WUWT reader “Carl” Submits this story:
New research suggests people tend to hold negative views of political and social activists
Why don’t people behave in more environmentally friendly ways? New research presents one uncomfortable answer: They don’t want to be associated with environmentalists.
That’s the conclusion of troubling new research from Canada, which similarly finds support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.
Participants held strongly negative stereotypes about such activists, and those feelings reduced their willingness “to adopt the behaviors that these activities promoted,” reports a research team led by University of Toronto psychologist Nadia Bashir. This surprisingly cruel caricaturing, the researchers conclude, plays “a key role in creating resistance to social change.”
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/
[I dub it the “Gleick effect”. – Anthony]
UPDATE: Pamela Gray in comments provides the abstract:
Sippen Kool-Aid says:
September 29, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Given the blog that you and 97% of your friends post on…
Yeah, that’s about the level of response I expected. And what’s with the warmist’s 97% fetish? Give it up already. That goose is Cooked.
So you’re pretty much going the “nothing to see here” route, eh? Instead of the phantom climate refugees your ilk failingly try to highlight, perhaps you could speak to the known negative effects implementing the backward CO2 mitigation agenda will have on the poor.
Do you even know what the IPCC themselves expect will happen to economic growth for the world’s poor under Sustainable Development? Did you realize that by their own numbers the poor of the world will be half as wealthy as they would be under Natural Development? Have a read. Finally, do you even care? Or is your hatred of humanity so strong that colossal collateral damage is actually a good thing? Cuz that’s what you signed up for with your SD bandwagon. Take the blinders off and grab that mirror again.
Speaking of murderous tendencies, we all remember this Alarmist gem:
It was supposed to be “humorous”. What it provided was a deeply-disturbing look into the blackened soul of a movement which essentially hates mankind, but most especially hates those who oppose the movement itself.
@ur momisugly September 29, 2013 at 5:15 pm, the “mirror” troll, Pippen Kool, says:
Who knows how many, but it certainly is not through lack of trying. Yeah, that’s a really Kool thing to do. Just gotta love those enviros…
Fuel poverty *; old people …
Amplifying that: By furthering the economic and political climate that ensures fuel poverty; affecting, in particular, old people.living on fixed pensions who can’t afford to pay the heating fuel bill and which are particularly susceptible to dying from the ‘cold’ and physical conditions/maladys brought on by ‘cold’ conditions.
(* “Brought to us by the loving, caring, kind, considerate and understanding left?”)
.
If this study is accurate and from what I can tell it sounds about right, environmentalists merely need to change their name.
These sociology studies are too tiny, too targeted at people who sign up to get paid for giving their opinions (any of you remember participating in psych and soc experiments in university in the 60s and 70s?) to produce anything that could be considered a science finding.
They do provide food for thought — and a staring point for someone who might actually want to do a *real* study on the subject.
Some of us distrust “activist” groups because we can sense we aren’t just being “told” something, we’re being “sold” something.
Generally, it’s something we don’t need or what was advertised.
==========================================================================
I’m late to the thread (again) but this reminded me of something.
Anybody remember Jurassic Park 2? A T Rex kills a bunch of people. An evil hunter had a chance to kill the T Rex before all the mayhem but an animal rights activist (I think he was an “undercover” Greenpeacer.) had sabotaged his gun. Spielberg’s movie never once hinted that anything was his fault.
Yeah, I gotta admit that I didn’t jump on the bandwagon when confronted by loud, mean, sallow costumed and topless university humanities’ undergraduates (engineering, medicine and science students usually remain working at their considerably more demanding studies) searching for an identity and waving derogatory slogans on wood and cardboard signs. Its like the animal rights and save-the-planet groups whose hatred of humanity, freedom and productive capitalism is certainly undisguised. Indeed, it is probably part of their sociology/history curriculum. Who would have thunk that such campaigns were ineffective? Probably most engineers could have instructed the psychologists who wrote this “seminal” paper.
Pippin: “I know you are but what am I?”
I haven’t heard that since first grade…
tom says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:34 pm
…
Who determines what fair wages are and how?
Fair wages are easily determined. If you can live on that wage, that is, pay for necessary food (not luxuries), necessary transportation (at least to and from work and markets), and necessities such as clothes, rent or mortage, doctors, etc., at an agreed upon rate per hour and hours per week, then the wage is fair. If the wage is such that you need to take a second or third job simply to aquire the necessities and maintain a home, then the wage is not fair two reasons, first, it is not a living wage, and second, if you need two jobs to simply survive, that second job that you need to survive is hampering the ability of someone else to survive without going on welfare. It also encourages wage payers to pay lower – non survival rate – wages.
I thought that was the “Flim-Flannery Effect”!.
?? Is that Aussie for “toward”?? ;p
That doesn’t mean what you think.
→Disputes or contradicts
Can you imagine anyone so ignorant and vile as to want to “resist social change”?
So . . . by logical extension, the way to encourage environmental conservation is to go out and act as an anti-environmentalist redneck oaf that a lot of Sierra Club types envision occupying all of ‘fly-over’ country.
Simply by being a bad example, you can encourage people to behave in more environmentally sound ways.
Too bad I could never do that.
Truth is a lot of the pro-environment hippies that pass for activists these days don’t know anything about the natural world and frequently make a mess when they visit. Can’t tell you how many hippies I’ve run into, either in the high country (actually usually in the camp grounds down below the true high country) or the BWCA/Quetico who leave an absolute disaster area behind when they depart. I guess its tough to remember to pick up after yourself when you’re stoned and cannot even be bothered to shower on a regular basis. ‘But do go on, tell me why the oil & logging companies and local outfitters are run by evil people who don’t care about the environment, Mr. long haired, trash everywhere, car camping, cigarette tossing environmentalist, it’s so very interesting.’
Yeah, I guess I see now why your typical environmental activist is off-putting.
====================================================================
That all sounds nice. Calling Government hand-outs “entitlements” also sounds nice.
Maybe you are an employer. Maybe, but it doesn’t sound like it.
An employer owes his employees an honest wage for an honest days work. He owes them what their skill set and their application of that skill set is worth to him. Nothing more.
The employee’s living situation has nothing to do with what the work he/she does is worth.
(And no, I’m not an employer or self-employed. I make my living by working for others.)
Someone in the US once said, “A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellowman and is determined to pay that debt with your money.
Brian H says:
September 30, 2013 at 9:24 pm
…army of self-deluded useful idiots [that] march forth with a smug self-righteousness that belies the ignorance of their advocacy.
That doesn’t mean what you think.
→Disputes or contradicts
I’m confused. Largely self-inflicted I suppose. You forced me to visit Merriam. I do know what the word means and thought it fit here, but I see your point. Using both the negative “smug self-righteousness” with unwitting “ignorance” can be interpreted as incorrect usage depending on how you define it.
Still, I do feel my usage applies well to the secondary definition of belie: to run counter to ; contradict (the definition you gave). Cleaner example: The AGW activist’s notion that he is helping the poor belies the fact that what he advocates actually hurts the poor…You probably still think it was a hack job. That’s OK. The defense rests. But barren mind, like the devil in the skies I will go forth and continue hackling the English language irregardless of the feedbag I am given…Sorry.
No, your sentence has “ignorance” as the object of the sentence, and “belies” as the verb. Think about it.
And why would I want to “barren” my mind, even if that were a verb? Bear in mind the construction of the sentences you write. Then read them aloud: it reveals what they actually say, rather than what you thought they were going to.
Is “hackling” (not a word) really so much fun?
Pippen long stockings: It is hard to believe that could be a paid troll, your attempts to thread bomb are too clumsy. Similarly, it is hard to believe you are a committed activist either for you lack the typical activist responses. That leaves a lack of maturity, either age and/or experience based, for your resorting to the lower level school responses you are using.
When questioned for facts or references you change your attack. When cornered with your own biases you resort to ‘look in a mirror’ responses.
At this point you are a joke in this thread and any other threads you may participate in at WUWT. Replies to your pathetic posts should be laughter as you’ve certainly proved reason is not your mettle.
I do hope you spend your time here at WUWT reading and actually trying to understand science.
About your ‘greenpiece’ (sp? yeah so what) claim that they’ve never killed anyone.
So in your book only a direct murder is evidence of serious intent to hate? You really need to look up the various international hate crime laws. You’ll find that murder is not required as evidence.
Next look up greenpiece’s activities around the world and what those interventions actually mean to people. Whether it’s anti-genetic modifications to food, anti-timber harvesting, anti-water use, anti-pesticides or anti-herbicides, anti-inexpensive fuel, anti-nuclear, anti-population; greenpee is not there for you and they certainly don’t care about you and your life.
If Greenpee hasn’t murdered anyone directly yet, it isn’t for want of trying.
Do try and grow up.
@ATheoK
Add anti-GMO activism to your list:
Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full
Say what!?
I worked two jobs for over a decade, two full jobs; with naps whenever and wherever. On that combined salary I could usually pay my rent, buy enough food and occasionally, very occasionally take a lady out for a nice dinner. Shows were way out of my league.
–Clothes? Sears jeans and shirts were my finery. I preferred moccasins for shoes. Suits were out of my league.
–Doctors? Fortunately I had the good health, strength and stamina of youth back then. Doctors only came into my life when I really got sick or injured.
–Rent? Barely and this was for dives with room mates to share in expenses. Still, did without heat for most of one winter in Massachusetts. Used a coleman catalytic heater for essentials.
–Food? There was one period where after paying for vehicle repairs, rent and school fees my room mate and I settled on a five pound can of baked beans for nutrition. Peanut butter is out as I have bad reactions to things peanut. It took four days before my room mate went buggy, zoomed off with his motorcycle and came back with a fifty pound sack of potatoes. My response was “Where’d you get the money?”. We ate a lot of potatoes that year.
Was that fair? It sure wasn’t unfair. I knew adults with families living on those salaries; in houses they bought for much less. They were not better off than I, just better conditioned to without.
I worked hard, if I wasn’t working two jobs, then I was working one job and attending school. Eventually I reached a plateau where I could afford a family, vacations, even a new (gasp!) truck.
Is it fair that I expect to be paid for my sufferings while learning skills and gaining experiences that are in demand? It is for knowledge and experience that my salary is based. I think that is very fair, and I really don’t care if you do or don’t.
No problem – I just wanted to share because I had come across that particular story only within the past two days, and it is an illustration of GP activism directly contributing to children’s deaths. And it comes from a source that is hardly climate skeptic-friendly
Gunga Din says: @ur momisugly October 1, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Duster says:@ur momisugly September 30, 2013 at 3:12 pm
tom says:@ur momisugly September 29, 2013 at 12:34 pm
…
Who determines what fair wages are and how?
====================================================================
That all sounds nice. Calling Government hand-outs “entitlements” also sounds nice.
Maybe you are an employer. Maybe, but it doesn’t sound like it.
An employer owes his employees an honest wage for an honest days work. He owes them what their skill set and their application of that skill set is worth to him. Nothing more.
The employee’s living situation has nothing to do with what the work he/she does is worth….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The employer also has to make a profit for either himself or his stockholders.
If the employee (usually through a union) demands so much in wages that the employer can not sell the product at a reasonable profit then everyone loses. Detroit and the US Auto industry is a glaring example.
In the case of small business owners we are often competing with the US government for ’employees’. If an employee ‘earns’ more on welfare than you can afford to pay them you are stuck with the choices of hiring illegals, paying under the table or not hiring anyone.
As more and more of the country’s wealth is diverted to paying taxes and ‘forced purchases’ of expensive products such as twisty light bulbs, insurance, the freon subsitute and now higher cost energy less and less income is available for other purchases. Although manufacturing costs go up the price that can be charged is capped because the consumer just doesn’t have the income. Employers are then faced with how to still make a profit so they can stay in business. One method is firing higher cost older workers and bringing in low cost youngsters or H1b workers and hoping like heck you didn’t just shoot yourself in the foot by firing critical expertise. Another is to shutdown marginal product lines or facilities and the last is just to pull up stakes and move to a better business climate.
Brian H says:
October 2, 2013 at 1:42 am
Is “hackling” (not a word) really so much fun?
Well actually, in this case I suppose it is. Lighten up a bit, no? First, this isn’t Grammar Girl, its (apostrophe intentionally omitted) WUWT. Second, that last sentence in my previous comment was a joke, apparently a poorly received one. Given your editorial proclivities, I’m surprised you missed a few “errors,” though kudos for sorting out the real intent of “barren mind” and realizing my intentional misuse of “hackling.”
Speaking of which, hackling is in fact a word: combing out with a hackle (a comb or board with long metal teeth for dressing flax, hemp, or jute). Example: “The hackling hackler hackled with his hackle.” Barren mind the presentation of errors as authoritative statements of fact in the sentences you write. Better still, before making erroneous statements I recommend gathering information from which proper judgement can be drawn so as to potentially avoid making such statements. Sorry again. I guess my hacks are up a hair.
Back to that offensive sentence. Baron Mined I also used “devil in the skies” instead of “devil in disguise.” I know it is a real word, but I deliberately used the ever-annoying “irregardless.” I then used “feedbag” instead of “feedback” and ended with a pre-emptive apology for the bad joke.
As for “belies,” I did think about it, more than I should have really due to it””s insignificance. I may delve further and don’t completely understand the objection but again, that’s OK. It speaks more to my lack of mastery of the art of writing than anything else. Irregardless, it feels a bit of a nit to pick considering nearly all threads everywhere are full of typos and grammatical errors. I know its a bit of a habit, but really you’ll drive yourself mad if you go on a crusade of correction (as someone with OCD I do understand the compulsion).
Ironically, you are guilty of it as well. In your comment just above your original response to me you use “!.” as punctuation. “One should bear in mind the content of their sentences. Then reread them to search for typographical errors: it reveals what they actually should say, rather than what you thought you said.” Would you be cool with that? I’m guessing you would probably respond similarly to how I am responding now, though I’m guessing far more succinctly.
Most of this is in jest as I do realize you are attempting to help me to improve my communication skills. That is appreciated. But as an immigrant born into a dictatorship I can’t help but defend my liberties to amassacre the langwich as I see fit. Cheers! And happy typo haunting!
galileonardo says:
October 3, 2013 at 8:45 pm (replying to)
Brian H says:
October 2, 2013 at 1:42 am
Ah, but a barron mind will never yield a royal belie full of child, but will ever languish in o’pun succinity…
Environmentalists are only interested in their view of the world. They do not believe in considering the opinions of others. It must always be their way or they keep on protesting and disrupting!