Dec 29, 2021 07:29 PM
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2021/12/sc...reasoning/
EXCERPT: . . . Political alignment itself is the biggest predictor of climate change denial, and evidence suggests that the stronger one’s belief in the free market, the more likely one is to dispute climate change. For those who actively distrust market regulation, the existence of climate change presents an ideological challenge. Accepting that human activity has consequences for others is cognitively difficult, because it forces believers to refine nuances of their personal philosophy. But for many, it is simply easier to quench intellectual discomfort by retreating into naked denial, ignoring or attacking evidence that conflicts with deeply held beliefs.
If one accepts human-mediated climate change, then supporting mitigating action should follow. But the demon of regulation is a bridge too far for many libertarians. Given that climate change affects everyone, whether they consent to it or not, then unregulated use of natural resources infringes the property rights of others, rendering it ideologically equivalent to trespass. When faced with this dilemma, some free-market advocates resolve the inevitable dissonance by simply denying the reality of climate change rather than acknowledging that the axiom they cling to may require revision.
While ideological blindness on climate change isn’t solely the preserve of free-marketers, constructive solutions can be found only when we acknowledge reality; problems cannot be rectified if unrecognized. Denialists fall at the first hurdle, dismissing the problem and stifling vital dialogue. Like Festinger’s UFO cult, they are unwilling or unable to let their position evolve with evidence. Unable to justify their contention, they resort to shouting down uncomfortable facts that clash with their perceptions, drowning out the intrusions of reality on their perfect ideology. Sadly, this sustained assault on reason has serious implications for the future of our very planet.
Ideological lenses distort how we see the world; an infamous experiment (Kahan et al. 2013) initially gave subjects a neutral numerical problem about whether a skin cream could alleviate a rash. Unbeknownst to the subjects, they had been covertly stratified by political alignment into conservative and liberal cohorts. The neutral question proved difficult for everyone, with 59 percent getting the wrong answer. With the mathematically capable identified, the researchers asked a similar problem. But this time, it concerned a subject teetering at the very brink of the American political fault line: gun control. Random data generated sometimes indicated gun control decreased crime and sometimes the opposite. Now firmly politicized, problems were randomly distributed among liberals and conservatives.
The results demonstrated something extraordinary: Liberals were remarkably effective at solving it when data suggested gun control reduced crime, but when confronted with the converse, their mathematical skills abandoned them; they tended to answer incorrectly. Conservatives exhibited precisely the same pattern in reverse: able to solve the problem only when it suggested lax gun laws reduce crime. One’s mathematical acumen wasn’t enough to overcome the impact of partisanship. The alarming inference from this is that ideological motivations skew our very ability to reason. But why?
The answer might be our propensity to engage in identity-protective cognition; we do not separate our beliefs from ourselves—to some extent they define us. Accordingly, it is a psychological imperative to protect this idea of who we are. We find it immensely difficult to differentiate our ideas from our sense of self, too often condemning us to clutch at wrong-headed positions with dogmatic zeal, unwilling to countenance alternatives lest they threaten our very identity.
Consider too the consequences for people who defy their group identities and the unquestioned beliefs and assumptions inherent therein. We tend to inhabit echo chambers of opinion and ideology reflecting our own. This is extremely apparent in emotive subjects, whether religion, politics, or beliefs. This collective subscription to certain views reinforces ideas until they become unquestioned orthodoxy. Any deviation from these ideas can come at a high social and personal cost—including ostracization. To question aspects of a belief is often conflated with being treacherous to that view, and it risks making one a pariah.
Curiously, cognitive dissonance seems to be somewhat selective. Researchers found that conspiracy theorists had a surprising ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously. In one study, the more participants believed that Princess Diana had faked her own death, the more they believed she was murdered. Similarly, another study found that the stronger a subject’s belief that Osama bin Laden was already dead when U.S. Special Forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the deeper their belief he was still alive. Somehow, they readily accepted some bizarre Schrödinger’s Bin Laden, simultaneously existing in both an alive and dead state. The reason this caused no conflict to believers is that the specifics of the beliefs themselves were inconsequential—a conspiratorial narrative itself was enough to protect their worldview. As the researchers concluded, the “nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general”.
The alarming reality is that people tend to believe what ideologically appeals to them, filtering out information conflicting with deeply held beliefs. This afflicts all of us to some degree, and we need to be actively aware of this predilection to have any chance of overcoming it. What feels to us like a rational position might not be anything of the sort. Often, it could instead be an emotional decision dressed in the borrowed garb of rational thought, entangled with the very fabric of how we define ourselves. This makes us resistant to changing our minds, even when the available data urges it.
As Jonathan Swift once observed, “Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired.” Ultimately, clinging to irrational beliefs is detrimental. Whether the issue is climate change, health policy, or even politics, we need to be able to evaluate available information critically without the distorting lens of ideology coloring our perception. While we may hold incredibly strong personal convictions, reality doesn’t care one iota for what we believe. And if we persist in choosing ideology over evidence, we endanger ourselves and others... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPT: . . . Political alignment itself is the biggest predictor of climate change denial, and evidence suggests that the stronger one’s belief in the free market, the more likely one is to dispute climate change. For those who actively distrust market regulation, the existence of climate change presents an ideological challenge. Accepting that human activity has consequences for others is cognitively difficult, because it forces believers to refine nuances of their personal philosophy. But for many, it is simply easier to quench intellectual discomfort by retreating into naked denial, ignoring or attacking evidence that conflicts with deeply held beliefs.
If one accepts human-mediated climate change, then supporting mitigating action should follow. But the demon of regulation is a bridge too far for many libertarians. Given that climate change affects everyone, whether they consent to it or not, then unregulated use of natural resources infringes the property rights of others, rendering it ideologically equivalent to trespass. When faced with this dilemma, some free-market advocates resolve the inevitable dissonance by simply denying the reality of climate change rather than acknowledging that the axiom they cling to may require revision.
While ideological blindness on climate change isn’t solely the preserve of free-marketers, constructive solutions can be found only when we acknowledge reality; problems cannot be rectified if unrecognized. Denialists fall at the first hurdle, dismissing the problem and stifling vital dialogue. Like Festinger’s UFO cult, they are unwilling or unable to let their position evolve with evidence. Unable to justify their contention, they resort to shouting down uncomfortable facts that clash with their perceptions, drowning out the intrusions of reality on their perfect ideology. Sadly, this sustained assault on reason has serious implications for the future of our very planet.
Ideological lenses distort how we see the world; an infamous experiment (Kahan et al. 2013) initially gave subjects a neutral numerical problem about whether a skin cream could alleviate a rash. Unbeknownst to the subjects, they had been covertly stratified by political alignment into conservative and liberal cohorts. The neutral question proved difficult for everyone, with 59 percent getting the wrong answer. With the mathematically capable identified, the researchers asked a similar problem. But this time, it concerned a subject teetering at the very brink of the American political fault line: gun control. Random data generated sometimes indicated gun control decreased crime and sometimes the opposite. Now firmly politicized, problems were randomly distributed among liberals and conservatives.
The results demonstrated something extraordinary: Liberals were remarkably effective at solving it when data suggested gun control reduced crime, but when confronted with the converse, their mathematical skills abandoned them; they tended to answer incorrectly. Conservatives exhibited precisely the same pattern in reverse: able to solve the problem only when it suggested lax gun laws reduce crime. One’s mathematical acumen wasn’t enough to overcome the impact of partisanship. The alarming inference from this is that ideological motivations skew our very ability to reason. But why?
The answer might be our propensity to engage in identity-protective cognition; we do not separate our beliefs from ourselves—to some extent they define us. Accordingly, it is a psychological imperative to protect this idea of who we are. We find it immensely difficult to differentiate our ideas from our sense of self, too often condemning us to clutch at wrong-headed positions with dogmatic zeal, unwilling to countenance alternatives lest they threaten our very identity.
Consider too the consequences for people who defy their group identities and the unquestioned beliefs and assumptions inherent therein. We tend to inhabit echo chambers of opinion and ideology reflecting our own. This is extremely apparent in emotive subjects, whether religion, politics, or beliefs. This collective subscription to certain views reinforces ideas until they become unquestioned orthodoxy. Any deviation from these ideas can come at a high social and personal cost—including ostracization. To question aspects of a belief is often conflated with being treacherous to that view, and it risks making one a pariah.
Curiously, cognitive dissonance seems to be somewhat selective. Researchers found that conspiracy theorists had a surprising ability to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs simultaneously. In one study, the more participants believed that Princess Diana had faked her own death, the more they believed she was murdered. Similarly, another study found that the stronger a subject’s belief that Osama bin Laden was already dead when U.S. Special Forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the deeper their belief he was still alive. Somehow, they readily accepted some bizarre Schrödinger’s Bin Laden, simultaneously existing in both an alive and dead state. The reason this caused no conflict to believers is that the specifics of the beliefs themselves were inconsequential—a conspiratorial narrative itself was enough to protect their worldview. As the researchers concluded, the “nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general”.
The alarming reality is that people tend to believe what ideologically appeals to them, filtering out information conflicting with deeply held beliefs. This afflicts all of us to some degree, and we need to be actively aware of this predilection to have any chance of overcoming it. What feels to us like a rational position might not be anything of the sort. Often, it could instead be an emotional decision dressed in the borrowed garb of rational thought, entangled with the very fabric of how we define ourselves. This makes us resistant to changing our minds, even when the available data urges it.
As Jonathan Swift once observed, “Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired.” Ultimately, clinging to irrational beliefs is detrimental. Whether the issue is climate change, health policy, or even politics, we need to be able to evaluate available information critically without the distorting lens of ideology coloring our perception. While we may hold incredibly strong personal convictions, reality doesn’t care one iota for what we believe. And if we persist in choosing ideology over evidence, we endanger ourselves and others... (MORE - missing details)
