All right, I've been meaning to write a post on this forever, but a comment from The Oil Drum's Prof. Goose finally lit a fire under my butt:
It seems to me that one of the keys to the puzzle of why people don't understand peak oil and other sustainability issues is innumeracy and a lack of understanding spatial functions.
Ah, so that's it! But wait, it gets better:
However, getting 100*ln 2(~=70, btw)/rate per annum=doubling time in years through your head ain't that hard...is it?
Oh, well heck no!
But let's get to the point:
One of the main points of Dr. Bartlett's lecture is that "we cannot let other people do our thinking for us." So, so true.
Um, no. So, so false.
In fact, we let other people do our thinking for us constantly. If we couldn't outsource some -- nay, most -- of our thinking, we would be screwed indeed. People think about their families, kids, boy/girlfriends, health, school, job, finances, parents, weight ... now they have to learn calculus?
I'm not trying to be cute. People are busy. Average folk can hope to have in-depth knowledge in one area, maybe two. For many it is sports, clothes, TV shows, hobbies of myriad sorts.
Even those who devote their lives to what we may consider good causes -- learning all there is to know about, oh, poverty, or ocean health -- do we hold them responsible for not knowing all there is to know about peak oil? Do we hold Prof. Goose responsible for not knowing the basic facts on, say, the tropical lapse rate quandary?
No. Most people rely, for most of their information, most of the time, on other people. They let other people do the thinking for them. It could not be otherwise.
For Mr. or Miss. Average Person, the question about peak oil for is not, "does 100*ln 2(~=70, btw)/rate per annum=doubling time in years?" For Mr. or Miss. Average Person, the question is, "can I trust Prof. Goose [for example]?"
Same goes for global warming -- most people have no idea what forcings are, or the difference between the troposphere and the stratosphere. They can't assess the validity of scientific papers. For them, the question is: who you gonna believe?
The vast majority rely on heuristics: which sources seem trustworthy, seem like good people, seem correct?
For example, take the much-blogged-about Democracy Corps focus groups (pdf) with rural voters. Here's the money shot:
Particularly among non-college voters, cultural issues not only superceded other priorities, they served as a proxy for many voters on those other issues. With most voters expressing little understanding of the differences between Democrats and Republicans or the relative merits of their positions on economic policy, health care, retirement security, and other issues, they felt it safe to assume that if a candidate was "right" on cultural issues -- i.e. opposed to abortion, but most importantly opposed to gay marriage and vocal about defending the role of faith and traditional Judeo-Christian values in public life -- that candidate would naturally also come closest to their views on these other issues.
This is not meant to mock rural voters (heaven forfend) but simply as an illustration that heuristics need not always be related to the facts of the matter -- in fact, such indicators are often, strictly speaking, irrational. Again I hasten to say, it's nothing to condemn. The limitations of human cognition make it so. We might say that an educated citizenry, broadly informed, is a worthy goal. But even should such an Eden be achieved, most people will not know calculus and will not be able to independently assess the vagaries of Saudi oil reserves.
For that vast majority of the populace, the legitimacy of peak oil will hinge on such extraneous factors as the perceived size of the consensus, the political and social status of its advocates, its inclusion in popular media, its place in the 24-hour news cycle, whether it gets mentioned on Oprah. Get a peak oil book on Oprah's book club and boom, your ranks quintuple.
Simply being right, no matter how right you may perceive yourself to be, is not enough to produce change. For that you must indulge in a little branding. You must concern yourself with how your product is perceived in its intended market. Master the intangibles.
Facts and formulas will only take you so far.
POSTSCRIPT 1: This is not, of course, to take any particular shot at Prof. Goose, who does stellar work every day over at his blog, which I assume you already have bookmarked.
POSTSCRIPT 2: It's been a running joke between my dad and I for years: that my decision never to take calculus will come back to haunt me. He's an engineer.
Comments
View as Flat
Andy Brett Posted 11:47 pm
11 Aug 2005
I would throw this analogy out there. In the hypothetical, completely ideal world of globalization where people and nations do only what they do best (hold a comparative advantage for), everything gets divided up and specialized.
But in the real world, people and nations like to do some things themselves. On the national level, defense is one example. Producing a pretty fair amount of food and energy domestically is another. On the personal level, there are tasks and jobs that people just prefer to do, or at least be able to do, themselves, even if they aren't that great at them. For example, most people like to have a certain degree of culinary expertise, usually extending beyond ramen, if only slightly.
I extend this analogy to the "thinkin'" world. There is absolutely no way for everyone to do all their thinking for themselves. They must learn which sources to trust, as you say. But there's a certain level to which you have to be able to do your own thinking, a level which is different for everybody.
For a timely example: I am no legal expert, and probably would have never even seen the NARAL ad opposing SCOTUS nominee John Roberts had it not been for the online firestorm that resulted. Annenberg Political FactCheck is an organization that I have come to trust because of its work on other issues, so when they say something like "the ad is false," that tends to convince me. It also means that on this issue, I did not dig through the legal briefs myself in order to be convinced that the NARAL ad was misleading.
This is also (warning: cliche ahead) the power of blogs: when there's a new blog created every second, there's going to be someone who is willing and able to blog in-depth about almost any particular topic there is, to become the expert on it. Does it really make sense for me to immerse myself and investigate fully a topic like land trusts if someone I trust, like Pat Burns, has already been doing a superb job for some time and will thus be much more efficient than me at analyzing news when it breaks?
The irrationality of some heuristics certainly throws a monkey wrench into this whole thing. The "price implies quality" bias can be a devastating argument against free markets with the exception of commodities markets, since it scuttles the assumption that people act rationally/have good information, since the information they are inferring is incorrect if it's based solely on the "price implies quality" idea.
The idea of "perceived consensus" is also an interesting one, and one which contains elements of framing in it. If something starts to be referred to with words implying consensus, it won't be too long before there is a perceived consensus. Of course, if the basic facts of the matter are incorrect, it won't get anywhere, mostly because of blogs and organizations like FactCheck, but simply having the facts right isn't enough.
One potential problem then is the fact that those who are adept at getting the facts out and investigating might not the ones who are best at framing the issue and getting the message out.
Anyway, lot to chew on. Great stuff.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:56 pm
11 Aug 2005
http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/8/12/1131705.html
Oil can be replaced by clean energy, leading edge battery technology is now approaching the energy density of gasoline in terms of miles per weight.
A tank fillup with gasoline that costs 50 dollars would cost 5 dollars with electricity.
Permalink
profgoose Posted 2:30 am
12 Aug 2005
a fair comment (as opposed to some of the other flamings I've received over this post...). Thanks also for the other kind words in your post...
I view math/arithmetic/spatial thinking as a tool for enhancing critical thought and increasing cognitive self-sufficency.
Now, note that that doesn't mean you have to have these tools to be a good critical thinker...it just means, in my mindset, that having these skills adds to the probability of being a better critical thinker than those without the skill.
(I could have better articulated that idea in my original post without throwing in my contempt for the state of higher ed and the like, I suppose. But, the innumeracy (google the word, it will surprise you) of the US is ridiculous. Math phobia is truly out of hand.)
Also, I view the math issue as a different issue than specialization. Math gives you the ability to better study EVERY problem that you want to look at/spend your time. It makes it easier to consume information/data and then generalize about said data, etc., etc. So, to me math makes it easier/quicker to specialize/dabble/learn.
By the way, did you happen to watch the Bartlett video? Give it a watch, I'd love to hear what you think about it.
profgoose, The Oil Drum
Permalink
Ana Unruh Cohen Posted 4:54 am
12 Aug 2005
I agree with Dave that we are all cognitive misers (love that term!) in some form, but I think more math tools in the decision-making tool boxex of Americans would only help the environment.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:20 am
12 Aug 2005
But if peak-oil alarmists are right, peak oil is an extremely urgent problem. If your order of business is 1) improve the public's math skills, and 2) tackle the problem, you're in for a long slog.
Politics is theater, not a debate society. Hectoring an innumerate public won't get you far. Dazzle them instead!
Oh, and Prof. Goose -- thanks for stopping by. I'll check out the talk later today.
www.grist.org
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:47 am
12 Aug 2005
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:32 pm
12 Aug 2005
First off, the mathematics necessary to understand Peak Oil and energy alternatives at a basic level is not that complicated. A big step would be to grok Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)... namely, that if you put more energy into a process than you get out, this is not a good thing (ethanol lobbyists from corn country to the contrary).
Secondly, the mathematical concepts can be explained simply and graphically. If we can understand compound interest, we can understand Peak Oil.
Thirdly, it is not necessary that the broad masses understand derivatives and rates of change. However, it is vital that the intelligentsia and professional communicators understand them. During the current phase of Peak Oil awareness, I think that this is what is going on -- the intelligentsia is educating itself.
Point for Prof Goose: those who depend on others to interpret statistics for them are at their mercy. ("Don't worry your pretty little head about those complicated investments. Just sign it over to kindly Uncle Bart.")
Point for Dave: if you are going to address the larger public, you generally have to accept people as they are.
Dave, I can't tell whether you were being tongue-in-cheek with your depiction of John Q. American: Average folk can hope to have in-depth knowledge in one area, maybe two. For many it is sports, clothes, TV shows, hobbies of myriad sorts. A more mordant comment on the mindlessness of American culture I can't imagine.
Permalink
Jamais Cascio Posted 10:28 am
14 Aug 2005
So what you're saying is that you use apparent math skills as a heuristic for judging the critical thinking abilities of people with which you're enaged?
A big step would be to grok Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI)... namely, that if you put more energy into a process than you get out, this is not a good thing (ethanol lobbyists from corn country to the contrary).
Actually, this is a very good example of how math skills are insufficient: the choice of what is considered to be "energy into a process" is, in large measure, a political decision. Including the energy use of the wells drilling the oil and the tanker bringing it in from Saudi Arabia is a no-brainer; but what about the energy used to make the steel used to construct the oil tanker and well, amortized over the number of uses? Or the energy involved in training personnel to operate them? Or the energy used in assembling and deploying military forces to protect them? Or in the various debates on television and online over the Iraq war, or over peak oil?
Where one draws the line is not a mathematical question, it's a political question.
Math skills -- or, more broadly and appropriately, I think, an understanding of scientific tools, principles and processes -- are certainly useful and arguably necessary for good critical thinking, but in no way are they sufficient. They may even be less necessary (on balance) than a deep understanding of how political cultures and social groups make decisions. The proportion of scientifically and mathematically astute individuals who nonetheless haven't the slightest clue as to how people behave as social creatures is likely only matched by the proportion of socially and politically aware individuals without the first notion of how math and science work.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:18 pm
14 Aug 2005
Permalink