![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM [via Grist]: Science proves that conservatives oppose anything they think liberals are for, even if they see actual benefits in it.
Well, not quite. But there is a new paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, particularly when it comes to energy-efficient light bulbs.
To summarize: Conservatives and liberals generally agree that compact florescent bulbs (CFLs) are beneficial in terms of saving money on yr electric bill and could help reduce dependency on foreign oil. But if you try to market CFLs as helping to fight climate change, conservatives are more likely to buy an old-school bulb instead, even if they're aware of those other benefits of buying CFLs.
Now, it’s worth mentioning that I haven’t seen the methodology for the study. So I don’t know how they define “conservative” or “liberal”, or if any of the respondents were big fans of, say, Michele “It’s A Govt Takeover Of Lightbulbs” Bachmann.
Still, I’m not too surprised by the results, if only because political polarization in America has reached the point where any proposal put forth by The Opposition Party is automatically denounced as the worst and most destructive idea ever in the history of America, so yr going to have people with knee-jerk reactions to anything that hints at endorsing the opposition’s view.
Both sides do this, of course. But climate change does seem to be one of those issues where a lot conservatives (or at least the ones with their own talk shows or blogs) have pretty much convinced themselves that climate change is a big liberal conspiracy to turn America into hippies. Or maybe they just can’t stand the idea of Al Gore being right about something for once in his life. Or something.
The good news is that this is not irreversible. Another recent scientific study found that people who have extreme views of complex, nuanced issues tend to assume they understand the issue at hand – but if you ask them to actually explain the issue itself in detail (as opposed to why they’re for or against it), they tend to realize they’re not all that well informed about it, after which their positions become more moderate.
Put simply, the more extreme a person’s opinion, the less likely they are to know all that much about the issue. Or, the cure for extremism is education.
That said, some people don’t want to be cured. And some people may be beyond curing – Alex Jones, for example. Or the average Fox News contributor. Or the various people I know who aren't conspiracy hacks but have bought so deeply into their given party line/ideology that they are suspicious of any explanation that doesn’t conform to their talking points and Facebook memes. They also don't appreciate being told that they don’t know as much about something as they think they do (especially by a bunch of elitist know-it-alls).
As David Hume once said, “You can lead an ignoramus to an intellectual discussion, but you can’t make him think it.”
Complicating things is the fact that we live in an age where everything is political, and tailored hyperpartisan media makes it easier than ever for people to have their prejudices and worldviews simplified, distilled and reinforced to the exclusion of everything else that contradicts it, creating the seeds of a Batshit Reality Schism of competing parallel realities defined by liberal and conservative ideology, with each reality battling for control of America. Kind of like Fringe, only with less science and more gullible, intellectually lazy dingbats.
Or not. Most people aren’t that far gone. Not yet. But I stand by my point: if the cause of extremist rhetoric is ignorance of the facts, the proposed solution is getting the extremist to realize and admit that he/she is ignorant of the issue no matter what all his/her friends on Breitbart.com or Addicting Info say.
Good luck with that.
Yr doing it wrong,
This is dF
Well, not quite. But there is a new paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that examined attitudes about energy efficiency in liberals and conservatives, particularly when it comes to energy-efficient light bulbs.
To summarize: Conservatives and liberals generally agree that compact florescent bulbs (CFLs) are beneficial in terms of saving money on yr electric bill and could help reduce dependency on foreign oil. But if you try to market CFLs as helping to fight climate change, conservatives are more likely to buy an old-school bulb instead, even if they're aware of those other benefits of buying CFLs.
Now, it’s worth mentioning that I haven’t seen the methodology for the study. So I don’t know how they define “conservative” or “liberal”, or if any of the respondents were big fans of, say, Michele “It’s A Govt Takeover Of Lightbulbs” Bachmann.
Still, I’m not too surprised by the results, if only because political polarization in America has reached the point where any proposal put forth by The Opposition Party is automatically denounced as the worst and most destructive idea ever in the history of America, so yr going to have people with knee-jerk reactions to anything that hints at endorsing the opposition’s view.
Both sides do this, of course. But climate change does seem to be one of those issues where a lot conservatives (or at least the ones with their own talk shows or blogs) have pretty much convinced themselves that climate change is a big liberal conspiracy to turn America into hippies. Or maybe they just can’t stand the idea of Al Gore being right about something for once in his life. Or something.
The good news is that this is not irreversible. Another recent scientific study found that people who have extreme views of complex, nuanced issues tend to assume they understand the issue at hand – but if you ask them to actually explain the issue itself in detail (as opposed to why they’re for or against it), they tend to realize they’re not all that well informed about it, after which their positions become more moderate.
Put simply, the more extreme a person’s opinion, the less likely they are to know all that much about the issue. Or, the cure for extremism is education.
That said, some people don’t want to be cured. And some people may be beyond curing – Alex Jones, for example. Or the average Fox News contributor. Or the various people I know who aren't conspiracy hacks but have bought so deeply into their given party line/ideology that they are suspicious of any explanation that doesn’t conform to their talking points and Facebook memes. They also don't appreciate being told that they don’t know as much about something as they think they do (especially by a bunch of elitist know-it-alls).
As David Hume once said, “You can lead an ignoramus to an intellectual discussion, but you can’t make him think it.”
Complicating things is the fact that we live in an age where everything is political, and tailored hyperpartisan media makes it easier than ever for people to have their prejudices and worldviews simplified, distilled and reinforced to the exclusion of everything else that contradicts it, creating the seeds of a Batshit Reality Schism of competing parallel realities defined by liberal and conservative ideology, with each reality battling for control of America. Kind of like Fringe, only with less science and more gullible, intellectually lazy dingbats.
Or not. Most people aren’t that far gone. Not yet. But I stand by my point: if the cause of extremist rhetoric is ignorance of the facts, the proposed solution is getting the extremist to realize and admit that he/she is ignorant of the issue no matter what all his/her friends on Breitbart.com or Addicting Info say.
Good luck with that.
Yr doing it wrong,
This is dF
