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."
Wow, regardless of which side you are on, that was a new level of incoherent ranting babble. I have no idea what was the point you were trying to make there.
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.
"undeniable lies" has the same basic problem as "obvious truth", it is generally just a rhetorical tactic and bares little resemblance to reality. There seems to be a pretty strong relationship between the extremeness in someone's language and the shakeyness of their argument. There are good reasons why this stuff comes up 'ancient alien' documentaries so much more then actual science ones.
"This lacks rigor" without some sort of explanation is horseshit.
What level of research were you expecting? The Duke U profiles and Google Scholar results show that these two researchers seem to have an idea, do a basic study, and move on to something more interesting. (Campbell, Troy H.; Kay, Aaron C.) For that, on its surface, I have no objection.
I haven't read the paper, so I can't say whether there are citations that cite tangential research, or prior study. Tangential citations suggest that this is a new idea building on previous related but different ideas. Prior study citations would suggest that an initial finding is being examined more thoroughly, and the expected rigor goes up.
So, feel free to review the citations and give me your opinion on whether this is exploratory or followup research. And tell me also how this fails in rigor, because I can't tell that based on the abstract.
"This experiment" seems to focus on Republicans for the first of 3 studies, and then a fourth contrasting study was done apparently to make sure this effect was not limited to the conservative mindset. The only failing in rigor I can see is that I don't see a screening for candidates to see if they are in fact members of the target group (i.e. do they hold the belief that free markets are good and regulation is bad). But it might be described in the study.