Comments on: More on the Psychology of Anti-Evolutionism: Need For Closure, Fear, and Disgust http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: lou http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-104461 lou Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:16:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-104461 Some correlation may be found between those who do not accept evolution and those who cannot fathom the idea that they themselves may not exist some day. They are in god's hands and god will care for them forever just like the earth is in god's hands and would not allow man to destroy it. Creationism and warming denial go hand in hand. Thus lies the danger in the failure of our educational system in imparting a basic understanding of how the real world works. We are all locked into some mental and cultural prisons of our own choosing and family/cultural reinforcement. For many, perhaps most, there are no keys to easy entry or release. And I might add that few people have a firm grasp of evolution itself. Even among evolution believers I would venture that many do not get the concept that evolution is not advancing toward some "end", like man. This is where the real rub lies between the true creationists and the true evolutionists. Psychologically, many people just cannot accept as individuals and as humanity that they are not special and subject to divine interventions and exemptions from the will of randomness and chaos or the impacts of their own demands on the physical world. Some correlation may be found between those who do not accept evolution and those who cannot fathom the idea that they themselves may not exist some day. They are in god’s hands and god will care for them forever just like the earth is in god’s hands and would not allow man to destroy it. Creationism and warming denial go hand in hand. Thus lies the danger in the failure of our educational system in imparting a basic understanding of how the real world works. We are all locked into some mental and cultural prisons of our own choosing and family/cultural reinforcement. For many, perhaps most, there are no keys to easy entry or release.

And I might add that few people have a firm grasp of evolution itself. Even among evolution believers I would venture that many do not get the concept that evolution is not advancing toward some “end”, like man. This is where the real rub lies between the true creationists and the true evolutionists. Psychologically, many people just cannot accept as individuals and as humanity that they are not special and subject to divine interventions and exemptions from the will of randomness and chaos or the impacts of their own demands on the physical world.

]]> By: Brian Schmidt http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-104425 Brian Schmidt Sun, 12 Jun 2011 04:36:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-104425 1. On evolution/creationism, I agree that closure favors denial for those who believe in the inerrant Bible. Evolution isn't compatible with the Bible being literally true. 2. Climate theory doesn't have the same trouble with Christianity. A few climate denialists have tried to use Christian determinist arguments, but they're pretty weak even from that perspective. 3. On climate, if you accept that temps are warming, as many denialists (and more important, the fence sitters) do, then you have uncertainty and ambiguity. What explains the increase? 4. Climate realists have a theory that eliminates ambiguity - it's warming because we're messing up and warming the planet. This theory, btw, is compatible with a Christian frame of humans as immoral screwups who do a bad job as stewards of God's creation. 5. Denialists who accept warming don't really have an explanation - they have to rely on coincidence. It's just coincidence, they say, that we happen to be in a time when temps are rising as part of a natural cycle. It's just coincidence that Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius more or less predicted what would happen long before it became politicized. It's just coincidence that Hansen said in 1988 that temps would keep rising, and they've risen at the rate he predicted. 6. Some denialists resort to lies to deny their need to argue based on coincidences, but that opens them up to vulnerability when trying to persuade fence-sitters. 7. If denialists fall in the set that deny warming at all, then they have another group of coincidences that they have to explain away. 8. I agree that some with a strong need for closure and who have already strongly settled on a denialist frame will be very difficult to bring around, but it's not the committed denialists that we're concerned about. 9. People who haven't yet thought much about climate issues are the target. Some of them will have strong need for closure. We have a better story for them by pointing out the other side's reliance on coincidences. 10. I can be proven wrong. I don't know this psychological field. If it's shown that people with a strong need for closure are also strongly tolerant of explanation via coincidence, then I'm wrong. 11. I suspect the opposite is true, that many people are intolerant of explanation through coincidence. It's kind of an intuitive Occam's Razor - it's not science, but it's not wrong, either. We should use it more - we have an explanation, denialists have coincidences. We have a solution, denialists want to sit there. Who do you trust? 1. On evolution/creationism, I agree that closure favors denial for those who believe in the inerrant Bible. Evolution isn’t compatible with the Bible being literally true.

2. Climate theory doesn’t have the same trouble with Christianity. A few climate denialists have tried to use Christian determinist arguments, but they’re pretty weak even from that perspective.

3. On climate, if you accept that temps are warming, as many denialists (and more important, the fence sitters) do, then you have uncertainty and ambiguity. What explains the increase?

4. Climate realists have a theory that eliminates ambiguity – it’s warming because we’re messing up and warming the planet. This theory, btw, is compatible with a Christian frame of humans as immoral screwups who do a bad job as stewards of God’s creation.

5. Denialists who accept warming don’t really have an explanation – they have to rely on coincidence. It’s just coincidence, they say, that we happen to be in a time when temps are rising as part of a natural cycle. It’s just coincidence that Tyndall, Fourier, and Arrhenius more or less predicted what would happen long before it became politicized. It’s just coincidence that Hansen said in 1988 that temps would keep rising, and they’ve risen at the rate he predicted.

6. Some denialists resort to lies to deny their need to argue based on coincidences, but that opens them up to vulnerability when trying to persuade fence-sitters.

7. If denialists fall in the set that deny warming at all, then they have another group of coincidences that they have to explain away.

8. I agree that some with a strong need for closure and who have already strongly settled on a denialist frame will be very difficult to bring around, but it’s not the committed denialists that we’re concerned about.

9. People who haven’t yet thought much about climate issues are the target. Some of them will have strong need for closure. We have a better story for them by pointing out the other side’s reliance on coincidences.

10. I can be proven wrong. I don’t know this psychological field. If it’s shown that people with a strong need for closure are also strongly tolerant of explanation via coincidence, then I’m wrong.

11. I suspect the opposite is true, that many people are intolerant of explanation through coincidence. It’s kind of an intuitive Occam’s Razor – it’s not science, but it’s not wrong, either. We should use it more – we have an explanation, denialists have coincidences. We have a solution, denialists want to sit there. Who do you trust?

]]> By: Things Worth Reading | A Theory of Mind http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-104395 Things Worth Reading | A Theory of Mind Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:26:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-104395 [...] More on the Psychology of Anti-Evolutionism: Need For Closure, Fear, and Disgust — Chris Mooney writes about some of the psychological research on acceptance of evolution. [...] [...] More on the Psychology of Anti-Evolutionism: Need For Closure, Fear, and Disgust — Chris Mooney writes about some of the psychological research on acceptance of evolution. [...]

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-104035 Chris Mooney Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:36:11 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-104035 It doesn't work that way. If you want closure you don't want a "better" or more accurate story, you want a story that doesn't have any uncertainty or ambiguity. It doesn’t work that way. If you want closure you don’t want a “better” or more accurate story, you want a story that doesn’t have any uncertainty or ambiguity.

]]> By: Brian Schmidt http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-104033 Brian Schmidt Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:27:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-104033 #19: I agree that denialists want closure and seize on whatever scrap like climategate and vast conspiracies that they can get, but I think there are problems for the denialist closure arguments to be convincing. We can provide a better story to someone who wants closure, because our theory explains the evidence, while they have no theory, or they have conspiracies, or they have mysterious 1500 year sun cycle coincidences. #19: I agree that denialists want closure and seize on whatever scrap like climategate and vast conspiracies that they can get, but I think there are problems for the denialist closure arguments to be convincing.

We can provide a better story to someone who wants closure, because our theory explains the evidence, while they have no theory, or they have conspiracies, or they have mysterious 1500 year sun cycle coincidences.

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-103949 Chris Mooney Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:26:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-103949 @16 I don't see it that way. My theory now with climate and "need for closure" is that ClimateGate was seized on as a way to shut down the minds of those who don't want to consider anything else and want to dismiss the whole issue. One key aspect of need for closure is "seizing" on some bit of helpful information that gives you closure and then "freezing" and not considering anything else. @16 I don’t see it that way. My theory now with climate and “need for closure” is that ClimateGate was seized on as a way to shut down the minds of those who don’t want to consider anything else and want to dismiss the whole issue. One key aspect of need for closure is “seizing” on some bit of helpful information that gives you closure and then “freezing” and not considering anything else.

]]> By: Ian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-103941 Ian Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:09:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-103941 You say "It is hard not to speculate about what is lying at the roots of all this. We have highlighted published psychology research suggesting that anti-evolutionists are more likely to be religious and high on need for closure, as well as sensitive to fear and “existential threat.” It all seems related…" Is speculation scientific? You say “It is hard not to speculate about what is lying at the roots of all this. We have highlighted published psychology research suggesting that anti-evolutionists are more likely to be religious and high on need for closure, as well as sensitive to fear and “existential threat.” It all seems related…”

Is speculation scientific?

]]> By: TTT http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-103855 TTT Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:18:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-103855 @10: Europe hosts as much denialism as any other region. They may not be as prone to creationism, but instead they panic over GMOs while at the same time denying the existence of violent radical Islamism in their societies. Their anti-American bigotry you describe (which I have personally experienced, and so too have many of my friends) is the moral equivalent of racism and gaybashing. They all look the same with a snarl on their face. You cannot change human nature. Look hard enough at any society and you'll find the crazy and the hate. @10: Europe hosts as much denialism as any other region. They may not be as prone to creationism, but instead they panic over GMOs while at the same time denying the existence of violent radical Islamism in their societies. Their anti-American bigotry you describe (which I have personally experienced, and so too have many of my friends) is the moral equivalent of racism and gaybashing. They all look the same with a snarl on their face.

You cannot change human nature. Look hard enough at any society and you’ll find the crazy and the hate.

]]> By: Brian Schmidt http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-103839 Brian Schmidt Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:14:54 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-103839 This study might be useful for climate change framing. Realists can offer closure in the sense of a reasonably comprehensive explanation of what's happening and what can be done to fix it. Denialists have a "who knows" answer to why things are warming, unless they go even further off the deep end with temperature measuring denial or other idiotic theories that pose different problems to denialist political agendas. This study might be useful for climate change framing. Realists can offer closure in the sense of a reasonably comprehensive explanation of what’s happening and what can be done to fix it. Denialists have a “who knows” answer to why things are warming, unless they go even further off the deep end with temperature measuring denial or other idiotic theories that pose different problems to denialist political agendas.

]]> By: steven thrasher http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/09/more-on-the-psychology-of-anti-evolutionism-need-for-closure-fear-and-disgust/#comment-103834 steven thrasher Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:53:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=18633#comment-103834 @tavo I think for starters, you shouldn't declare those of faith are uneducated or weak minded. Some of the most religious people I know of were also some of the brightest and knowlegeable (and stubborn, but not soft). Also, I wouldn't characterize the need being based in them not loving themselves, but desperation. When you lose a child, or are faced with insurmountable challenges, or a lack of justice, or other things that we experience through the human condition, there are very few answers as easy as a belief in god. In fact, many debates with such people seem to incude their declaration of the NEED for a god. In any case, I think until there is a satisfactory response to that need, religion will continue to be a need, regardless of scientific evidence or not. @tavo I think for starters, you shouldn’t declare those of faith are uneducated or weak minded. Some of the most religious people I know of were also some of the brightest and knowlegeable (and stubborn, but not soft). Also, I wouldn’t characterize the need being based in them not loving themselves, but desperation. When you lose a child, or are faced with insurmountable challenges, or a lack of justice, or other things that we experience through the human condition, there are very few answers as easy as a belief in god. In fact, many debates with such people seem to incude their declaration of the NEED for a god. In any case, I think until there is a satisfactory response to that need, religion will continue to be a need, regardless of scientific evidence or not.

]]>