Psychology and Science Denial Part 1

It's 2013, and it the gap between what scientifically educated people believe and other people believe is getting wider and wider.  But that is hardly surprising. I guess what is disheartening is that it has become standard, acceptable and a matter of "choice" to deny science whenever it suits you.  Indeed, it's fair to say that science denial is now required if you are going to be a successful Republican politician.

If I had way more energy that I have, and if I enjoyed beating my head against a wall, I would lay out the cases here for Evolution, Climate Change, that hitting your child is bad, that vaccines work, that homeopathy is garbge, etc.  But I don't.

So the better question is, why do intelligent and often college educated people believe complete crap?  While at the same time they refuse to believe things that the evidence makes abundantly clear?  In fact, they'll often believe really crazy things in their denial of the evidence (e.g. global warming is a conspiracy to get government grants).

I am going to take a speculative shot here.  It's rooted in psychology of how we think. I do think the answer varies a bit for the items I have listed above, but I am going to apply my limited understanding of the discipline to the above examples.

Cognitive Dissonance is what occurs when we have a conflict between simultaneously held beliefs or between what we want to do and what our reason tells us we ought to do.  In either case, we find a way to reduce the dissonance (as it is uncomfortable to us).  This can be through dismissing one believe all together, making odd contortions of reason to convince ourselves that there is no dissonance, or making up other "facts" that smooth things over.  etc.

So take Climate Change.  Contrary to what you hear on Fox, the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that the earth is getting warmer, that a significant contributor to this is the massive amount of C02 we have put into our atmosphere, that the impact of global warming will be bad, and that the evidence is overwhelming.  And they have good reason for believing this, it's this thing called science.  But here is the problem: The implication of this is that we should reduce our emissions of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.  But that would imply a negative economic impact.   So here is the dissonance: Between what we want to do (nothing) and we ought to do (reduce CO2). 

And viewed this way, you can then understand why the deniers seem to lack coherence in their statements.   Because some deny that the Earth is getting hotter at all (check Facebook next snowstorm for example), while other admit the Earth is getting hotter but deny that humans had anything to do with it.  Or maybe those things are true, but we don't know for sure.  Or, all those things are true but it wont be so bad, so we don't need to do anything.  Or all those things are true and it will be bad, but it's too late to make a difference (or even if we reduce our C02, China wont, so it wont matter). 

In other words,  no matter what, I want to drive my SUV without guilt.  So I am going to keep making excuses to do nothing as long as I can.  Now, there is the coherence! It's in the conclusion.

And there is another big factor here as well: Saliency.  Global Warming is not easy to see or feel.  And the impacts are far off in the future.  Driving an SUV (my metaphor for doing nothing) feels good, and it feels good now.    This is very much analogous to other things we ought (or ought not) do but don't:   Save for retirement, eat healthy foods, not smoke, exercise, etc.  It's a long list.

Having said all that, I know that the Climate Change deniers will not be persuaded.  They'll pick one or more of above excuses and want to argue with me.  Don't bother.  It's a pointless exercise.  My point is that if you do deny Climate Change, it's quite likely because you don't want to make a sacrifice over the matter.  Period. 

I will follow up on evolution denial, spanking etc on a later date because this is getting too long I fear. 

First Post and an Explanation

OK, first post to this blog.  I have long been contemplating a place where, unlike Facebook, I can say what I want about religion and politics.  So perhaps I should explain why I DO NOT want to discuss those topics on Facebook.  Here it goes.

It's the intersection of several things:

1)  If you are a student of cognitive science, you already know that when it comes to emotional topics such as religion and politics, we mostly simply try to find evidence to support what we believe and to undermine those with whom we do not agree.  Furthermore, the more one argues with us, the more "convinced" we become of our position.  In short, little is accomplished by arguing about this stuff.  By the way, I say "we" and "our" because this is not a liberal/conservative thing, it's a human thing and the research shows this.

2)  People also suffer from the affect heuristic (mental shorcut).  Essentially, it says that if someone pleases you emotionally, it's easier simply to assume that they are "good" on every topic.  Conversely, if they upset you, it's easier to just assume that they are "bad" on every topic.  So, for example, if you say to someone "Hitler loved children and dogs" (he did),  it likely would create mental discomfort for them.  It's far easier (and takes less mental energy) to simply assume that Hitler was just evil all around.

This has an important implication for American politics.  It means that it is apparently not easy to disagree with George Bush or Barak Obama about what is the best public policy for America while simultaneously admitting that they are generally good people who care about America, love their children, are honest and intelligent, etc. Far easier to be seduced into the "they are completely EVIL and STUPID" viewpoint.  This actually takes *less* mental effort.  Our modern media (FOX, MSNBC, etc) cater to this mental laziness.

3) The more emotional and angry we are, the more we do not actually listen to what is being said but instead hear what we expect to hear.  Witness almost any conversation about race these days where the speaker and the listener are on opposite sides of the black/white divide.  Seriously, if you compared what is said to what is heard, it's kind of amazing (in a sad way).

4)  I have lots of FB friend who say all sorts of inflammatory and amazingly ignorant things.  I value those friendships too much to think anything will be accomplished by pointing out to them their ignorance or offensiveness.  They are not likely going to get why what they said is offensive or ignorant, but they will likely get angry. That is not disrespect: see points 1-3.

Well, given all of this, why even bother with this blog?  I will tell you why.  I simply refuse to give up hope.  One should not fail to speak out against stupidity just because one wants to be "nice".  I'll stay "nice" on Facebook.  That is my privilege and important to me.  Important because those that disagree with me need to realize that people like me are not evil incarnate (I know, like the devil I am trying to deceive you).  And I do think most of us share similar values - we want our kids to do well, we want hard workers to succeed, we want criminals to fail, we want fewer dysfunctional people with no hope, we want America to stay free, etc.  But we have serious disagreements about what all those things mean in the fine print and what are the best ways to effect the best outcomes via public policy.  That is OK.  We need dialogue around these things, not finger pointing and vilification.  At the same time, one needs to be able to call a spade a spade (so to speak).  Where would we be if Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Jefferson had pulled verbal punches?

So this will be my place to rant.  If you don't like what I say here,  reply here or don't visit.  Leave my FB page out of it. Having said that, while I plan to give wide latitude to people who vehemently disagree, my tolerance is not unlimited.  Stay respectful, avoid ad hominid attacks,  and there will likely be no issues.