Science Friday recently had a great segment on cognitive dissonance, defined as:
A psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.
Because it is uncomfortable, your brain will seek out ways to resolve the contradictions.
So if you think you're a good and moral person, but you fudge a little on your taxes, you might justify this with an excuse like: "I've overpaid in previous years," or "the government is using my money in an immoral way," or "everyone else is doing it."
New research shows that this is not some individual character flaw, but a strong and consistent human impulse. Brain scans show that the brain floods with pleasure when conflicting ideas are resolved.
I thought the segment went a long way toward explaining why skeptics on global warming still exist. When presented with conflicting views, such as "I am a good person" vs. "my lifestyle is destroying the planet," the brain comes up with a way to resolve them, such as, "global warming is a conspiracy cooked up by celebrities and scientists."
This really highlights why we need to emphasize solutions. If we give people ways to address the problem, they won't need to deny it.
On ‘climategate’
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 3:41 am
08 Aug 2007
Like this one:
"Scientists keep saying the globe is warming" vs. "global warming is a liberal issue" gets resolved by "scientists are in the tank for liberals."
Or this one:
"Global warming looks like a serious problem" vs. "solutions to global warming involve gov't regulation and international cooperation" resolves as "liberals are making up evidence in a covert attempt to create World Government."
Make it politically acceptable for conservatives to believe in global warming, and you will find that the allegedly epistemological and scientific objections vanish like smoke.
grist.org
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 3:44 am
08 Aug 2007
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 3:55 am
08 Aug 2007
There's the view that the MSM is liberal, and so not trustworthy. This makes it easy to dismiss political efforts to address global warming, including the IPCC, because they are generally reported through the popular media. And yet the Fox News commentators are hammering home their (presumably less political?) view that global warming is not happening.
Celebrities and politicians? Dismiss them, they're not scientists. Scientists? Dismiss them, they're politically- or career-motivated. Sean Hannity? Eat it up like it's pudding, because he speaks the truth.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:31 am
08 Aug 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:01 am
08 Aug 2007
The best of the real experts in behavior change -- Madison Ave. -- will all tell you that trying to sell solutions before the consumer accepts that there is a problem is hopeless.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:21 am
08 Aug 2007
I look at this more as applying to myself rather than to others who neither believe nor act on those beliefs. I have lived with this "tension" since I became environmentally aware in the late 60s. In those early years I radically attempted to engage in behavior -- no car, vegetarian, organic farming, etc. -- that did not conflict with my environmental beliefs. But as time wore on I compromised more and more until now, I am once again greatly aware that my behavior is way out of sync with my values and beliefs. I make some amends around the edges when I can, but in the main, my lifestyle pretty much not in accord with my beliefs. But, I am aware of it and do not deny that I am injuring the planet. I am troubled though about going beyond the necessities and expending energy on the pursuit of luxury, sport and travel. I used to have a real guilt trip about doing this when I was younger, but now it is like, hey I missed out on a lot of this cool shit when I was younger, life is getting short, and I am going to have some fun even if it means pouring a shit load of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So, I think a lot of this dissonance really applies more to us in the green community than to those who just don't give a shit in the first place and deny any culpability.
But, as I recall some dirty hippy stating long ago, it is one thing to live in the system and another thing to defend it.
So, am I reading this wrong or what?
Lou
Permalink
timdennell Posted 2:24 am
09 Aug 2007
We're all products of the culture we were raised in and carry, often unconsciously, values, assumptions and beliefs from that upbringing. And we can hold often conflicted thoughts and feelings about issues. Part of myself, for example, would really like to be told that the global warming issue is a false alarm, simply because the implications are so disturbing; I recognise that feeling writ much larger in many sceptics (Some are obviously desperate to disbelieve it.) I have got rid of my car, yet that is the lifestyle change I find hardest to accept, even though I can walk to work. It does limit what can be done; I can see why so many find they cannot take that step, alternatives are not readily to hand. We need to be aware of motes and beams. It may also help us engage in more constructive debates.
All people are likely to resist new knowledge or information that contradicts existing information. It's why messages received during early years tend to become deeply embedded and often continue to shape a viewpoint throughout adult life, particularly if reinforced by a frequent `topping up' of messages. Islam is a good example of such belief control and re-enforcement, but any religion would suffice.
When faced with information that threatens existing knowledge or values people try to resolve the resulting internal conflicts by angrily attempting to deny outright the problem (`climate change isn't happening'), seeking some reason to discount the information, (hence the emphasis placed by sceptics on `secret agendas' e.g. `eco-fascist world governments') or grasping at simplistic, but emotionally gratifying, alternative solutions (`All the planets are getting warmer' etc.), projecting their anxiety and attention onto some unrelated but containable problem or activity or indulging in deliberately wasteful behaviour (displacement), trying to shut out all information (suppression), seeking scapegoats or simply retreating into fantasy. All these are symptoms of an unconscious defence mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge new information that is painful to acknowledge.
And all of us will do some of the above at some point in our lives, often in a work, relationship or 'life-crisis' setting.
Jungians would cite an individual's tendency to project their `Shadow' onto those they see as the enemy or who are causing the feelings of `dissonance'. The Shadow is the personification of all the `bad stuff' in the human unconscious that we deny in ourselves and project onto others in order to interpret them as `not -us' or `enemies'. And the Shadow is a part of all of us (anger, hate, fear etc.) however noble we see ourselves being.
If people cannot accept the new information, but cannot ignore it, they attempt to adapt the old paradigm to fit - however badly - the new one. Creationists attempting to shoehorn more and more information into their Biblical paradigm - dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden - is one example.
Some people relate emotionally to the Climate Change issue in an unhealthy way, possibly reflecting their underlying world-view. Their main response is one of fear, feeling helpless and of having lost control (existentialist angst) together with fear of change and of the unknown. For some it produces a fear that this is may be some form of retribution or punishment for humanity's hubris, that the certainties we thought we had, or expected to have, have been destroyed. Over the top apocalyptic language is likely produce these feelings in others along with paralysis and inertia. It makes the issue appear too overwhelming and hopeless to even begin engaging with.
I believe what we're all aiming is for is to be aware of - and have some language to describe - both our unconscious and conscious (rational) sides in order to assess how we're responding to information (e.g. are we more likely to believe something because we want it to be so?); hopefully then to be able to make reasonable, and value-neutral, judgments based on the evidence presented.
This is important because intense emotions undermine peoples' capacity for rational decision-making (or argument), even when they're aware of the need to make careful decisions. When formulating public policy, when people are angry, afraid or euphoric they tend to favour simplistic, symbolic and emotionally satisfying solutions to problems over more complex, yet effective policies.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:18 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
MikeSar Posted 12:40 pm
11 Aug 2007
Adults are more difficult, and Adult Voters are practically impossible.
Why should I learn? I don wanna!
We are cooked.
Permalink
MikeSar Posted 2:49 pm
30 Aug 2007
Nothing can be more essentially conservative than to try to canserve our planet and let humanity survive. To say this is a "far out" fringe idea would be false and wrong.
Perhaps, the issue is clear if we try an opposite illustration. Could it be Conservative to PROMOTE Global Warming? Would any Conservative start wildfires because Global Warming is false? Of course, not.
Conservatives, far more than liberals, recognize that if there is a limited capacity for anything, and if to exceed that limit puts the planet and humanity at risk, it would be wrong, to the extreme, for Conservatives to advocate burning coal, oil or wood.
OK, some Conservatives are not yet convinced but, those that are convinced, or recognize the credentials of those that are, they must know that "it becomes a moreal issue" and they must do their part, like we must do our part.
Permalink