Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I thought BLM was because there is supposed targeting of blacks by police. I can't find any statistics to back that up. If they are mad because not enough gimmedats then that's clearly baseless (unless "too much is never enough"). Just about the only "intersection" between BLM angst and Trump voter angst is about the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt and extending south, and I'd say there's a much thinner line to the BLM side of that.

I don't want to argue about what impoverished blacks have or haven't received. In your opinion, even the smallest "gimmedat" is too much. It isn't worth debating.

If you think they've been given too much, well... Can't say I agree. I won't say they've been given too little either. If we're talking about adequate support though, it's anything but "baseless."

The reason for believing it is a leftwing conspiracy is because of the proposed policies to "combat it".That's what I have already mentioned. There's almost never an empowering policy (and the ones that have been fashioned only benefit the upper middle class and above, like tax credits/rebates on improving energy efficiency in homes). It's nearly always "let's tax the shit out of X and hand some money to some cronies". That's why I said the important debate is about what should be done about it. Denial is an easy pre-emptive measure.

That's a deadlock. I refuse to admit that the burden lies on those who would propose solutions. Admission that there's a problem would have an effect on people's attitudes toward said solutions. The causal equation you propose (i.e. bad solutions = denial) is a red herring.

My two cents.

 

[Dak]

The causal equation you propose (i.e. bad solutions = denial) is a red herring.

My two cents.

Well I don't know how you would demonstrate the relationship goes the other way (that is, that "solutions" are rejected because people don't believe in GW). Like you said, GW would be something you couldn't simply assess anecdotally. So for people too busy to deal with abstracts, it is effectively non-existent. Now, what does concretely intrude are things like taxes, tax credits, regulation, etc. I'm sure there was more than one homeowner that took advantage of energy saving credits/rebates too save money on their power bills, that didn't believe in GW. People who have set up solar panels who are skeptical. Etc. I'm pretty down on Game of Thrones at this point, but this is pretty accurate:

“The common people pray for rain, healthy children and a summer that never ends. It is no matter to them if the high lords play their game of thrones, so long as they are left in peace.”

 

[Einherjar86]

Well I don't know how you would demonstrate the relationship goes the other way (that is, that "solutions" are rejected because people don't believe in GW). Like you said, GW would be something you couldn't simply assess anecdotally. So for people too busy to deal with abstracts, it is effectively non-existent. Now, what does concretely intrude are things like taxes, tax credits, regulation, etc.

Why would any proposed solutions - even effective ones - yield effects that are perceptible at an individual level, if the problem itself is something larger than what we as individuals can observe? It isn't the solutions that need to change, I would argue; scientists/politicians need to better communicate their findings and the stakes.

 

[Dak]

They won't yield perceptible effects at the individual level, at least not obvious ones. But the policies will be perceptible. Actions are perceptible. Let me try and frame this a different way: What is (or you think should be) the practical, observable difference in the behaviour of someone who believes in climate change vs someone who does not?

 

[Einherjar86]

I imagine they could be several, but I don't know what they are. I think you're looking for "believers vote for systemic changes while deniers vote for their own local interests."

But I would also resist talking about climate change as a "belief." Religion (specifically Western religion) is about belief because belief is built into the contract. Science isn't about belief, it's about knowledge.

But that's a whole other argument, and one that gets away from global warning and into the abstract logic of belief vs. knowledge.

 

[Dak]

I imagine they could be several, but I don't know what they are. I think you're looking for "believers vote for systemic changes while deniers vote for their own local interests."

Systemic changes of what kind though? The policy proposals (again) that get pushed are more bureaucracy (increased carbon output), more taxes, more cronified handouts. How that's going to clean up the planet and reduce carbon output is beyond me. So far the US has been able to reduce the growth in carbon emissions by mostly offloading it to China - who isn't doing a thing about managing emissions.

But I would also resist talking about climate change as a "belief." Religion (specifically Western religion) is about belief because belief is built into the contract. Science isn't about belief, it's about knowledge.

But that's a whole other argument, and one that gets away from global warning and into the abstract logic of belief vs. knowledge.

Well yeah that's an epistemic argument. I use belief because very few people are familiar with scientific literature in general, much less on any specific subject. People mostly, effectively, simply believe things.

 

[Einherjar86]

Systemic changes of what kind though? The policy proposals (again) that get pushed are more bureaucracy (increased carbon output), more taxes, more cronified handouts. How that's going to clean up the planet and reduce carbon output is beyond me. So far the US has been able to reduce the growth in carbon emissions by mostly offloading it to China - who isn't doing a thing about managing emissions.

Look, you've said that you're more concerned with solutions rather than whether global warming is real or not - although to be entirely honest, this seems strange to me. In order for solutions to be pursued, one would first have to care about whether global warming exists - if you're not convinced, then no political strategy or program is ever going to be acceptable. It seems like an odd position to hold.

Let me also step back for a minute and clarify what I find so troubling about people who reject global warming, and specifically those who perceive it as some kind of crony conspiracy. You're suggesting that dissatisfaction with political programs leads to people being skeptical of global warming - in other words, when the politics doesn't seem to be in their favor, then of course they harbor resentment toward it. My problem is that such people appeal to this resentment as a rationalization for global warming as a kind of liberal fantasy, a conspiracy against them. In short, global warming isn't really happening.

The leap from "bad politics" to "global warming is a lie" is fallacious. The former does not necessitate or even suggest the latter in anything but the slightest possible sense. Consider it this way: if you initially accept the data on global warming, it doesn't follow that poor political programs is evidence for that data being false. Bad politics isn't a logical reason for disbelieving global warming, or perceiving it as a conspiracy against you.

 

[Dak]

Look, you've said that you're more concerned with solutions rather than whether global warming is real or not - although to be entirely honest, this seems strange to me. In order for solutions to be pursued, one would first have to care about whether global warming exists - if you're not convinced, then no political strategy or program is ever going to be acceptable. It seems like an odd position to hold.

I disagree. It is very difficult to convince someone when it is against their apparent interests to believe in said thing, and particularly when it is admittedly difficult to see in very clear relation to them of contraposed "benefits"(no one needs to be "convinced" of gravity. But that the flood is a result of factories and power plants across the world for the last 50 years is something else). I would think that someone as at least somewhat as interested in "intersectionality" as you would understand the need for intersectionality of interests here.

Find minimally contentious avenues of change, drive those hard. Then you "creep" similar but more contentious change. At some point, existing behavior/"identity" is no longer in contention with accepting anthropogenic climate change.

Let me also step back for a minute and clarify what I find so troubling about people who reject global warming, and specifically those who perceive it as some kind of crony conspiracy. You're suggesting that dissatisfaction with political programs leads to people being skeptical of global warming - in other words, when the politics doesn't seem to be in their favor, then of course they harbor resentment toward it. My problem is that such people appeal to this resentment as a rationalization for global warming as a kind of liberal fantasy, a conspiracy against them. In short, global warming isn't really happening.

The leap from "bad politics" to "global warming is a lie" is fallacious. The former does not necessitate or even suggest the latter in anything but the slightest possible sense. Consider it this way: if you initially accept the data on global warming, it doesn't follow that poor political programs is evidence for that data being false. Bad politics isn't a logical reason for disbelieving global warming, or perceiving it as a conspiracy against you.

So you're saying most people aren't emotionless computers. You would be correct.

 

[Einherjar86]

I disagree. It is very difficult to convince someone when it is against their apparent interests to believe in said thing, and particularly when it is admittedly difficult to see in very clear relation to them of contraposed "benefits"(no one needs to be "convinced" of gravity. But that the flood is a result of factories and power plants across the world for the last 50 years is something else). I would think that someone as at least somewhat as interested in "intersectionality" as you would understand the need for intersectionality of interests here.

Find minimally contentious avenues of change, drive those hard. Then you "creep" similar but more contentious change. At some point, existing behavior/"identity" is no longer in contention with accepting anthropogenic climate change.

Yeah, why bother trying to educate and/or enlighten people.

So you're saying most people aren't emotionless computers. You would be correct.

False dichotomy - either react to things passionately and irrationally, or be an emotionless computer. Fine logic.

 

[Dak]

Yeah, why bother trying to educate and/or enlighten people.

False dichotomy . Education efforts have been underway for a while and have achieved limited traction with a large set of the population. I'm suggesting ways to get things done while objections persist, in a way that will also reduce objections. I don't know why it's so important that people know/believe in ACC prior to taking action.

False dichotomy - either react to things passionately and irrationally, or be an emotionless computer. Fine logic.

Well if it were dichotomous sure. More like a continuum and people are significantly removed from the cold logic end. But I was agreeing with you. It's fallacious to dismiss something because of what or who is associated with it. It's also a pretty fundamental heuristic.

 

[Einherjar86]

False dichotomy . Education efforts have been underway for a while and have achieved limited traction with a large set of the population. I'm suggesting ways to get things done while objections persist, in a way that will also reduce objections. I don't know why it's so important that people know/believe in ACC prior to taking action.

Because as it stands, the rejection of global warming falls rarely falls into the category of "well, I suppose it could be true, but I'm really unhappy with the political proposals to solve it." It falls overwhelmingly into the category of "it's a lie the liberals pitched to secure power." There's an important difference here - the former is far more rational, while the latter is not. You're trying to paint the rational response as the more widespread, when it almost certainly isn't.

And even if it is, the irrational firebrand response is the one that gets people's attention.

In short, the common rejection of global warming isn't a form of agnosticism, it's an outrageous and paranoid rewriting of global warming as a narrative of authoritarian control.

Well if it were dichotomous sure. More like a continuum and people are significantly removed from the cold logic end. But I was agreeing with you. It's fallacious to dismiss something because of what or who is associated with it. It's also a pretty fundamental heuristic.

Oh Dak, you did agree with me, but in your usual underhanded and deceptive manner.

Certainly, most people aren't emotionless computers, and this is of course a good thing; your thinly veiled condemnation of the phrase insinuated the appropriate attitude while admitting semantic agreement. Clever...

Somewhat vague language though, a "fundamental heuristic" - of course, we know that guilty by association is a very tenuous construction, and one that can be augmented or restricted according to one's predisposed commitments. It's clear that for you the association between the likelihood of global warming and poor domestic policies is a rational (if not logical) one to make; but that's a judgment, not a fact. I'm willing to accept that guilty-by-association is a common and even frequently successful heuristic, but I'm not willing to call it "fundamental" (and fundamental to what exactly: social organization? political praxis? human cognition?),

Even if certain heuristics are frequently accurate, that doesn't mean they're beyond question in context-specific cases.

 

[Dak]

I'm working this evening and it appears I can't reply to that from a phone like I have been. I'm agreeing to parts of what you are saying and disagreeing with others. I think you have some things lumped together I see as separate, among other issues. I'm drawing on some psych stuff obviously, that I'm going to need to track down some links etc for some frame of reference.

 

[Dak]

Because as it stands, the rejection of global warming falls rarely falls into the category of "well, I suppose it could be true, but I'm really unhappy with the political proposals to solve it." It falls overwhelmingly into the category of "it's a lie the liberals pitched to secure power." There's an important difference here - the former is far more rational, while the latter is not. You're trying to paint the rational response as the more widespread, when it almost certainly isn't.

And even if it is, the irrational firebrand response is the one that gets people's attention.

In short, the common rejection of global warming isn't a form of agnosticism, it's an outrageous and paranoid rewriting of global warming as a narrative of authoritarian control.

Ok. So I'm going to go ahead and be clear about what I agree with when it comes to your understanding of rightwing anti-global-warming orientation and history:

1. It's not informed
2. It's not logical
3. It's self-interested
4. It's stoked by firebrand rhetoric

Where I disagree with your characterizations/understanding:

1. It's entirely paranoid and irrational
2. Absolutely nothing could be done that could be a positive as it relates to the environment in general until rightwingers "see the light".

I'm painting the rightwing response as rational, not logical or informed. In fact, I would guess that most of the rightwing and leftwing electorate are about as equally illogical and uninformed on the issue (or most issues for that matter). The difference would be phyletic, with some moral predispositions acting as a priori orientations towards certain bias/heuristics, among other things.

Liberal politicians have most certainly seized on global warming as an excuse for expanding government bureaucracy/regulation, spending, and for ceding sovereignty. It isn't paranoid to make the connection between authoritarianism and the politicized aspect. It's quite out in the open. Plus it's liberal authoritarianism, as opposed to good ol right-wing authoritarianism. Since most people operate on bias/heuristics for most things, there are several that occur in the process up to and including accepting or rejecting ACC.

Oh Dak, you did agree with me, but in your usual underhanded and deceptive manner.

Certainly, most people aren't emotionless computers, and this is of course a good thing; your thinly veiled condemnation of the phrase insinuated the appropriate attitude while admitting semantic agreement. Clever...

Somewhat vague language though, a "fundamental heuristic" - of course, we know that guilty by association is a very tenuous construction, and one that can be augmented or restricted according to one's predisposed commitments. It's clear that for you the association between the likelihood of global warming and poor domestic policies is a rational (if not logical) one to make; but that's a judgment, not a fact. I'm willing to accept that guilty-by-association is a common and even frequently successful heuristic, but I'm not willing to call it "fundamental" (and fundamental to what exactly: social organization? political praxis? human cognition?),

Even if certain heuristics are frequently accurate, that doesn't mean they're beyond question in context-specific cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision-making
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable accuracy of stereotypes.pdf
http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response

Bias/heuristics are generally rational, and often useful. However, they aren't perfect. We have a finite amount of cognitive power, and depend on bias/heuristics to get us through the day. Sometimes they lead to error. When I say fundamental I'm making a SWAG at how early such a bias/heuristic would have evolved, without looking at any of the literature (maybe I'll get around to that some day, and find out I'm wrong). OTOH, "Guilt" by Association is more or less the "Stereotype Bias", the accuracy of which is empirically validated. That it would happen to be wrong about ACC is practically a scientific outlier. Yes, this doesn't mean it's beyond question. But with more pressing immediate demands, and limited time and faculties, ACC isn't likely to get the attention from the majority - even from believers.

Back to my policy prescription: I'm not doing all the lit digging now about the cause-effect nature of behaviors>beliefs, but it's not new. I did find this guy from 2010 essentially saying the same thing that I just said, less succinctly but maybe more clearly:

http://grist.org/article/2010-11-23-behavior-change-causes-changes-in-beliefs-not-vice-versa/

What does motivate behavior change? Well, here it gets a little sticky. As I noted last week, there’s no sweeping, 40,000-foot “message” that will do it. Changing a behavior requires understanding, in a fine-grained way, the barriers and benefits. It requires changing people’s circumstances in smart ways and carefully measuring the results. If you want to know how to change behavior, don’t read a bunch of polls about the messages that make people say positive things to pollsters; read a report like this one from ACEEE, which looks at which behavioral programs around energy efficiency have worked, i.e., demonstrated tangible, consistent results.

Remember, answering a poll is a way of asserting identity. Beliefs tend to be reverse engineered, as it were: People tend to construct an identity around what they (and their tribe) do. That suggests that they will only construct a different identity when they start doing different things.

So imagine the same guy who rejected human-caused climate change in the poll. Imagine that bike riding were made convenient and useful enough that he started doing it. Imagine that his neighbors started getting solar panels, to the point that he felt pressured to do it, and he became a power producer. Imagine he’s in the military and his platoon started insulating their tents and carrying solar water purifiers.

Next thing you know, he’s a guy who uses solar power and rides a bike. His behavior has changed, so he’s telling a different story about himself. That new story, that new identity — the guy who rides a bike and uses solar power — is much more likely to incorporate climate change concern than the previous one.

In other words, Gore may have had it exactly backwards. Belief doesn’t come first;action comes first. Changing people’s behavior —
in small, incremental, but additive ways — is the best way to open their minds to the science. It all comes down to change on the ground. Climate hawks need to get smart about driving behavior change wherever they can. Those behavior changes will pull changes in consciousness in their wake.

From the things I've been coming into contact with regarding the human psyche, this looks much more promising than trying to beat ACC deniers into mental acceptance with "the facts".

 

[Einherjar86]

Thanks for this reply. It's a good one. I'll split up my response into sections.

Ok. So I'm going to go ahead and be clear about what I agree with when it comes to your understanding of rightwing anti-global-warming orientation and history:

1. It's not informed
2. It's not logical
3. It's self-interested
4. It's stoked by firebrand rhetoric

Where I disagree with your characterizations/understanding:

1. It's entirely paranoid and irrational
2. Absolutely nothing could be done that could be a positive as it relates to the environment in general until rightwingers "see the light".

When it comes to the aspects you disagree with, I'll accept #2 - I think it is possible that something positive could be accomplished regardless of whether science convinces people of global warming (I do still believe it's unlikely though).

#1 I still stand by, and I'll develop this a bit more below; but basically, I define paranoia somewhat broadly, and I think it occupies a significant space on the political right. That's not to say it's absent from the left, but that it constitutes a more common angle of right-wing thought: namely, and abstractly, the organization of environmental effects around the central institution of liberal subjectivity (and I don't mean "liberal" here in the contemporary left-wing sense, but in the sense of humanism's ideological development over the past few centuries - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#DebBetOldNew)

I think the argument could be made convincingly that it occupies as much space within the ideology of the contemporary left, but the visible behaviors and mechanics of leftism tend to downplay this tendency. Furthermore, I would emphasize that 20th-century science has been increasingly incompatible with the old form(s) liberal humanism, many of which still linger today, and that issues such as global warming are one example of this.

I'm painting the rightwing response as rational, not logical or informed. In fact, I would guess that most of the rightwing and leftwing electorate are about as equally illogical and uninformed on the issue (or most issues for that matter). The difference would be phyletic, with some moral predispositions acting as a priori orientations towards certain bias/heuristics, among other things.

Liberal politicians have most certainly seized on global warming as an excuse for expanding government bureaucracy/regulation, spending, and for ceding sovereignty. It isn't paranoid to make the connection between authoritarianism and the politicized aspect. It's quite out in the open. Plus it's liberal authoritarianism, as opposed to good ol right-wing authoritarianism. Since most people operate on bias/heuristics for most things, there are several that occur in the process up to and including accepting or rejecting ACC.

I cannot disagree that a significant portion of the left treats global warming in an equally illogical and uninformed way. Obviously it isn't my primary concern because they happen to support the same political agendas (generally speaking...). But of course, if my concern is information and education, then I should care as much about the left. So I agree; but I also feel that leftists would be far more accepting of the data.

As far as democrats exploiting global warming for the purposes of political control... sure. It's likely. Then again, republicans do the same thing with guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_decision-making
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/unbearable accuracy of stereotypes.pdf
http://www.spsp.org/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response

Bias/heuristics are generally rational, and often useful. However, they aren't perfect. We have a finite amount of cognitive power, and depend on bias/heuristics to get us through the day. Sometimes they lead to error. When I say fundamental I'm making a SWAG at how early such a bias/heuristic would have evolved, without looking at any of the literature (maybe I'll get around to that some day, and find out I'm wrong). OTOH, "Guilt" by Association is more or less the "Stereotype Bias", the accuracy of which is empirically validated. That it would happen to be wrong about ACC is practically a scientific outlier. Yes, this doesn't mean it's beyond question. But with more pressing immediate demands, and limited time and faculties, ACC isn't likely to get the attention from the majority - even from believers.

Back to my policy prescription: I'm not doing all the lit digging now about the cause-effect nature of behaviors>beliefs, but it's not new. I did find this guy from 2010 essentially saying the same thing that I just said, less succinctly but maybe more clearly:

http://grist.org/article/2010-11-23-behavior-change-causes-changes-in-beliefs-not-vice-versa/

From the things I've been coming into contact with regarding the human psyche, this looks much more promising than trying to beat ACC deniers into mental acceptance with "the facts".

Thanks for providing all this. I get the usefulness and importance of heuristics, and I think these are good points. I can't really wedge a compelling argument between these facts themselves, which is why I want to focus on one section in particular and resist it:

When I say fundamental I'm making a SWAG at how early such a bias/heuristic would have evolved, without looking at any of the literature (maybe I'll get around to that some day, and find out I'm wrong). OTOH, "Guilt" by Association is more or less the "Stereotype Bias", the accuracy of which is empirically validated. That it would happen to be wrong about ACC is practically a scientific outlier.

I'm not sure you'll find out that you're wrong, necessarily; but I think that "fundamental" connotes an absolutism that we both would hastily reject given the evolution of species over time (and/or into other species).

More importantly, I think that these kinds of "stereotype biases," as you call them, cannot (or rather, should not) apply in the context we're talking about. It seems to me that what you're describing is a kind of behaviorist psychology, which introduces stereotypes basically as a survival strategy. Stereotypes prescribe the behavior of other intending/conscious actors, not the outcome of scientific data. I'm not saying the judgment doesn't happen - it obviously does. But I'm saying it's irrational because if the data is what's in question, then the heuristic/stereotype boils down to the following: "Just like typical leftist scientific data to say something exists that I can't see!"

Now, that's a bit of a hyperbole. Most deniers would probably say it's the politicians they distrust, not the data itself; but in this particular case, the two are virtually the same. There's plenty for everyone to read simply by searching on Google, but even this won't be enough for deniers. Anything short of conducting their own experiments is subject to doubt; and as you suggest, most people don't have time for that. Yet many deniers are perfectly willing to trust NRA statistics without doing their own research as well. So, as you've said, it isn't the data that's suspect, but the politicians manipulating it. Unfortunately, in this situation, data and action are virtually conflated: denying the political process amounts to denying the data that informs it.

The reason this strikes me as irrational is that it's a reversal of the actual logic behind global warming. This doesn't reject the possibility that there are democrats who exploit ACC agendas for their own gain. I'm saying that disputing the data behind global warming because one doesn't like the political moves is basically a faulty application of the heuristic (stereotype biases) to a subject/entity to which the heuristic category doesn't apply. Scientific data doesn't behave in any stereotypical manner. This is also the source of what I call the paranoia behind the right-wing mentality: the extension of distrust to components of the world in a manner that bestows those components with a kind of malign motive. Peter Watts basically allegorizes this same phenomenon:

Fifty thousand years ago there were these three guys spread out across the plain, and they each heard something rustling in the grass. The first one thought it was a tiger, and he ran like hell, and it was a tiger but the guy got away. The second one thought the rustling was a tiger, and he ran like hell, but it was only the wind and his friends all laughed at him for being such a chickenshit. But the third guy, he thought it was only the wind, so he shrugged it off and a tiger had him for dinner. And the same thing happened a million times across ten thousand generations - and after a while everyone was seeing tigers in the grass even when there weren't tigers, because even chickenshits have more kids than corpses do. And from those humble beginnings we learned to see faces in the clouds and portents in the stars, to see agency in randomness, because natural selection favors the paranoid.

So, as you suggest - absolutely a survival mechanism. But that doesn't mean it's rational, and it's doesn't mean it's not paranoid, in my opinion.

(you could say that leftists do the same thing with guns. Of course I have my own analysis of that, but I won't credit most gun-control advocates with sharing that analysis)

As a final note, I don't see global warming as an outlier. I just think it happens to be the hot-button issue occupying the political arena today. Since the 1910s and 1920s, science has produced increasingly complex models of the world, none of which are immediately compatible with classical forms of liberal humanism (quantum physics, chaos theory, complexity theory, information theory, climatology, etc.). As Don DeLillo writes (I'm paraphasing), science used to produce results that reaffirmed what we could perceive with our senses; more recently it produces results that actually refute what we perceive with our senses.

 

[Dak]

I define paranoia somewhat broadly, and I think it occupies a significant space on the political right. That's not to say it's absent from the left, but that it constitutes a more common angle of right-wing thought: namely, and abstractly, the organization of environmental effects around the central institution of liberal subjectivity (and I don't mean "liberal" here in the contemporary left-wing sense, but in the sense of humanism's ideological development over the past few centuries - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/#DebBetOldNew)

I think the argument could be made convincingly that it occupies as much space within the ideology of the contemporary left, but the visible behaviors and mechanics of leftism tend to downplay this tendency. Furthermore, I would emphasize that 20th-century science has been increasingly incompatible with the old form(s) liberal humanism, many of which still linger today, and that issues such as global warming are one example of this.

I would see paranoia on a continuum, which is why I said I disagree with it being entirely paranoid. I would agree that there is an "equality" between right and left on this, but I wouldn't say it's downplayed on the left. The targets are merely different. Muslims vs bigots. Soros vs Koch bros. "Big Gov" vs "Big Business". Communism vs Fascism. Etc.

I cannot disagree that a significant portion of the left treats global warming in an equally illogical and uninformed way. Obviously it isn't my primary concern because they happen to support the same political agendas (generally speaking...). But of course, if my concern is information and education, then I should care as much about the left. So I agree; but I also feel that leftists would be far more accepting of the data.

Well they hear someone they believe say some numbers and "facts" (and I'm using scarequotes not because they may not be true, but because I'm practically sick of the way the word is thrown around) they just accept them, and maybe regurgitate them. The way political memes get fired off around the internet IMO pretty well explains how much thought people put into "Facts" and politics. Nearly every time I've seen some meme fired off that can be easily googled and disproven, the defense usually includes something like "well I didn't read it that closely, but the spirit is true if not the letter".

As far as democrats exploiting global warming for the purposes of political control... sure. It's likely. Then again, republicans do the same thing with guns.

I'm not sure how Republicans exploit guns, at least not from a perspective of growing government/spending, etc.

Thanks for providing all this. I get the usefulness and importance of heuristics, and I think these are good points. I can't really wedge a compelling argument between these facts themselves, which is why I want to focus on one section in particular and resist it:

I'm not sure you'll find out that you're wrong, necessarily; but I think that "fundamental" connotes an absolutism that we both would hastily reject given the evolution of species over time (and/or into other species).

More importantly, I think that these kinds of "stereotype biases," as you call them, cannot (or rather, should not) apply in the context we're talking about. It seems to me that what you're describing is a kind of behaviorist psychology, which introduces stereotypes basically as a survival strategy. Stereotypes prescribe the behavior of other intending/conscious actors, not the outcome of scientific data. I'm not saying the judgment doesn't happen - it obviously does. But I'm saying it's irrational because if the data is what's in question, then the heuristic/stereotype boils down to the following: "Just like typical leftist scientific data to say something exists that I can't see!"

Now, that's a bit of a hyperbole. Most deniers would probably say it's the politicians they distrust, not the data itself; but in this particular case, the two are virtually the same. There's plenty for everyone to read simply by searching on Google, but even this won't be enough for deniers. Anything short of conducting their own experiments is subject to doubt; and as you suggest, most people don't have time for that. Yet many deniers are perfectly willing to trust NRA statistics without doing their own research as well. So, as you've said, it isn't the data that's suspect, but the politicians manipulating it. Unfortunately, in this situation, data and action are virtually conflated: denying the political process amounts to denying the data that informs it.

The reason this strikes me as irrational is that it's a reversal of the actual logic behind global warming. This doesn't reject the possibility that there are democrats who exploit ACC agendas for their own gain. I'm saying that disputing the data behind global warming because one doesn't like the political moves is basically a faulty application of the heuristic (stereotype biases) to a subject/entity to which the heuristic category doesn't apply. Scientific data doesn't behave in any stereotypical manner. This is also the source of what I call the paranoia behind the right-wing mentality: the extension of distrust to components of the world in a manner that bestows those components with a kind of malign motive. Peter Watts basically allegorizes this same phenomenon:

Well I want to give a little more credit to being suspect about "conflict of interest". If you see Democracts as endemic of "Big Gov"/threatening sovereignty and part of "Big Gov"/threatening sovereignty is handing out money to people studying things that just so happen to be used as a reason to further expand Big Gov and cede more sovereignty, it's not entirely irrational. The reason the NRA is trusted is because they aren't trying to take anything.

I referenced Al Gore's Hockey Stick before as extremely damaging to the chances of people from both left and right accepting ACC. For one it's Al Gore. #2, the hockey stick as understood didn't/hasn't happened (many if not most people appear to be ignorant of how data can be misrepresented in a chart even if the plots are correct). Toss in Climategate (regardless of whether or not things were actually done underhandedly)/"hand over yer freedoms" and it's case closed for most people disinclined to begin with.

(you could say that leftists do the same thing with guns. Of course I have my own analysis of that, but I won't credit most gun-control advocates with sharing that analysis)

If by do the same thing you mean guilt by association and other forms of shoddy reasoning, yes.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure how Republicans exploit guns, at least not from a perspective of growing government/spending, etc.

They do the NRA's bidding, and in return they get the dolla-bills.

Well I want to give a little more credit to being suspect about "conflict of interest". If you see Democracts as endemic of "Big Gov"/threatening sovereignty and part of "Big Gov"/threatening sovereignty is handing out money to people studying things that just so happen to be used as a reason to further expand Big Gov and cede more sovereignty, it's not entirely irrational. The reason the NRA is trusted is because they aren't trying to take anything.

I referenced Al Gore's Hockey Stick before as extremely damaging to the chances of people from both left and right accepting ACC. For one it's Al Gore. #2, the hockey stick as understood didn't/hasn't happened (many if not most people appear to be ignorant of how data can be misrepresented in a chart even if the plots are correct). Toss in Climategate (regardless of whether or not things were actually done underhandedly)/"hand over yer freedoms" and it's case closed for most people disinclined to begin with.

Again, I understand the heuristic tendency, but this doesn't really address where I perceive the irrationality to lie - a disagreement of attribution.

If by do the same thing you mean guilt by association and other forms of shoddy reasoning, yes.

Yes, that's what I mean. But when they see the NRA channeling monies to various republicans and continuously blocking things like the Dickey Amendment from being repealed... then "it's not entirely irrational," yes?

 

[CiG]

What is the alternative for the republican party? Advocate anti-gun measures and work against the interest of their voters and supporters? Makes no sense to me to act like the GOP is only pro-guns "because NRA."

Lets say the GOP is a 100% puppet for the NRA, it doesn't even matter because now and for the foreseeable future the party's supporters are pro-guns anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not expecting them to change their position, just as I wouldn't expect democrats to change theirs on climate change - as you say, the majority of the supporters on either side already support their respective positions.

Dak and I sympathize in slightly different directions; he sympathizes slightly more with the right, and I sympathize slightly more with the left. From my perspective, I don't think you can discount the right's irrationality without also discounting the left's; or, to put it another way, if we call the right's position toward global warming rational, then I think we also have to call the left's position on gun control rational. But it boils down to how you frame both arguments, and the architecture of that frame differs. The right tends to privilege a highly subjectivized position, meaning they privilege the immediate experiences of the individual. The left tends to privilege a more systematic/structuralist position, meaning they privilege models that do not (necessarily) conform to individual experience.

Neither one of these is more or less rational than the other, and both inform political positions that are equally falsifiable (or logically inconsistent).

 

[CiG]

I actually find both equally irrational, but that's the nature of not leaning any which way I guess. Anyway, interesting debate, really enjoying reading along.

 

[Dak]

They do the NRA's bidding, and in return they get the dolla-bills.

Again, I understand the heuristic tendency, but this doesn't really address where I perceive the irrationality to lie - a disagreement of attribution.

Yes, that's what I mean. But when they see the NRA channeling monies to various republicans and continuously blocking things like the Dickey Amendment from being repealed... then "it's not entirely irrational," yes?

The NRA is a voter driven lobby (yes gun manufacturers also play a part, but a fraction). But what is the bidding? They literally do nothing *to* leftwingers except fight for their liberty (they don't even have to go buy weapons. But they have the option to buy and carry). It's apples and oranges with leftwing environmental policy outside of "not liking x". If the NRA were pushing for mandatory buying and carrying of weapons for everyone I would agree with you.

The right tends to privilege a highly subjectivized position, meaning they privilege the immediate experiences of the individual. The left tends to privilege a more systematic/structuralist position, meaning they privilege models that do not (necessarily) conform to individual experience.

I think this characterization is off. It's a case by case basis as in, it depends on the thing being discussed as to whether a rightwing or leftwing person will appeal to subjectivity vs structure.