Motivated Reasoning
Lane Wallace writes (in a non climate change denial, non tobacco denial, non AIDs denial) about motivated reasoning
In other words, if people start with a particular opinion or view on a subject, any counter-evidence can create "cognitive dissonance"--discomfort caused by the presence of two irreconcilable ideas in the mind at once. One way of resolving the dissonance would be to change or alter the originally held opinion. But the researchers found that many people instead choose to change the conflicting evidence--selectively seeking out information or arguments that support their position while arguing around or ignoring any opposing evidence, even if that means using questionable or contorted logic.The two base examples are interesting, did Perry or Cook reach the north Pole and
Everett Reuss left civilization to go live in the wilderness ... and was never heard from again. A whole folk myth movement sprang up around this young man who seemed to have slipped so completely into the wild that he eluded discovery for the rest of his life. An annual art festival in Escalante, Utah, is even named in his honor. But Roberts, who researched the case for 10 years, finally discovered evidence that Ruess had been murdered by two members of the Ute tribe almost as soon as he'd begun his journey. There was a witness to the murder, an unearthed skeleton, and DNA tests that were compatible with other family members.Real Climate is thumb sucking about how to communicate science, with the usual distribution of be nice and bash the moles recommended. It appears to Eli that you need to feed the trolls to the bird while being helpful to onlookers. His adventures in ACS land have reinforced this to him. At a minimum this requires building trust with the lurkers first by being initially helpful and polite, and then by outing the trolls in a way that the lurkers see that they are being disruptive. Among other things, especially in a one on one, it really helps to find a trusted intermediate. You do have to give the trolls a fair amount of rope but you should never give way to their moaning and never let them change the subject.The mystery, it seemed, had been solved. But the hue and cry surrounding Roberts' piece was both angry and loud, catching both Roberts and the Reuss family by surprise.
An interesting example emerges in an endless thread at Deltoid, where another tactic, which has some value, has emerged, corral the troll into a corrida and have the picadors stick pins in the beast. An endless thread featuring a libertarian Dunning-Kruger poster child (you know, the face on the cereal box of the cute kid, with the byline: our village has lost its idiot) has emerged as a source of useful information as others respond to the pinata (mixing Mexican metaphors is not a sin). You can dip into it at any point and find something interesting. Eli thinks they are going for 10K responses.
Comments?
Posts
12 comments:
1) Say more of adventures in ACS land. Did anything ever come of the Heartland booth's efforts?
2) I'll have to read D-K's latest paper in detail, but it always seems to me that above-average folks in an area are more often exposed to the very best, which probably helps under-estimation.
anyone keep records for length of (real) threads?
This is the type of thing which is easy to discuss and to point out examples of cognitive dissonance in other people. It is much harder to recognize those characteristics in oneself. I work in a technical field and am very conscience of the danger of holding onto an idea too tightly especially if it is not in one's own best interest due to the investment of time, money, reputation,... I try to be prepared to abandon what I currently know or think I know but it is not always easy.
Climate science currently permits a wide range of climate sensitivities -- somewhere around 1.5-4.5 degree C per doubling of CO2. The edge cases have a low probability but are not impossible. So it is possible for the currently experienced and expected warming (assuming some CO2 mitigation) to be relatively benign in the long run. How willing are you to accept that idea? How willing do you think other bloggers would be to accept their contrary position?
I'm certainly willing to consider the low range, and are the climate scientists i've asked about it. But I must ask: if you own A house, do you have fire insurance?
Why? The probability of no fire is much higher than that of fire.
Of course, having studied the IPCC reports, and frequently talked live to worldclass climate scientists about this topic, and as much as I'd wish the low end of the range, the accumulated evidence seems pretty strong otherwise. Hansen shows a chart, especially noting the uncertainty caused by sulfates, together with pictures of his grandchildren. Compelling.
MisterBob:
"am very conscience of the danger of holding onto an idea too tightly especially if it is not in one's own best interest due to the investment of time, money, reputation,... I try to be prepared to abandon what I currently know or think I know but it is not always easy."
So throughout MisterBob's illustrious technical career, he never once had to change his mind about anything, even though he assures us that he's totally prepared -- I mean, he's tried to prepare -- to change his mind. Or maybe the things which he didn't have to change his mind on, are those where it's in his best interests not to change his mind -- because perhaps not changing his mind will lead to money and reputation.
Or something.
-- bi
MB is cheating a bit on the low end there, the range is 2 to 4.5 C for doubling CO2. There are many things to say about that
1. The best current estimate is ~2.8 C. 2 and 4.5 are on the outer edges of the estimate, and are much less probable than ~ 2.8
2. A change of ~2 C is about at the outer edge of what could be handled, and if we continue along the current track, even for a LOW estimate of climate sensitivity, we will exceed it within the century.
3. Risks do not grow linearly with increasing global temperature, but almost exponentially. One has to take into account the nasty implications of this asymmetry of possible outcomes from climate change.
4. In light of 1-3 and John Mashey's point about insurance, worry, better yet, let's do things to limit our (and your kids) risk
In regards to the Motivated Reasoning, it isn't just a case that that people will use questionable or contorted logic, it is a case that they will reject all rational thought and seize on ANYTHING as a justification of their belief.
Apply this to the attempted debate between Plimer and Monboit. As a condition of the debate, Monboit asked that a number of perfectly reasonable questions about Plimer's book be answered by Plimer. But to answer those questions would cause "cognitive dissonance" in Plimer's mind, so they become nonsense questions in his mind. He literally cannot perceive them as pertaining to his book! Look at Plimer's replies to Monboit! Plimer can't even identify what book the questions are about and it's his own book! Now look look at Plimer's questions to Monboit. The questions don't really relate to Global Warming, so in Plimer's mind everything mentioned in the questions has nothing to do with the climate warming. I know that statement brutalizes rational thought, but it is the kind of stuff that is going on in Plimer's mind.
While one can't change the Motivated Reasoning going on in someone like Plimer's mind, one can exploit it to set off a chain reaction of "cognitive dissonance" that would ripple through the deniers.
Remember I wrote that they will seize on ANYTHING to justify their belief. Anything includes their own stupidity, hallucinations, dance, seizures and memory loss. What they seize on can be controlled by the arguments against their belief.
For instance, if someone were to press Plimer on the matter of Monboit's questions with xeroxes from Plimer's book showing what the questions were about, while continuously directing Plimer's attention to the pages he keeps being unable to focus on, he could be made to forget he wrote a book, because the memory of his book would be made to cause cognitive dissonance.
EliRabett
MB is cheating a bit on the low end there, the range is 2 to 4.5 C for doubling CO2.
Your right about that. I was remembering the IPCC range but I see a post from James Annan from 2006 which mentions a 2-4 C range with 95% confidence. I don't know what the most up to date pdf looks like.
But I think the true value of the low range is irrelevant for the purposes of this particular blog entry. The first reaction is to deny the possibility of the bottom value which I think represents a slight case of motivated reasoning as described in the blog albeit applied to other side of the debate. That was the only point I was trying to propose. And yes, I agree the skeptics are much much worse since they deny the most likely outcome.
I suspect people like Plimer and anybody else who shows cherry picked data and graphs knows exactly what they are doing and as Berbalang said their readers are the ones most likely to use it to feed their own cognitive dissonance.
bi
So throughout MisterBob's illustrious technical career, he never once had to change his mind about anything, even though he assures us that he's totally prepared -- I mean, he's tried to prepare -- to change his mind. Or maybe the things which he didn't have to change his mind on, are those where it's in his best interests not to change his mind -- because perhaps not changing his mind will lead to money and reputation.
I am a grunt in academia working on computer models for a very large physics code (not climate related). I try new things and sometimes they work out and sometimes not. I do not understand this "money and reputation" thing you speak of but it sounds intriguing.
Shorter MisterBob:
John Mashey is willing to consider that the low range of climate sensitivity might be correct. This shows that Warmists Are Closed-Minded™. And for the sake of looking balanced, I'll throw in the obligatory criticism of denialists, um I mean skeptics, such as Plimer.
Also, I only have to change my mind when trying out new things. I never had to change my mind about any of the old things which I already know. This shows that I'm open-minded.
-- bi
The Girma thread at Deltoid is proof that Jesus died in vain.
I posted there (#1987) that the comments hitherto exceeded Melville's Moby Dick in word length. At this rate, they'll beat War and Peace by next month.
Eli and John:
To the IV and V demand, please mentally add "6 Sigma R&R" (right here on Rabett Run) which was demanded for - and you would never guess this if you didn't remember - the claim that the oceans are lowering in pH.
The king of bizarre demands is still Ian Plimer, with his My Time Flitches.
So from now on, you communist bastards, until I see IV and V to 6 Sigma R and R over million-year time flitches, I'm sticking with Crichton and Monckton, not the junk science of Gore and Hansen!
And I want a pony.
Eli, what makes you think that Girma is a libertarian? It seems to me that there are very few real libertarians out there among the "skeptics".
Most who seem libertarian are in fact defenders of the status quo for influential big businesses.
tokyo;
Now that is a really stupid comment which Rabbet looked at and then went hitting his head against the wall.
Post a Comment