Slashdot Mirror
When We Don't Like the Solution, We Deny the Problem
Ichijo writes: A new study (abstract) from Duke University tested whether the desirability of a solution affects beliefs in the existence of the associated problem. Researchers found that 'yes, people will deny the problem when they don't like the solution. Quoting: "Participants in the experiment, including both self-identified Republicans and Democrats, read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. They were then asked to evaluate a proposed policy solution to address the warming. When the policy solution emphasized a tax on carbon emissions or some other form of government regulation, which is generally opposed by Republican ideology, only 22 percent of Republicans said they believed the temperatures would rise at least as much as indicated by the scientific statement they read.
But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins."
But when the proposed policy solution emphasized the free market, such as with innovative green technology, 55 percent of Republicans agreed with the scientific statement. The researchers found liberal-leaning individuals exhibited a similar aversion to solutions they viewed as politically undesirable in an experiment involving violent home break-ins. When the proposed solution called for looser versus tighter gun-control laws, those with more liberal gun-control ideologies were more likely to downplay the frequency of violent home break-ins."
Never mix science with politics.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Turns out that if the cure is worse than the disease people don't want the cure...
Some people seem to be 'denying' that that actually is the rational attitude.
Usually I like hearing about research that 'confirms' very obvious features of human nature, because it's valuable to measure things, even obvious things, quantitatively. But this experiment doesn't sound all that rigorous.
When I see a commercial make a claim about a problem, and the solution to that problem just happens to be "Buy our new product!".....yes, I would say that the proposed solution tends to make me view the claim about the problem more skeptically. That seems totally rational to me.
I don't see why this would be any different. If it sounds like someone is pushing the need for tighter (or looser) gun regulations, it's reasonable to question if they've cherry-picked their statistics about the problem to support their case.
Maybe f they'd had one source give a totally neutral statement about a problem, and then a different source suggest a solution, and managed to prevent the subjects from realizing that the experimenters were responsible for both statements...
From the dictionary definitions, one would think that "liberal gun-control ideologies" would mean to encourage as wide as distribution of as many guns as possible. But this is not the case. But "liberal gun-control ideologies" actually means as few guns as possible to as few people as possible.
Just a random thought from a Blue State (WA) where another freedom of action was circumscribed despite the Red Wave that swept the rest of the country. See I-594, specifically the definition of transfers. No more borrowing a friend's shotgun.
There have been undeniable lies presented by AGW supporters, and I'm sure the book lists them.
If there are undeniable lies, then you should be able to list a few of them (without us needing to buy the book). Indeed, please do.
Thanks.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
In other words, you can not tell the difference between 'lie' and 'adjusting prediction as more information becomes available'.
See what I mean?
Posts like yours just go on to make more and more people not believe you.
IPCC said himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, had to admit they were wrong. .4 C by 2010, we currently have 18 years of NO WARMING.
Polar ice caps would be ice free by 2010, Al Gore
Every year we would face numerous hurricanes more powerful than Katrina, hasn't happened.
Ocean level rise would make beach houses in Florida under water, isn't happening.
Because of increase CO2 temps would incread by
Look at ANY IPCC prediction before 2007, now that we can measure it to reality, and evey single one is wrong.
The fact that I even have to list any of these because you didn't know show how absolutly in denial the AGW supporers are. You know damn well what the lies are, yet instead of admitting them and coming up with better scientific evidence instead you chose to attack me and claim I was lying. That is what I was compling about and thank you for proving me right.
All the examples you gave are failed predictions, not lies. Lies would be something like falsifying current data. Predicting the future is notoriously hard, to call failed predictions "lies" is assigning malice to the statements that I don't think exists. Perhaps if you toned down the rhetoric and didn't accuse people who don't share your views of lying there could be meaningful dialog on the matter. I doubt that will happen, because it is much easier to demonize your opponent than it is to present data that contradicts the hypothesis. Perhaps the people who believe AGW isn't happening should make some predictions of their own (glaciers will grow? Ice extent will increase or stay the same? Ocean levels will not rise?) and we'll see how their predictions hold up.
Enigma
Actually, they appear to have shown malleability in the belief of the subject in a problem based on whether the solution was favorable or unfavorable to their closely held beliefs.
I see it all the time in my job. I get called out to assess structural problems in peoples homes, and also to consult on renovations and modifications. Most of the time, people who find a fault in their home complain about why the local inspections office didn't catch the substandard building practice when it was built. Most people who have to pay me design a correctly engineered wall or beam are angry that the building department is making the process so difficult and expensive by requiring special design and inspections for a "simple" change.
I actually had a woman who was angry with me because I told here she'd need to install a beam if she took out a support post in her basement. The beam looked continuous from the wall, over the post, to the second post, and she was pretty sure it would be fine if they just removed it, but the building official said she couldn't make the change unless she had someone design a beam for it. She told me she probably wouldn't apply for a permit, since nobody would ever see the work getting done. As I was about to leave, she asked about a large crack in the basement wall of her addition that was put in about 10 years ago. I looked at it and there was no reinforcing or filled cores in masonry, and the back fill was too high for an unreinforced CMU wall. I told her this and she asked - with a straight face - how could the town inspectors have allowed the contractor to build it incorrectly, without requiring someone to design the wall? Wasn't that their job?
So if you ask whether government oversight is good or bad, for this woman it was clearly bad when it was going to cost her money, but it would have been good if it had prevented her house from being damaged. Same woman, same inspections office, same requirement that an engineer design a structural building element. The effect is very real.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Confirmation bias is a general container for a number of different coping mechanisms. It is also the foundation of a number of behaviors. In contrast, Solution aversion seems to be one behavior which results in confirmation bias. Explaining how we get there, rather than just saying that it exists.
This study seems to say that when I don't like a solution, I deny there is a problem. If I like the solution, or it is not a strongly held belief one way or another, I don't deny there is a problem. Your attempts at summarising lack important details. "What if the facts being distorted came from a scientific paper" was already studied as "the backfire effect", and "what if the ideas were political" has been beaten to death. Their combination isn't novel.
This is not about the general case of "here's a fact, do you believe the fact?" It's a more specific case of "here's a problem, do you agree based on whether you agree with the solution".
The average person, bluntly put, really isn't all that smart. They struggled through High School math (if they even made it that far), barely understood any science-based classes they were forced to take, and otherwise believes more of what their local religious leadership says than any random guy in a lab coat being interviewed on television. At best the average person would want you to demonstrate how this 'global warming' thing works. At worst, they'll assume it's some world-wide scam to make them pay more money for everything. Of course I'm talking about the average person in first-world countries; people in countries below that level aren't even talking about anything as high-falutin' as 'global warming', they have their hands full just trying to put food on the table and/or keeping the local warlord from killing them and/or 'recruiting' them into their 'army' to fight some other local warlord. In a first-world country, telling the average person that their life is going to become more expensive and less convenient for them because of XYZ reasons that they can't even begin to wrap their heads around is pretty much a non-starter. If it's religious folks we're talking about, especially the more fundamentalist-Christian types, then they literally don't give a damn about it, so far as they're concerned the world is going to end at some point anyway and they'll all be Raptured into Heaven, so who cares if the environment is fucked up anyway? All those 'scientists' are doing Satans' work anyway, right?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Al Gore made the statement that we would suffer sudden *catastrophic* changes in about 10 years if *drastic* steps weren't taken now. He said this about 15 years ago.
Can you back that up with an actual cite to the transcript or essay from Gore that says that? It just sounds like a climate science denier meme to me.