safe and going home to their loved ones.
No one is going to let deniers crash this ship and kill everyone on board. There comes a time when no one cares what your "rights" are or if SCOTUS has decided that money is speech or even what fucking SCOTUS says. Civilization at its core isn't based on "civil rights" or "free speech" or SCOTUS decisions. We got by without any of that shit for a few, ten thousand years. It's based on survival. Anyone who threatens survival will find themselves outside of the laws of civilization pretty fucking fast.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If you make people fight for their survival, if you're identified as one of the deniers who drove civilization to the brink of extinction you can pretty well plan on dying a pretty fucking barbaric death, possibly involving blow torches and such like medieval -level implements of torture . It's nothing I'd wish on anyone, but moderate, peace loving, live and let live liberal bunny people like me aren't going to be able to hold back revenge seekers very well. Prominent personalities deeply involved with denialism may want to take pause here.
My colleagues think we should spare you from the full horror of what's going to happen when, say, the food web in the ocean begins to collapse. They think that because they think by building bridges we can eventually bring you along, but if we paint the full picture of what the future will bring to your flesh, you'll fucking tighten up, become defensive and go full off into denialand and "stand your ground" until the bitter end.
I have another perspective. I think by explicitly laying out for you likely or possible scenarios and what part you'll play in them your brain will start to work in favor of your own survival despite your pansified, airy-fairy post-modernist "you have your experts and I have mine, you have your reality and I have mine" bullshit you learned from cocksucking FoxNews.
Don't think your money or guns or survivalist skills are going to count for jack fucking shit when the world's intelligence agencies collectively decide that you're a clear and present danger to humanity and bring to the party everything in their labs and the kitchen sink to make sure that your dealt with. That's how this is going to go down in the end because you know what? The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
I would think geographical location during the persons upbringing would have an effect on the perception of temperature. It would also have an effect on political ideology. Correlation != causation. Perhaps temperature perception shapes political ideology.
Condition of housing may also have an effect. Living in a cold area in an expensive warm house would not be the same as living in a cheap cold house. The difference there is the cost of the house and implies a higher family income.
Or is it me?
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
They connected the wrong dots. Different political affiliations typically means different age groups which means one has seen more decades of weather which contained other floods and droughts and heat waves so they are less inclined to think there's a change going on.
Psychological theories are just shit someone made up to explain people doing something they think is wrong.
I love how "people with strongly-held beliefs will discard new facts that contradict their beliefs" is always presented as a fault of the human mind. Apparently psychologists have a strongly-held belief that the human mind is inherently faulty, because they don't even consider that there might be some perfectly logical reason for such behavior. Answers like "people are stubborn-minded and refuse to see the truth" are quickly accepted because they're so appealing, whereas more reasonable things, like considering that without doing research personally, people can't ever really know anything, and so any "facts" presented to them are at best "potential facts" which may or may not be wrong. Naturally, those with the strongest opinions are going to be most likely to reject these new "facts," not because their opinions cloud their judgment, but because they obviously have some reason to have strongly held opinions to begin with, and so of course it will be harder to change their mind than to change the mind of someone who has no pre-existing opinions. Honestly, why would anyone expect anything else?
Then there's shit like the above, with those stupid conservatives somehow using scientific and mathematical reasoning to come to the wrong conclusion about global warming. Yes, it must be a fault in the ability of the mind of a conservative to apply scientific and mathematical reasoning. It couldn't have anything to do with a conservative having the motivation to research the facts while their liberal counterparts are merely motivated to continue to "trust the scientists."
If someone shows me one of these psychological studies that finds people who strongly believe that a bowling ball falls faster than a golf ball, and then -- after being allowed to test this belief on their own -- reject the new facts and cling to their previous beliefs, then I'll believe that humans suck at logic. However, as long as all we're doing is telling people that they're wrong and noting that they reject the new facts we have presented them, then I shall continue to believe that it is only the psychologists whose minds are deficient at applying logic. They seem very much to be more interested in discovering something that is interesting than they are interested in discovering the truth.
See, I keep posting the facts I've found from the CRU on liberal leaning web forums because I want someone to answer the questions I brought up. They have yet to be addressed after nearly 100 times telling my side of the story. Instead all I get is called names, as shown here, and told I'm stupid for even questioning. He claimed "new evidence", but there is no "new evidence". NASA comes close, but they only recorded data for N America, not world wide (which was used by the CRU). When the "new evidence" from Japan and India emerge, after decades since they have to start from scratch due to deleting of data at the CRU, then maybe I'll change my opinion, but until then there is no "new evidence" its just the same flawed data printed over and over.
The only conclusion I can make from this is that my facts are correct, there is no answer to them, and in an attempt to persuade people AGW people have to call me names because if they are "clever enough" with the name calling it will make people question what I said.
I have a theory that science was popular in the 50's and 60's because it was all about what we COULD do. When science was telling people we could go to the moon and build better cars and make huge leaps in medicine etc... people loved it. Now that science is telling people what we CAN"T do, at least indefinitely, the same scientific methods that generated such progress are now viewed with suspicion and doubt by people who don't want to change.
When news outlets have to dredge up second rate industry shills to maintain an appearance of a controversy over global climate change, that should be a clue. But some people don't want a clue. They want their gas guzzler.
And that's another thing... I believe officially it is known as global climate change. The average temperature is rising, but that just puts more energy into the global weather system and can lead to swings in temperature either way at a local level.
as long as I can keep my house at whatever temperature I want I don't give a damn about how hot I make yours.
NASA doesn't record much temperature data that I'm aware of. That's the bailiwick of NOAA and the National Weather Service. In other countries their national weather services record the data. NOAA does maintain a worldwide database of temperatures, both raw and adjusted, through the National Climate Data Center and that's the data that NASA uses. The raw data the CRU deleted is still available from the original sources. No one had to start from scratch.
Maybe its easier to member things like the house being under water, or there not being rain in 50 something days in an location that averages rainfall multiple times per week.....
I would kill to live somewhere that averages rainfall multiple times per week. Here, it averages rainfall multiple times per hour :(
In other news... Ice cream cause murder.
http://howsocietyworks.blogspot.com/2011/06/ice-cream-causes-crime-and-other-stupid.html
it's prefectly possible that phenomenon A causes a completely unmeasured phenomenon C, and it is phenomenon C that causes phenomenon B.
But if A implies C and C implies B, then A implies B. This is the "hypothetical syllogism", proved here.
You don't want to go around waving your correlation and raving about how A causes B, because you look kind of silly when phenomenon D shows up and independently wipes out C.
Then you've obtained new information about the mechanism: instead of A causing C, A without D causes C. But until such time as you do, the theory that A causes B still best explains the behavior.
The abstract says *nothing* about the results, which is what I'd be interested in knowing.
mark
I agree that correlation does not imply causation with 100% likelihood. But correlation between A and B implies that either A causes B, B causes A, C causes A and B, or chance. This means a likelihood of roughly 25% that A causes B, which can be increased or decreased by investigating the four possibilities.
This shows how much belief shapes perception, especially when the perception requires not just observations but also a good memory and the ability to correlate lots of data. It’s pretty easy to say whether today is warmer or cooler than yesterday was, but it’s much more difficult to say if last summer or last year as a whole was warmer or cooler than the one before, much less to detect years-long trends over the noise of normal changes. Rain is much easier to remember, because, at least in California, they often talk about how far above or below average the rainfall has been (unless it’s close to average). They do the hard work for you, and all you need to do is remember one thing about each year. I’m sure that is true of most places that worry about droughts or floods or that have lots of crops. For temperature, you won’t usually hear anything unless a record was broken. So it’s not surprising at all that temperature trends are not as accurately discerned and remembered as rainfall, floods and droughts.
In general, the brain tends to fill in patterns where they are missing. I suppose beliefs act as a sort of pattern filler in this case. But it isn’t political beliefs for everyone. For many it is a trust of that the scientific method works pretty well in general and that the majority of scientists are trustworthy. For others it is an almost reflexive reaction to be on the opposite side of any issue that environmentalists (or oil companies) take a side on, which is pretty political. For still others, it is the automatic trust of whatever people on their side of the ideological or political fence are saying, which is purely political.