My friend Vicky linked to this article on the NPR website about climate change. It’s about people’s proclivity to believe in climate change science, based on personality profile. The whole article is worth a read, but here are a couple of gems:
“People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view.”
“Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values.”
“If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way.”
I think the article could be about theology, and many of the same quote would apply. I’ve had this idea for some time, that I think denomination preference and theological belief is often more personality-derived than it is come to rationally. What do you think?
Twitter Updates
I agree with these ideas (because they are consistent with my world view) haha
“Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values.”
An initial reaction of fear towards what is unknown or not easily understood is a common human behavior.
I wonder if there could be some chicken and egg factor when it comes to denomination preference. Since most of us are indoctrinated into a particular denomination as children this begins to cement our world view. So denominational preference comes first (without choice), playing a vital role in our personality development.
Regarding public reactions to climate change… I think that understanding climate change is beyond most of us. Ok, I’ll agree that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans has been increasing. But if you want to know the weather, look out the window, right
it’s cold out there!
I’ve heard many people shrug off claims of global warming this winter, due to the local conditions. “It’s snowing in Texas, therefore global warming is false tree hugger propaganda.”. This is the spotlight fallacy. Arguing that we can extrapolate localized data to explain the larger whole. Is the tendency to accept data as true greater if it is something you yourself can directly confirm right outside your own door?
Only because I absolutely love this topic…
As a person who has daily exposure to this topic, I’ve really just had to come to grips with the fact that some people really do not want to accept some things. I think that sometimes people may feel unprepared to accept/reject some claims because they do not feel equipped with enough info to make a proper decision. I can truly respect that without hesitation because I personally feel that there is a severe lack of education on topics such as climate change… as well as just basic education on how to objectively judge scientific analysis (which is supposed to be unbiased but I see articles ALL of the time that have so much room for bias & human error). Science is a field that I love educating people on… maybe not on a molecular level… but at least on a level where they can seek out relevant data on their own. It’s most unfortunate that so many great journal articles require a subscription.
“Is the tendency to accept data as true greater if it is something you yourself can directly confirm right outside your own door?”
Definitely. Humans have a natural inclination for understanding their natural environment. Obviously we can see gravity everywhere we go. It’s tangible. It’s a theory. We can see it. So we accept it. The unfortunate part about climate change is how small of a scale you are looking at just by peeking out your window. A big picture idea (since we do live on an entire planet) is more suitable for issues such as these.
With respect to massive amounts of snow dumped on us this season… to be honest, it’s annoying to some scientists when people make the claim that more snow means no climate change. It’s what we should expect as a consequence of more evaporation going on. What goes up must come down!
Good points! I loved the hydrologic cycle in gradeschool science class!
The more water that’s released into the atmosphere, the more that’s available to the cycle. So global precipitation in general would increase. Locally, we’ve had a record year for precipitation.
I agree with you totally. Judging “today’s weather” through our window is fine, but judging weather patterns through our window is what I would call an extremely narrow geographic perspective. Time, as well as geography, plays a role in the climate data. Our perspective of time on a human scale is not the appropriate tool for measuring things that occur on the geological scale of time.
Sorry, a bit off topic.
I think this is an interesting topic because of the how the pure science mixes with politics, all influenced with billions of dollars. If we are going to make extravagant claims we need extravagant evidence (both in theology and science). I’ve done enough background research to be interested in the hypothesis, but it isn’t convincing enough in which I realize I should be riding my bike to work.