I reject reality and substitute my own

[jacob]

Jacob, I also believe in an objective reality. My (perhaps unclear) point was that belief in an objective reality is not fundamental in many people. But that shouldn't matter to you, as you will never reach them anyway, and they are unlikely to matter to you.

The OP link agrees and I agree. The point of that article was that for some issues it actually does matter when the belief in an objective becomes irrelevant and replaced be something else. For example, it doesn't really matter to me or anyone that some people believe that Obama was born in Kenya. He was/is still the president. It does matter to me that some people don't believe in climate change, because it means that the country as a whole is running blind [because of the democratic decision making process]. Now, I probably can't change that ... so I focus on minimizing my personal damage to this belief. However, by making the choice to focusing on saving my own ass, I'm contributing somewhat to a tragedy of the commons.

The bigger picture, as the article also touches on, is what happens to a country, an economy, or a culture if selective science-denial begins to extend to other fields as well.

[Ego]

OT ... who is John Oliver??

Not off topic at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

[jacob]

I'm trying to make sense of the confusion in this thread as well as some other exchanges I've observed out in the real world. Because honestly some of this stuff leaves me flabbergasted. Exchanges such as this:

A: There's a scientific study that shows that X=Y.
B: I don't believe that X=Y.
A: How can you not believe this?
B: Why don't you respect my beliefs?

What is going on here? So here's a hypothesis. We have two groups of people who operate different epistemologies.

Group 1:
* There is an objective reality.
* All our individual subjective realities should be converging on that one objective reality.
* The scientific method (and the resulting "scientific reality") has been very successful in quickly converging on that objective reality.
* The farther away from objective reality we are, the more wrong we are.
* Subjective realities that are further away from the objective reality deserve less respect than subjective realities that are closer.

In short, there's an absolute standard for being correct when it comes to reality.

Group 2:
* There are only subjective realities.
* They are all equally correct.
* Scientific reality is just another subjective reality.
* Therefore they all demand equal amounts of respect.

If neither group realizes that the other group uses a different standard, it would explain the confused exchange in the anecdote above. It would explain the lamentation of the OP link as well. And I think it would explain a lot of this thread as well. Now I think I can speak for group 1 and say that's pretty much how the inner workings are in group 1. Am I right about the inner workings of group 2 as well?

[Tyler9000]

Now I think I can speak for group 1 and say that's pretty much how the inner workings are in group 1. Am I right about the inner workings of group 2 as well?

IMHO, the "facts versus the world" perspective is really just two sides of the same Group 1 world view. The other opinions in this thread are more interesting than that and to lump them into "subjective reality" misunderstands their intent.

From my perspective, Group 1 is focused on an issue they're passionate about and are fixated on getting everyone to agree to the facts even if it means the people they intend to influence may tune them out and nothing will actually change.

Group 2 is focused on influencing people, even if it means those people never actually agree to the facts. They are willing to be tolerant of even factually incorrect viewpoints if by doing so they can speak to people in their own terms to win them over to the desired course of action.

Both ostensibly have the same end goal, but the different methods frustrate the diametrically opposed personalities. Group 1 finds Group 2 to be weak-minded and they naturally resort to ridicule. Group 2 finds Group 1 to be stubborn ideologues more interested in being right than getting results, and they naturally resort to ignoring them. Both reactions irritate the opposing group to no end.

I personally think the author referenced in the OP speaks in terms that resonate with Group 1, but in reality he's a simple political hack. The people here discussing climate change (including Groups 1 and 2) are more principled than that and are genuinely concerned with more than just tearing down a certain political party in an election year. It's just that their approaches are very different. I believe that both have their place.

[GandK]

@Tyler: Yes. Brilliant.

I'm solidly in Tyler's Group 2, not for subjectivity, but because it focuses on results and the real people who would produce them. Most people don't care about research, facts or "reality" as much as they care about the people they love and the stuff they've accumulated. And they never will. Accepting this and being good with it does not constitute irrationality.

One cannot speak into the life of a non-Rational (most of society) using Rational methods and expect to get Rational results. Hence the disconnect between science and the public. The public doesn't speak Spock. Earlier I asked what if scientists produced a warning, and you replied with several... that were buried in studies, journals, and white papers. <facepalm> Rephrase: what if they said that and only that... not because it's the most accurate, precise, Grade A statement available, but because no unpersuaded salt-of-the-earth voter is ever going to read a 23-page report?

Re respect and faith... there are hundreds of examples on this site of people juggling multiple paradigms simultaneously without the need for empirical evidence in order to have a serious conversation. Hypothetical discussions abound. Yet this specific paradigm is attacked and snarked about regularly. Lack of respect comes in when people cease talking about religion itself, in a good or bad context, and begin talking about "religious people." Talking about Christianity, even derisively, is unlikely to offend. Talking derisively about Christians will offend almost every time. And respect in this context is not an emotion. It's room at the table.

[jennypenny]

OT ... who is John Oliver??

Not off topic at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Thanks.

Funny that Bill Nye is in that video because I think he is one of the reasons that climate change has a PR problem. He uses his "Science Guy" platform to educate people and push for action on climate change. He also uses that same platform and the heir of authority that comes from being the Science Guy to promote the pro-choice position. He speaks with the same kind of authority when doing so and mixes in scientific terms, even saying that the pro-life movement relies on bad science.* In the end, he simply says that women should be the ones to choose and society shouldn't tell women what to do. That's fine. My point is not to argue about choice. My point is that his opinion about abortion is just that--an opinion--yet he tries to make it sound like a scientific 'fact' by expressing it in the way that he does.

*When asked about the 'bad science' to which he refers, he quotes statistics about birth control, which is a completely separate issue and one with majority support within the christian community. He has also repeatedly said that people who are pro-life 'don't understand the science' or the 'facts' or rely on 'outdated science' which is false and creates the impression that if someone does 'understand science' then they would not only accept climate change but also accept every other position of his.

Nye uses irrelevant statistics and his position of authority to try to convince people of his opinion, and by doing so is going beyond trying to use science to educate people on our 'shared factual reality' and is using it as a pseudo-science to change people's minds about societal issues. IMO this reduces Nye's effectiveness on climate change action by (1) not sticking to the facts (or pretending his own opinions are facts) and (2) giving the impression that to accept his explanation of climate change, one must also accept his positions on religion, abortion, and other societal issues. He's entitled to his opinion and he's welcome to express it. Unfortunately, I think he does so in an underhanded way which then reflects negatively on everything he says, especially within the community he is trying to convince about climate change.

[IlliniDave]

I'm trying to make sense of the confusion in this thread as well as some other exchanges I've observed out in the real world. Because honestly some of this stuff leaves me flabbergasted. Exchanges such as this:

A: There's a scientific study that shows that X=Y.
B: I don't believe that X=Y.
A: How can you not believe this?
B: Why don't you respect my beliefs?

I had a discussion very similar to this with my doctor once. It had to do with high carbohydrate/low protein/low fat nutrition, statin drugs, cholesterol, and cardiac health. Except I didn't recite actor B's second line.

Sadly, science is not pure, even that which appears in peer-reviewed publications from prestigious journals. People know this. So it is a hammer with somewhat less efficacy than Thor's with which to beat on people.

That has nothing to do with climate science, just pointing out the practical limits of appealing to scientific studies as a way to change people's behavior en masse. Better to put forth a vision they can get behind (one that's genuine and inclusive rather than snarky and divisive).

There's also an age-old human tendency to predict woe and doom, apocalypses, and all manner of terrible things that will occur just around the corner. Relatively few of them come true. The academic predictions may prove true, but they are buried in the noise of all the other flavors of doomsday and Armageddon out there. So again, it's a tough sell when you approach from the negative. Better to sell a positive vision if you want everyone actively on board.

Selling such a vision is not easy since the subject matter can turn grim in a hurry.

I mentioned before about hazards of selling an idea that comes clothed in bigger government and higher taxes. Bernie got limited mileage out of it. Maybe in the future it would get more play.

Regarding ridicule as a tactic: I remember as a kid who was doing the ridiculing and who was being ridiculed on the playground. I know it is currently a fashionable pastime for leftists and some of the far right wing. I reflexively tune such people out. It's great method for bonding with those you already agree with, and getting a few laughs. But I think using it as a noble motivation technique is a lost art.

[jacob]

Earlier I asked what if scientists produced a warning, and you replied with several... that were buried in studies, journals, and white papers. <facepalm> Rephrase: what if they said that and only that... not because it's the most accurate, precise, Grade A statement available, but because no unpersuaded salt-of-the-earth voter is ever going to read a 23-page report?

My point with the wall of links was also to demonstrate that scientists have made specific warnings many times for many years. It was very easy to find people addressing each and every issue you request in your statements. They have warned about water. About hurricanes. About insurance. And so on.

Furthermore, the warnings have come in many forms. Big reports. Small reports. Newspaper articles. Documentaries. News shows. It's not always burried on page 784 of a big pdf file.

I'm certain it's possible to find a scientist to go on TV in Florida and put it in short terms exactly like you requested. Given the state of Miami, I'd also be surprised if that hasn't happened yet. However, on the other side will be one out of the 15 professional "skeptics" in the world to spread sufficient uncertainty and doubt by quoting some nonsense meme like "temperatures haven't increases since 1998" so that the viewers think there's still a debate and that the science is undetermined yet. As IlliniDave points out, it's not rare for scientific studies to be less certain than the current stage of e.g. climate science or the efficacy of MSR vaccinations, so why wouldn't there be uncertainty about the climate.

The problem here in terms of the "debate" is that---to use Tyler's view of group 1 and group 2---is that in group 1 we only have the facts, no PR training to distribute them, and the uphill battle of the issues being complex and hard to learn. Whereas, group 2 has been composed of people who use every rhetorical and underhanded trick in the book to confuse the issue. At the professional level---people who understand the science---it's scientists vs "evil lawyers" in terms of the methods of arguing. We don't have any "good lawyers" yet. Instead we have big fact checking lists and now satire on TV. Maybe it's time for the Scopes Monkey Trial of climate science.

If I had to reasonably compare climate science to another issue where there's a similar group 1-2 dynamics, it would probably be diabetics. Diabetics is also quite solidly known. Doctors will see it coming in a patient and warn them many times that their sugar count is getting higher. However, the patient can choose to dismiss this with similar arguments saying that "they feel fine" or "the doctor is just out for my money". Similarly, there are tons of newspaper articles about the problem, but they're very easy not to read. Indeed, people who are well-informed might just use this information to convince themselves why they in particular are the one special case where medical science does not apply.

Obviously, this anti-scientific sentiment is a problem in more than just one field and it seems to be spreading. It's a problem because people are literally dying because of ignorance. Now, we know from multiple fields, that presenting the facts is not going to work. Satire and ridicule has been suggested and rejected by a majority in this thread because while it works on some, it rejects others, and it strongly polarizes the situation.

What other more effective suggestions may there be?

[Riggerjack]

1) We can either wait until the country has lost effective immunity. Then everybody gets the measles, the scientists can say "we told you so", everybody can agree that measles suck, and so after many deaths and many many more sick days, people cry uncle and ask for the vaccination again. Or maybe they decide it's okay to live with ... after all, people "lived" fine with it until 1950-1980 or so depending on country. (I've had measles and pretty much all of the childhood diseases. MSR wasn't introduced until about 7 years later.)

2) We can try "social methods" like satire, sanction, ridicule, etc. So some of us are no longer friends, but at least we avoided large scale medical impacts, i.e. e.g. pneumonia, miscarriage, etc. The odds of dying of measles for an unvaccinated adult is 1-2 out 1000 (or 100-200k in 100M ... so around half a million American death should this become policy---note that this is a one time casualty list. After everybody starts having measles as kids again, the odds are much better). Now compare to the odds and cost of ridiculing an anti-vaxxer.

Option 3. Continue to give vaccinations to children, allow the anti vaxxers to suffer. Low cost to society, low occurance of second generation antivaxxers....

Stupidity should be painful. There is no need to get in the way of education. People don't have to agree with you, and you have no right to force their compliance with your "science based vision" for society.

Honestly, even your idea that INTJs make natural leaders is off base. Being right has nothing to do with leadership, and often gets in the way.

Your expectations are the source of your frustrations. Maybe you spend to much time here. The great unwashed 99% (non INTJs) relate differently to ideas and objective reality.

Personally, I have a strong emotional connection to objective reality, when my ideas don't match up to reality, I change my ideas. This is Not Normal Behavior. Most folks test their ideas against their peers, and change them accordingly.

This is evolution at work. My worldview does not create community or harmony. At the tribal level, I would contribute minority, different, ideas, sometimes vital to survival. But the majority of the decisions don't need new solutions. Most decisions are going to be about who does what, and why. And these will be about social standing, and relations. My objective reality based thinking is far less useful than the social, feeling, based reasoning of the majority of humans.

I think correctly, in an objective sense, because my brain is out of alignment.

[jacob]

Option 3 is not optimal because some people can't be vaccinated due to medical issues even if they very much like to. These people rely on herd immunity, that is that if enough people in the herd can't contract the disease they won't be spreading it to others.

I'm quite fine when it comes to actions that only hurt the people who engage in them. I invest both in tobacco, junk food, and prison companies even as many consider such unethical. However, I draw the line when actions also hurt innocents. I do not invest in certain mining companies for example.

[Riggerjack]

Option 3 is not optimal because...

My point is that optimal is not ideal. Variety is the spice of life.

We (INTJs) are a vast minority. Our value to humanity is not increased by our numbers. The herd is not stronger for conforming to our way of doing things.

There needs to be other groups that exist within the herd, who also contribute solely in specialized situations for the human race to continue to exist.

Optimal solutions are evolutionary dead ends. The world changes, we either have a population that will thrive in that new world, or we don't.

[jacob]

That's why I qualified my statement about leadership.

http://oddlydevelopedtypes.com/content/intj-leadership

Note that INTJs will remain content followers so long as the leader is the doing a good job (Keirsey, 1998). But if the leader is a bungler, the INTJ cannot help but try to wrench the wheel from the hands of the incompetent and set the ship back on its proper course.

Maybe capable is a better word than natural. I also vastly prefer the second-in-command (in the strategist/advisor/man behind the curtain sense; not the delegator of top-level directives) position... mainly so that I don't have to deal with people directly. To wit,

INTJs may run into trouble when they decide to ignore the "pointless" social niceties that could in fact secure cooperation from those who could help them; when they treat less intelligent or skilled subordinates with open disdain; when they fail to give praise and appreciation for a job well done; when they do not give detailed instructions to the types that prefer clear specifics to high level directives ("Keirsey.com," 2009); or when they give orders "out of the blue" without bothering to secure the support of those who are expected to carry them out.

A great deal of scientists are of the INT* orientation. We're probably seeing INTJ frustration from bungled leadership. Normally, top-level knowledge is disseminated via lieutenants and sergeants, so science-level communication is directed at them: Journalists, teachers, executives, ... However, in certain cases, the usual process has been foiled. E.g. journalists have gone from critically assessing the information to lazily presenting everything as a two-sided debate, etc. The internet compounds this problem as does loss of objective reality. The big strength of the internet in terms of presenting more viewpoints is also a great weakness.

[Riggerjack]

However, in certain cases, the usual process has been foiled.

You keep talking about how the deniers have subverted the process. This is not the case. This IS the process.

You claim scientific consensus. Lovely. Science will do what science does. Slowly add one more study, supporting the work previously done by others, refining models, etc.

That process is not how the rest of the population gains that knowledge. First, it makes it into science magazines, done, then textbooks, then conversation at the dinner table. This is a multigenerstional process. This is how plate tectonics moved into public knowledge, and how most science gets there.

CC, in the form of GW, was seized by the environmental left, and turned into a political issue. This has not stopped or slowed down the normal process, it just jump started the launch, and because it was a political issue, it jump started resistance.

The science dissemination process is continuing apace. The political process is where I expect it to be.

Your frustrations are caused by addressing a political issue like it is anything else. This Is Not A Science Issue. Vaccinations, GMOs, and organic foods are not science issues.

Look to the young, did your message get thru? Now let time work it's magic.

[Tyler9000]

Obviously, this anti-scientific sentiment is a problem in more than just one field and it seems to be spreading. It's a problem because people are literally dying because of ignorance. Now, we know from multiple fields, that presenting the facts is not going to work. Satire and ridicule has been suggested and rejected by a majority in this thread because while it works on some, it rejects others, and it strongly polarizes the situation.

What other more effective suggestions may there be?

As a design consultant, the most important thing I learned about influencing people is to first understand the target audience and to adjust your presentation to put it in terms that they personally relate to. "This is how my idea will make your life/job easier." The presentation for the exact same product would be very different for the CFO (capital required, revenue potential, execution plan), marketing VP (new market reach, target customers, price points), engineering director (technical specs, realistic schedules, risks and mitigation strategies), and end customers (features, benefits, how freaking cool it is). I learned early on that rolling into a marketing or finance meeting with an engineering presentation was a waste of time and likely to do more harm than good. But by recognizing the very different motivations of each party and by speaking in their terms, I became pretty darn effective at promoting new ideas that everyone could get on board with.

When it comes to climate change, I'm admittedly a subset of Group 2 that accepts that many of the proposed facts of Group 1 are based in good science but rejects their most apocalyptic predictions, recognizes that the required tradeoffs may not always make the alternative plans a net positive for humanity (continued third-world poverty so that we can still fly to climate summits in Rio in a carbon-neutral way), and notices that many of the proposed "solutions" are politically expedient (massive carbon taxes and global wealth redistribution) rather than true science-based remediation (nuclear energy). But here's the thing -- I largely share a similar vision for a better environmental future and accepting the same "facts" is completely unnecessary to identify common ground. If anything, I believe that shifting the environmentalism focus from air quality, water pollution, deforestation, wildlife diversity, etc (all issues that the vast majority of people immediately appreciate and support) to theoretical sea level changes hundreds of years out has set back the movement tremendously. It has distracted people from areas where real consensus can be formed, and diverted resources from projects where measurable progress can be made.

FWIW, I personally believe Jacob and MMM have accomplished great inroads in improving the environment not by beating the climate change drum but by appealing to the other very real motivations for people to behave responsibly. Living in a low-impact way and rejecting consumerism is an effective way to eliminate money stress, free yourself from the machine, and live a happy life. The fact that it also benefits the environment and fights climate change is a happy side benefit. IMHO, we need more of these types of diverse asymmetrical arguments and fewer calls for homogeneous thinking. Any strategy that first requires every human to agree on the reasoning and share the same motivation is a practical non-starter.

[Ego]

And respect in this context is not an emotion. It's room at the table.

Room at the table?

I think we can agree that the solution must be political, yet the people most capable of leading the change (1)have until now been refused a seat at the political table(2)because they refuse to say that they use belief as a basis for decision making.

Please don't confuse that as me claiming to be a victim. We are all the victim.

That is the common thread here. Belief-based decision making. Personal beliefs (that happen to be wrong) influencing decisions that affect us all.

[jacob]

Belief-based decision making. Personal beliefs (that happen to be wrong) influencing decisions that affect us all.

That is what I wanted to focus on when I started the thread. In particular how factual arguments, which used to carry a special status, have been demoted to carry equal weight to other arguments. We're now in a cultural environment where it is perfectly acceptable to reject facts insofar they go against the argument we're trying to make.

In terms of seats at the table, facts are no longer sitting at the head of the table, but more importantly, facts have lost their veto right as well. When all seats are respected equally, facts are just one kind of belief along with any other belief.

The Kansas school board is an example of that philosophy in which creationism demanded equal respect to evolutionary biology in the science class room. As mentioned above, this demand for respect for all beliefs backfired when the Church of FSM demanded equal level of respect as well. It then became obvious, at least with regards to teaching biology, that it's a bad idea to respect each and every belief equally.

In any case, the "facts are just another belief/all beliefs should be respected equally" postmodernistic approach is now pervasive throughout society. There are many who sincerely believe that science is just another narrative and we have definitely left the world, where deliberately ignoring facts is anathema, behind. Instead, we now focus on finding ways to allow people to be wrong until they come around through gentle persuasion or die of the consequences of being wrong [while in some cases taking others down with them] because respect for all beliefs---even factually wrong ones---override all other concerns.

[Lemon]

Option 3 is not optimal because some people can't be vaccinated due to medical issues even if they very much like to. These people rely on herd immunity, that is that if enough people in the herd can't contract the disease they won't be spreading it to others.

I'm quite fine when it comes to actions that only hurt the people who engage in them. I invest both in tobacco, junk food, and prison companies even as many consider such unethical. However, I draw the line when actions also hurt innocents. I do not invest in certain mining companies for example.

How many orders are needed for it to not count as harming innocents? All those examples you have listed can also harm innocents also albeit not as indiscriminately.

[BRUTE]

facts are no longer sitting at the head of the table

facts have lost their veto right

brute thinks jacob is romanticizing a certain mythical past in which all humans listened to scientists and took them seriously, and politicians made decisions based upon scientific evidence.

brute would suggest that this has never been the case.

now jacob can argue that it would be nice or positive for humans. but to argue that this used to be the case seems absurd, given humanity's history.

regarding ridicule, IlliniDave hits the nail on the head: ridicule never convinced any of the humans being ridiculed. the main function of ridicule is to bond with the people already on your side. especially the people who are mostly on your side because of herd dynamics, not because of reason.

there's a reason MMM is so popular with more mainstream people and ERE is for the anti-social uber nerds. MMM targets humans who want to belong to a group and feel superior to their contemporaries. in other words, the majority of all humans.

[jacob]

@brute - I don't think people were ever 100% fact-based in the past, but the trend is definitely towards less fact based. Look at the increasing popularity/existence of fact-checkers that go through politicians' speeches. Where did that come from? Why didn't those exist in the past? I suspect it's because politicians now feel completely at liberty to knowingly lie whenever it serves their cause because they know that the majority no longer cares.

And I think we need a more nuanced picture of the impact of ridicule and consider the entire distribution of humans. Not just those who are fixed in their opposition and those who already agree but much more importantly the generally much larger group of people who aren't quite sure and those who are undecided. Everything I've seen regarding herd behaviour suggests that if a position is singled out for targeting, the as yet undecided mob will join in the attack, not in the defense. To compound the effect, few will even stay neutral. It is a prime weakness of mankind. For reference, see any yahoo and youtube comment thread. If ridicule worked as you guys suggest there would be no trolls or griefers on the internet. There would be no school-yard bullying. There would probably be no wars.

[BRUTE]

the trend is definitely towards less fact based

brute isn't sure who's rejecting reality now. is jacob serious? there might be a slight down trend within the last 30 years at most, but compared to the first 10,000 years of humanity, facts are definitely on the rise. even 200 years ago, most humans wouldn't even have know what a "fact" was. they would've accepted scripture and mysticism over their own common sense and experiences.