Personality rules reactions to climate change (and other issues too)

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by James R, May 28, 2011.

?

How would you classify yourself (see article), and is climate change a problem?

  1. Individualist, heirarchical. We shouldn't act to combat climate change.

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  2. Individualist, heirarchical. We should act to combat climate change.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Individualist, egalitarian. We shouldn't act to combat climate change.

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  4. Individualist, egalitarian. We should act to combat climate change.

    3 vote(s)
    25.0%
  5. Communitarian, heirarchical. We shouldn't act to combat climate change.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Communitarian, heirarchical. We should act to combat climate change.

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  7. Communitarian, egalitarian. We shouldn't act to combat climate change.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Communitarian, egalitarian. We should act to combat climate change.

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
  9. I can't classify myself, or I have no view on climate change, or I can't be bothered with this poll.

    1 vote(s)
    8.3%
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The following are extracts from an article in The Age newspaper today.

    Forget facts: it's personality that rules reactions to climate change
    by Jo Chandler (28 May, 2011)

    The [Australian Climate Change Commission] report is a powerful enunciation of what science now knows about climate change and the risks it poses. That the atmosphere and the oceans are warming, ice is being lost from glaciers and ice caps, sea levels are rising and the biological world is changing. ''We know beyond reasonable doubt that the world is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary causes.''

    In the nuanced language of science, it doesn't get much stronger. As the American scientist Naomi Oreskes has observed, ''History shows us clearly that science does not provide certainty. It does not provide proof.

    It only provides the consensus of experts, based on the organised accumulation and scrutiny of evidence.'' And here we have it.

    So how do you respond to such confronting news? Do you weigh the credentials of the speakers, study the evidence? Or do you switch it off, turn the page, scream and shout? According to psychological research by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale University, your reaction either way will have little to do with the strength of the arguments or the calibre of the science. It will have everything to do with whether it gels with, or offends, your deep-seated views about morality and how the world ought to work.​

    The Yale research is based on Dan Kahan's "cultural cognition of risk" theory. Individuals are surveyed and located on two scales of cultural belief, in a somewhat similar way that the political compass located people on two scales of political attitude.

    One scale is individualism vs. communitarianism.
    The other is hierarchism vs. egalitarians.

    The first scale looks at the importance that a person places on public good as opposed to individual rights.
    The second scale looks at a person's views on the stratification of society.

    For example, a person who believes in free-market enterprise, personal achievement, respect for authority (though perhaps not scientific authority), traditional family and personal freedom would be at heirarchical individualist. At the opposite side of the graph would be a communitarian egalitarian who beliefs in regulation of markets, achieving things as a team, that authority is derived from consensus, and that a family can take many different forms.

    More from the article:

    Put a scientist in front of an audience of individual hierarchicals saying that global warming is high risk, and only 23 per cent of the audience will buy the speaker as trustworthy and knowledgeable. Same message, same scientist, and 88 per cent of egalitarian communitarians nod their heads.

    Have the same author change tack to argue that warming is no great drama, and the [individual hierarchicals] now lap it up (86 per cent), and the [egalitarian communitarians] wander off (46 per cent). The well-oiled machinery of manufactured denial knows how to push all these buttons.

    Yale's audience testing finds the only factor likely to interfere with our psychological gatekeeping is if someone within our ''camp'' - someone we perceive as sharing our world view - says something unexpected. (Hence the reverberations in industry and markets when BHP chief Marius Kloppers last year urged rapid action to put a price on carbon emissions.) In short, evidence from someone you identify with will sway your view; science - facts - won't.​

    ----

    Here is a link to the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale, and a few extracts from recent findings. Papers can be downloaded from the website.

    Cultural Cognition Project - Second National Risk and Culture study

    Americans are culturally polarized on a range of societal risks--from global warming to domestic terrorism, from school shootings to vaccination of school-age girls for HPV. Reporting the results of surveys and experiments involving some 5,000 Americans, the study identifies the causes of this condition and steps that can be taken to counteract it.

    Principal findings include:

    • Individuals of diverse cultural outlooks--hierarchical and egalitarian, individualistic and communitarian--hold sharply opposed beliefs about a range of societal risks, including those associated with climate change, gun ownership, public health, and national security. Differences in these basic values exert substantially more influence over risk perceptions than does any other individual characteristic, including gender, race, socioeconomic status, education, and political ideology and party affiliation.
    • In the wake of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech in April 2007, Americans were culturally polarized on whether stronger gun control measures at schools and universities would reduce the incidence of campus gun massacres or instead render it more difficult for students and teachers to defend themselves against such attacks. The tragedy did not change public views on gun control overall.
    • In the future, there is a substantial likelihood that Americans will become culturally polarized over what are currently novel, relatively low profile risk issues, including the dangers associated with nanotechnology and the vaccination of school age girls against HPV infection. The source of such divisions is the tendency of individuals to process factual information about risk in a manner that fits cultural predispositions.
    • Individuals' expectations about the policy solution to global warming strongly influences their willingness to credit information about climate change. When told the solution to global warming is increased antipollution measures, persons of individualistic and hierarchic worldviews become less willing to credit information suggesting that global warming exists, is caused by humans, and poses significant societal dangers. Persons with such outlooks are more willing to credit the same information when told the solution to global warming is increased reliance on nuclear power generation.

    ----

    One more view that fits with all this is that of Oreskes in Climate change denial: Heads in the Sand. Oreskes argues that fear is a major driver of climate change denial:

    Fear that our current way of life is unsustainable. Fear that addressing the issue will limit economic growth. Fear that if we accept government interventions in the market place … it will lead to a loss of personal freedom. Or maybe just plain old fear of change.​
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I took me some time to figure out what I am closest to. "Communitarian, egalitarian" it is.
    And of course I think we should act against climate change.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Interesting research!

    I couldn't really classify myself, though.
    Because I tend to think like this: "We need power plants, but they cause pollution. It would be reasonable to change consumption habits, but people can only tolerate so much change to their lifestyles. The extent of lifestyle change that would be necessary to successfuly combat climate change would be too much for most people, therefore if such change would be state-mandated, this would cause the population conisderable stress, which would lead to extensive socio-economic crisis. But if people don't change their lifestyle, then the pollution and scarcity of resources will also bring on a socio-economic crisis. Talking about these things and making plans seems to give people an impression that they are in control, but at the same time, things keep getting worse, so apparently, people are not actually in control."
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    How can such steps be taken? Will the government test every citizen for where they are on the individualism vs. communitarianism and hierarchism vs. egalitarianism scales, and then tailor information accordingly, and deliver it to each person individually?
    Or will they hold informative panels for each group of people separately, with only those with a particular set of characteristics will be invited?
    Or will they provide at least 8 different versions of news on all tv channels, and then people are supposed to listen in only on the ones pertaining to them, just like people listen in only for their own horoscope and not others?
    Perhaps they should start at least eight different green political parties and make it mandatory that every person be a member of one such party.

    Any way, it seems like a logistic nightmare.
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Of course you can expect continued resistance from skeptics when those who are promoting their view of climate change to use dishonest means to do so:

    For instance this picture leads the article that James linked to:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's titled EMISSIONS.

    That SMOKE is WATER VAPOR.

    Secondly this quote was provided:

    And while the first is sort of true (only in that it GW is blamed on GHGs and Land Use changes), the second aspect, the STEPS is not covered at all.

    I recently posted the dramatic rise in GHGs from China and have yet to hear what STEPS are to be taken to convince China and India to back off from their explosive growth in CO2 production or to deal with the extra 2 Billion people who will be demanding access to energy in the next 40 years.

    The problem, particulary if you accept China and India's position that they should be able to become as developed as the industrialized nations of the world, is fundamentally too many people, and it is that aspect of the problem which is resoundly ignored.

    People keep demanding solutions when unfortunately their very existence is the root of the problem.

    Arthur
     
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    James that seems to be ok for the most part, however look at smoking and car saftey. In both of those occasions government action managed to go a significant way towards changing attitudes
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Are you saying that decreasing the global population isn't a solution?
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That started off as a two dimensional evaluation or scoring, and then morphed into talking about "the other end of the scale" or "the opposite", or the "other side" of the graph.

    And the location of "personal freedom" vs "team" beliefs in that grid is not making any sense. Another term for what a believer in hierarchies, traditional family, and authority values, that takes into account their tendency to enjoy football and sign on to military organizations while their despised "other siders" are doing their own thing and playing frisbee, is maybe indicated.
    It apparently shows that an "egalitarian communitarian" or whatever is almost twice as likely to give a speaker credit for being informed and sincere when they appear so, even while said speaker is making apparently bogus arguments and committing errors of fact or reason.

    The conclusion might be that said category is made up of generally better, wiser people, on average.
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I think that's kind of the point though Arthur.

    Steam is an emission.
    Now take another look at the caption under the picture:
    Whether you look at the picture and see the environment being polluted by a discharge, or power generation is up to you.

    Of course, the flip side of the coin, is just because it's steam that's being primarily emitted, doesn't neccessarily mean that it's all that's being emitted, for example, if it's a brown coal fired power station like this one near Melbourne:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It's unlikely that steam is being the only thing emitted.

    I'm fairly sure that there are people that would look at this picture:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And want to go on some sort of rhetorical tirade about power generation and deception, because clearly that station is having (almost) zero effect on its environment (or that's what the image seems intended to portray).
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2011
  13. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    People do forget this end of things:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Getting the coal out of the ground can be really destructive:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    (That's a Russian op, looks like there's lots of contamination not being attended to there)

    Things are getting hotter, weather's getting worse, the science seems very clear.

    I don't fear we're unsustainable- I KNOW we're unsustainable.
    So we have to get sustainable.
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Apperances can be deceiving - a properly maintained and operating settling pond (of which I can see at least one in the picture) can remove in excess of 90% of the contaminants present (at least in the form of dissolved solids anyway).

    Dissolved heavy metals, for example, like to stick to clay minerals.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2011
  15. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    None of this is particulary surprising. When you tell someone that "science" demands that we do what he is inclined to do anyway, he's not going to be too skeptical. It's like telling a bunch of kids that science demands that they eat all the cake and candy that they want. They're not going to be too skeptical. On the other hand, when you tell someone that science demands he shove a giant dildo up his ass, he's going to think back to all the times science got it wrong and suddenly become very skeptical.

    So tell a leftist that science demands that we strictly regulate industry, raise taxes, and kick Dick Cheney in the nuts; and he's going to nod his head and say, "Yes. You make a strong argument."

    But tell him that science demands we lower taxes, de-regulate industry, and vote for Sarah Palin; and suddenly he's a skeptic.
     
  16. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! To much . Your funny . Will you holed Dick While I do the kicking ?
     
  17. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Dick Cheney-before he dicks you!
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Interesting responses. But it appears that several people have confused the Yale studies about personality with the issue of global warming, for some reason. This thread is not primarily about whether global warming is an issue (despite the poll). It is about the correlation between personality type and a willingness to accept that global warming is a serious issue we need to tackle. The implications of the Yale work go beyond the single issue of global warming, however - if they are right.

    There is another thread in which you can debate global warming if you wish. Can we please keep this one to discussion of the thread topic - i.e. personality?

    Clearly, you didn't read the OP carefully. The quote you have quoted has nothing to do with global warming. It is about the Yale study. Please at least read the opening post before wading in.

    Did you read the paper that I linked to, from whose summary you're drawing the quote? If not, go and read it.

    The indented parts of the OP are from external sources. The non-indented parts are from me.

    When I referred to "the other end of the scale", I really meant the opposite quadrant of the 2-d graph. I apologise if this confused you.

    Again, perhaps you are confusing my language with the language of the authors of the study? Did you read the original Yale article that I linked?

    Bear in mind that these numbers are on the single issue of climate change. On a different issue, the percentages may well flip around the opposite way.

    The easiest thing to do when it comes to climate change is nothing. In fact, the easiest thing to do in any situation is usually nothing. Just keep doing what you're doing. This research is about what kinds of things are likely to change people's minds (or not).

    You clearly think that climate change is primarily a political issue rather than a scientific one. Or, you think that the politics is more significant than the science. Which suggests to me that you are dismissing the science. Based on the study, that would suggest to me that you are most likely big on individual rights and heirarchical power structures. Which option did you select in the poll?
     
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    and james, i have been waiting for a comment in regard to my post. Sure it apears that global warming is causing a split along these lines in the community but if thats all the study looked at its incompleate to say the least. It also has to be able to explain how goverment, NGOs and Scientists have been able to change attitudes to smoking and driving attitudes
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Take smoking, for example. What the study suggests is the individualists would be more likely to view, say, a ban on smoking in pubs, as an infringement on individual rights and freedoms. Whereas a communitarian would view such a ban as promoting the public good. On the other hand, a heirarchical person would not necessarily be against a smoking ban on the basis that it discriminates between smokers and non-smokers, whereas an egalitarian person might be.

    Note that it has taken a long time to get the kinds of smoking regulations that we have in western countries today. Each new regulation has been stridently opposed, every step of the way. So, rather than looking at attitudes today, you'd be better off looking back to when the initial attempts were made to regulate smoking. What kinds of people opposed regulation back then? Who supported it?

    The same applies to seat belts in cars. Some people stridently argued that any laws requiring them to wear seatbelts were an affront to their individual rights. Others immediately saw the value in such laws for protection of the community.
     
  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    if you poll people about seatbelt laws in Australia i doubt you would find many oposed, same with breathos (speed cameras are a different story). I agree that change didnt come overnight but your artical didnt explain how that change happened at all. If the "political" (for want of a better word) attitudes were all that mattered it wouldnt matter the number of lives saved by seatbelts, one side would surport them and one side would opose. The only way to get that long term cultural change (from my reading of the artical) would be to alter the political balance and i dont see that having happened.

    There is a whole list of these we could look at
    Seat belt laws
    50Km speed limits
    drink driving laws
    gun control
    smoking laws

    All of these are initially split down political lines as the artical suggests but as time goes on the balance shifts without a major change in political views. So how does the resurch address this?

    the important thing for climate change attitudeds isnt nessarly who surports and who oposes, we know that and we can directly poll that. The imporant thing is how can attitudes be changed and thats where this is silent
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    More info on definitions of the four personality-type classifications:

    People who subscribe to a “hierarchical” worldview believe that rights, duties, goods, and offices should be distributed differentially and on the basis of clearly defined and stable social characteristics (e.g., gender, wealth, lineage, ethnicity). Those who subscribe to an “egalitarian” worldview believe that rights, duties, goods, and offices should be distributed equally and without regard to such characteristics.

    People who subscribe to a “communitarian” worldview believe that societal interests should take precedence over individual ones and that society should bear the responsibility for securing the conditions of individual flourishing. Those who subscribe to an “individualistic” worldview believe that individuals should secure the conditions of their own flourishing without collective interference or assistance.​
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    More from the Cultural Cognition Project article (linked in the OP):

    Individuals’ worldviews, we found, explained individuals’ beliefs about global warming more powerfully than any other individual characteristic. How liberal or conservative people are, for example, explains less than one-third as much of variance in such beliefs as how egalitarian or hierarchical and how communitarian or individualistic they are. Whether one is a man or a woman—a characteristic known to influence environmental risk perceptions generally—explains less than one tenth as much.​

    In response to Asguard's query as to how to deal with some of the personality issues:

    As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values. This defensive response can be reversed or mitigated when information is instead framed in a manner that affirms those same commitments.​

    An example from the study is that individual-heirarchists tend to reject the call for more pollution-control measures to fight global warming, but are more receptive to calls to increase reliance on nuclear power. Why? Primarily because the first proposed "solution" is perceived as threatening individual freedoms, whereas the second does not have that effect.

    Hierarchs and individualists tend to resist information on environmental risks, the former because it seems to imply restriction of market activity and the latter because it implicitly challenges governmental and business elites. The demand for greater “anti-pollution controls” accentuates these connotations, and thus increases the disposition of these persons to dismiss information relating to global warming. Individualists and hierarchs, however, support nuclear power development, which is a symbol of industrial markets, human mastery over nature, and the power and competence of scientific and industrial elites. Accordingly, when they are told that increased investment in nuclear power is the appropriate response to global warming, individuals with these orientations are less threatened. As a result they are more willing to accept the factual claims that suggest that global warming is really a problem.​

    Another example: gun control.

    Hierarchs tend to favorably associate guns with hierarchical roles such as father, protector, and with respected hierarchical institutions like the military; individualists favorably associate them with virtues like self-reliance and courage. Consistent with identity-protective cognition, persons with these values worry more about the risk of defenselessness. This is especially true for men who hold these cultural outlooks. Egalitarians, who associate guns with racial animus and sexism, and communitarians, who see private weapon ownership as symbols of distrust and lack of concern for others, worry more about the risk of gun accidents and gun violence.​
     

Share This Page