Stephan Lewandowsky tried to make climate skeptics look stupid (by not even bothering to sample them, but impugning their beliefs as irrational from out of population samples), this study turns the tables on his execrable work and suggests that climate skeptics are both analytical and rational.
- Analytic thinking is not sufficient to promote skepticism toward various unfounded beliefs.
- Analytic thinking and valuing epistemic rationality interactively predict skepticism.
- Cognitive ability, rather than analytic cognitive style, seems to account for these findings.
From the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
The moon landing and global warming are hoaxes. The U.S. government had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. A UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico.
Is skepticism toward these kinds of unfounded beliefs just a matter of cognitive ability? Not according to new research by a University of Illinois at Chicago social psychologist.
In an article published online and in the February 2018 issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, Tomas Ståhl reports on two studies that examined why some people are inclined to believe in various conspiracies and paranormal phenomena.
“We show that reasonable skepticism about various conspiracy theories and paranormal phenomena does not only require a relatively high cognitive ability, but also strong motivation to be rational,” says Ståhl, UIC visiting assistant professor of psychology and lead author of the study.
“When the motivation to form your beliefs based on logic and evidence is not there, people with high cognitive ability are just as likely to believe in conspiracies and paranormal phenomena as people with lower cognitive ability.”
Previous work in this area has indicated that people with higher cognitive ability — or a more analytic thinking style — are less inclined to believe in conspiracies and the paranormal.
Ståhl and co-author Jan-Willem van Prooijen of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam conducted two online surveys with more than 300 respondents each to assess analytic thinking and other factors that might promote skepticism toward unfounded beliefs.
The first survey found that an analytic cognitive style was associated with weaker paranormal beliefs, conspiracy beliefs and conspiracy mentality. However, this was only the case among participants who strongly valued forming their beliefs based on logic and evidence.
Among participants who did not strongly value a reliance on logic and evidence, having an analytic cognitive style was not associated with weaker belief in the paranormal or in various conspiracy theories.
In the second survey, the researchers examined whether these effects were uniquely attributable to having an analytic cognitive style or whether they were explained by more general individual differences in cognitive ability. Results were more consistent with a general cognitive ability account.
The article notes that despite a century of better educational opportunities and increased intelligence scores in the U.S. population, unfounded beliefs remain pervasive in contemporary society.
“Our findings suggest that part of the reason may be that many people do not view it as sufficiently important to form their beliefs on rational grounds,” Ståhl said.
From linking vaccines with autism to climate change skepticism, these widespread conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs can lead to harmful behavior, according to Ståhl.
“Many of these beliefs can, unfortunately, have detrimental consequences for individuals’ health choices, as well as for society as a whole,” he said.
###
The study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886917306323
Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational
Abstract:
Why does belief in the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and various other phenomena that are not backed up by evidence remain widespread in modern society? In the present research we adopt an individual difference approach, as we seek to identify psychological precursors of skepticism toward unfounded beliefs. We propose that part of the reason why unfounded beliefs are so widespread is because skepticism requires both sufficient analytic skills, and the motivation to form beliefs on rational grounds. In Study 1 we show that analytic thinking is associated with a lower inclination to believe various conspiracy theories, and paranormal phenomena, but only among individuals who strongly value epistemic rationality. We replicate this effect on paranormal belief, but not conspiracy beliefs, in Study 2. We also provide evidence suggesting that general cognitive ability, rather than analytic cognitive style, is the underlying facet of analytic thinking that is responsible for these effects.
“From linking vaccines with autism to climate change skepticism, these widespread conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs can lead to harmful behavior,”
Stahl appears to fall on his face with this. Neither belief is based on conspiracy., nor are they the same type of skepticism. The autism/vaccine link is the acceptance of a hypothesis based on poorly designed experiment (which reduces to a lack of evidence) while AGW criticism is a refusal to accept a hypothesis based on lack of evidence. Neither are conspiracy theories.
If the authors aren’t able to differentiate, and classify both as a belief in conspiracies, it’s unlikely they’re capable of designing a useful survey.
Good point. The authors of the article are sloppy thinkers.
The unfounded belief here is that CO2 has anything more than a minor role in the determination of Earth’s climate.
“From linking vaccines with autism to climate change skepticism, these widespread conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs can lead to harmful behavior, according to Ståhl.”
I h ave read three stories on WUWT today and this being the third one, I notice that all three seem to point towards support of CAGW rather than skepticism of such.
Outgassing from continental drift claims CO2 drives the temperature.
We have the Global Warming Physical Process Backwards also argues that CO2 drives the temperature.
Should I even bother to read anthropomorphism? Or is it too going to argue that what is not proven is right or I am not rational?
3 Stories?
Once upon a time there was this gas called Carbon Dioxide….
I do not believe they are realistic. Thus, stories. As opposed to informative articles worthy of wasting people’s time on.
So called “conspiracy theories” are some of the most interesting things to look a with an open scientific mind. You can of course find plenty of them all over the internet ranging from the old classics, but still going strong (e.g. moon) to the more recent (e.g. no bullet holes in Texas church) . I won’t mention any more by name, you probably know most of the classics anyway and you can pick and choose to suit your own tastes.
Try treating them all EXACTLY the same as any open scientific investigation. Have an open mind. Ignore how offbeat or kooky it seems. Just apply science and rigorous enquiry.
Rigorous enquiry often leads you down a useful path when those asked pertinent questions fail to answer the question but instead suggest you are stupid/offensive for asking it. You will have seen this behaviour before in other aspects of your life. Draw on the experience. It’s probably relevant.
Careful thinking about the expected physical reality of a situation compared with photographic or video evidence may throw light on “anomalies”. What possible explanations can there be? Be aware that all evidence can change over time so keep your own copies of stuff found on your own storage media. Many instances of tweaking of photos take place slowly bit by bit in certain areas.
Experiment or thought experiment can be useful to eliminate certain possibilities. I personally give a very heavy weight to actual experiment and have debunked debunkers quite easily sometimes with a home set up of a lamp, a ruler and a camera (argument over shadows for example).
All the above is quite easy for a thinking person with a scientific mind . The really HARD bit is convincing the sheeple and/or putting up with their incessant bleating when you have actually discovered the TRUTH of something. What we need is a carefully crafted course in how to cope with knowing the truth when everyone around you thinks the opposite. Can some psychologist have a go at this for us?
Relevant quote;
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned”
(R.Feynman).
From DC Cowboy “An Agnostic would not say they don’t believe in God, they would say that the existence or non-existence of God(s) is not “knowable” by humans.”
I don’t think that’s correct. The ‘not knowing’ would preclude any such definitive statement as ‘Not Knowable”
An agnostic is simply someone who says, “I don’t know. Show me some evidence” Declaring it ‘not knowable” put the person over on the Belief side of the ledger.
I have disagreement with some of the examples. It is fairly easy to find actual evidence that some of those ‘conspiracies’ exist – remember a conspiracy is simply 2 or more people agreeing on something and keeping it secret.
e.g. Vaccines – looking at the actual data as held by the USA and UK shows every illness, including Polio, for which there are vaccines trended DOWN drastically BEFORE the vaccine was discovered. Polio is particularly interesting because there is an ‘official’ explanation – Polio numbers dropped because earlier doctors were diagnosing diseases with similar symptoms as polio and once they were better trained the numbers dropped.
What they DON’T say is that means the ‘wonders’ of the vaccine are nowhere nears as wonderful – polio clearly was NOT as endemic as they tell us.
Dr Maurice Hilleman is on video laughing about how vaccines introduced SV-40 into the population and how they even tracked where it came from.
e.g. While I think the Moon landing was real, there are some questions that need to be answered and the ridicule doesn’t help us get them. e.g. the tinfoil level of protection against the radiation and van Allen belts, The discovered pieces of video showing discrepancies in the video the world was shown.
My personal thought is perhaps the US DID make an Earth-based film of the Moon landing, ‘just in case’ – it was Cold War days – imagine the blow to national pride if they’d lost the astronauts?
e.g. Ghosts – I have never seen one and TBH, do not expect to, but I have travelled out of body a few times, a couple of them deliberately and once you do that, your opinion of such things alters. I am convinced by experience we have bodies like we have cars and just as a good driver has the car become an extension of Self while they drive, so our bodies become Self, but more so. It’s harder to get out of a body than a car but I think at the end of life we discard the vehicle and go find a new one.
e.g. 911 conspiracy – it is difficult to know anything about physics and believe what happened. Whatever explanations they gave for planes disappearing into a tiny hole, for kerosene somehow managing to drop 3 buildings in their footprint or for aluminium tubes somehow shearing through massive steel columns, as soon as we bring actual physics to the table, the explanations fail.
Does anyone really accept a guy in a cave thousands of miles from the scene, somehow managed to exactly emulate the military exercises planned for that exact day?
We have become so dumbed down the MSM can say almost anything and probably 70% of the people will not just believe it, but fight to maintain the belief.
It’s not just a wacky conspiracy theory if there is evidence for it. It’s not wacky uf physics says No, nor if enough personal experiences build a case across the world.
we know from the Church of AGW how FEW conspirators it takes to build a worldwide consensus that is false-to-facts – let’s not be in the position of laughing about people who have realised a similar thing about other issues.
I know a lot about physics, know exactly what I saw that day, have watched tens of hours of footage over and over again, and I believe what happened.
The buildings did not do anything even close to falling into their own footprint. Are you kidding?
A 767 is not “an aluminum tube”.
500 mph is very fast.
So, which is it…did you want a bigger hole, or did you want the planes to go from 500 to 0 mph and fall into the street?
Landing gear, jet engines, structural members…it is only the skin that is thin and light.
The planes had a takeoff weight of 400,000 pounds, including 10,000 gallons, that is almost 70,000 pounds by itsewlf in huge tanks that also had mass and structural rigidity.
The plane is not a solid block of steel, or it would have made a cartoon cutout in the side of the building in the shape of the plane…as it is some parts of the plane disintegrated and some did not, but all of the pieces were still going 500 mph.
If all of the outer columns were sheered through, what would have supported the trusses in those locations?
they were heavily damaged, and some were broken and bent by the engines, landing gear, and other massive parts.
Personally, I have not done a whole lot of up close observations of heavy things hitting strong but not solid objects at 500mph.
Have you?
Do you figure it is intuitively obvious how much damage should occur and exactly what should have happened instead of what did?
Hear is what it looks like when 100+ story skyscrapers collapse into NOT their own footprint:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/C5RFW9/aerial-view-of-smoking-ruins-of-ground-zero-the-world-trade-center-C5RFW9.jpg
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/zeroTOnow/bp3.jpg
Own footprint my eye.
I do not know how this is still being repeated.
There are a million videos of them falling OUTWARD, peeling out on all four sides.
And after they fell some core pillars are still standing many hundreds of feet up…but unsupported they too fell.
But even the aluminum skin is very strong in fact.
Next time you walk onto a plane, have a close look and a feel of the “aluminum tube” comprising the skin of the jet…if you took a piece and put it in a vise and attached plyers to it, you would not be able to even start to bend it.
I know this because I have tried, in a physics class using a piece of a plane that was smashed to smithereens in a air show crash.
You think a 400,000 pound jet that flys at 500 mph and is highly pressurized and withstands this thousands of times over tens of years is a aluminum tube?
You must not be familiar with the actual strength to weight ratio of an average Festivus Pole.
Airplane skin is stronger dan dat!
The footprint of the tower is the bottom center of the photo.
Almost none of the building fell into the footprint, as is plainly evident…it peeled out and away.
In case anyone is still reading this, here is a reverse angle video from most of the others, from a baot on the Hudson River, of the second tower falling.
You can see from the moment it started to fall on the other side, it was still intact on this side (note the collapse beginning on the right side of the break point)
On this side, you can see all four sides of the outer walls of the building peeling out and away…it is nothing like an implosion.
Also, no puffs of air on this side to speak of (the puffs some are calling squibs or likening to explosions are just all the air being forced out of the windows as the building pancaked, shooting out the fire and air and debris as it went).
Quite saying or believing that the buildings fell into their own footprint, nothing like that happened.
Last thing to note…after the skin had fallen away, the core columns can be plainly seen to still be standing, almost the full height of the building. These buildings fell exactly as I would expect something incredibly massive to be wrecked asunder by it’s own gigantic mass that had lost the strength on one point to support the weight above it…it fell, and nothing in the structure could ever have stopped that once it started moving:
And since this is a science site, I think it is fitting to conclude the 911 truther debunking with a video made by real scientists, a animated reconstruction of what could be expected given the physics of the situation.
It matches what is seen incredibly well…worth a look even if this subject does not interest you:
Not all psychology papers are of Lewandowsky’s ineptitude.
The following 2 are not survey-based and both draw more flattering conclusions about those they call ‘Conspiracists’ – note the term itself suggests to me these researchers are not particularly pro-sceptics. I’d have used the term ‘Constrarians’ to oppose the ‘Conventionalists”
frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00406/full
In a world where we KNOW the MSM and Govts lie to us as a FIRST choice, (think how many pollies have told unnecessary career-ending lies that got exposed) where our rights and freedoms are being stripped from us with false flag and obfuscated bills being passed, (think of the FOI Acts around the world, that for the first time, put into law that elected Govts could hide information from their employers) being a crontrarian is a saner move than simply accepting the pap we’re being fed.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full
The behaviour of the conventionalists shows strongly, even AFTER the researchers removed all the comments that were pure vitriol. We have all experienced this, where posting a link to a paper or questioning the status quo as presented by the priests of AGW brings a rabid attack directed personally instead of at the data.
Anthony,
All you have done here is infer that AGW is a conspiracy theory —-without evidence. This is why you’re stuck on the outside of the scientific realm.
Anthony didnt infer anything.
He posted a link and quoted an article.
Speaking of critical thinking skills….
The post/quote had an aim, go hunt for it.
And your comment is why you are only a fourth rate commenter on a first rate blog site.
“The post/quote had an aim, go hunt for it.”
AGW theory has an aim, go hunt for it 😉
”From linking vaccines with autism to climate change skepticism, these widespread conspiracy theories and other unfounded beliefs can lead to harmful behavior, according to Ståhl.
Ummm. There is ironclad proof that CAGW advocacy is a conspiracy. Many here know that. The study would put us in the wrong bucket right from the start thus invalidating the research.
It is interesting that the study makes an ignorant swipe at climate skeptics.
Most people come by their opinions the same way animals do, they base them on experience. This is not unreasonable. People believe the world is flat because it seems flat. It is a lot of work to think about reasons for why the world may be round and some of those reasons involve math. If a person experiences the supernatural is it easier to believe in the supernatural or to try to understand neurology. If someone came of age during in the cold 70’s and then experienced the hot 80’s but never experienced the hot 30’s it is not unreasonable for them to believe that the world is warming at an alarming rate.
It is also not unreasonable to follow the herd. If you don’t want to think about a decision very much and yet want to make a reasonably good decision just do what everyone else is doing. If everyone else is buying a certain product there is probably a good reason. Are there exceptions? Millions! Do marketers try to exploit this by trying to make their product look more popular than it is? Of course! But unless you want to spend your time agonizing over every decision then just go with the rest of the pack.
Let us accept without proof that the more humans act like ‘not animals’ the better it is for everyone. In this case let’s assume that the more citizens who think about where the herd might be going rather than follow blindly then the better it is for that society/herd.
Some people think about where the herd is headed because thinking is easier for them so they do more of it. We call these people smart.We can’t make everyone smarter yet, maybe someday. Some people think about where the herd is headed because they have been taught thinking as a value. These people value thinking in the same way clean people value clean. Yes it is hard to do but look at the result when you are done. We should encourage this and also give people the intellectual tools they need.
Two intellectual tools that people need are logic and meta-cognition. Logic is hard and must be explicitly taught and logical fallacies explicitly un-taught. Meta-cognition doesn’t give hard answers but it helps one to get closer to the true answer. People need to be taught to ask ‘why do I believe this? Have I really thought this through? Was I nurtured this way or is there something about my nature that drives me to believe this way. Maybe I have ODD (oppositional defiant disorder) and that is why I always believe the minority opinion. Maybe I’m so sensitive to rejection that I believe whatever the majority believes’. It doesn’t change any facts but it does change the weight that we assign to various facts.
There is one other key ingredient for clear thinking and it is very pertinent to the AGW debate. Humility is the catalyst of truth. Most people only change their opinions at high temperatures and pressures. Humility allows the truth reaction to take place under less extreme conditions. Marketers know that pride keeps people from changing their minds so they focus their efforts at the young. When the young become old they will be too proud to admit that they made a wrong decision and stay with the brand/idea. Humility allows us to listen to other people. The strength of humanity is our ability to work together. None of us alone are smart enough to build a jumbo jet and none of us are smart enough to come up with every deep thought and every possible counter objection to every objection. That is why we need to have civilized discussions. For a humble person listening to reasons why to believe something that presently don’t believe is no lose. If the new reasons change their mind and that is a good thing. If they don’t then they know even better why they believe the things that they do. For the proud, listening to contrary opinions is just plain painful. What if one is forced to admit that one is wrong. The consequences are too terrible to contemplate (yes that is sarcasm).
So as individuals and as a society we need to teach the value of thinking. We also need to teach the logical and the meta-cognitive tools that lead to good thinking. We also need to encourage people to approach thinking with an attitude of humility.
“If a person experiences the supernatural is it easier to believe in the supernatural or to try to understand neurology.”
False dichotomy. You can also take up cooking.
But seriously, “neurology” does not explain how it is that a voice told me to change lanes and avoid a head-on collision that would have happened moments later. Neurology does not explain how it is possible that a voice told me someone needed assistance (named the someone but I’m not repeating here) and discovered that his daughter had been in an automobile accident and I spent the rest of the day with that family providing assistance. Supernatural also isn’t an explanation.
So you know what I do? Basically nothing. I don’t explain. There’s not much to explain; merely to report on experiences.
Atheism is not a belief or a religion. It is the absence of a belief…. the absence of a belief in magical people in the sky.
The burden of proof lies on people who make a positive assertion. The lack of a belief requires no ‘supporting evidence’.
“Atheism is not a belief or a religion. It is the absence of a belief…. the absence of a belief in magical people in the sky. “
Ah, well then in that case I guess I must be an atheist because I do not believe in magical people in the sky. They live under mushrooms (duh!)
“The moon landing and global warming are hoaxes.”
Stopped reading right there. Conflating these two very different subjects makes his predetermined argument a forgone conclusion. I’ve no time to waist on stupidity.
“Why does belief in the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and various other phenomena that are not backed up by evidence remain widespread in modern society? ”
This premise makes the article questionable right from the start.
Why does belief in ‘official stories’ that are not backed up by verifiable evidence, remain widespread in modern society? This is the question that is legitimate!
Labeling those that do not accept the AGW dogma as conspiracy theorists belittles the journey many of us took to reach the conclusion. Like many, I have voraciously poured through content here and other places and reached the logical conclusion from the evidence.
While the key points leading to my conclusion are too many to list, some highlights include:
Credibility of the experts:
Mann caught excluding data that did not fit the narrative
Climategate showing collusion
Mann & Trenberth erroneous attributions of Boston snow, hurricanes, etc.
(How can experts not know basic weather phenomenon)
Just about everything Hanson and Schmidt have said proves unsupportable
Physics of climate change:
We are talking a delta of 100 ppm on CO2 some how drives earth’s climate
Sun is 99.99% of all mass & energy in solar system – constant in climate science
Water, water, water – everything about the physics of water says it can’t be CO2
There is no way a cold atmosphere can heat a warm ocean by minute changes in CO2
AGW makes zero sense for 70% of the planet’s surface
Predictions:
Every key indicator (SLR, CO2 levels, ocean acidification) has been greater or less in earth’s history
All the “extreme” weather events are just normal
Albeit brief, that is a short view of my journey. Curious to hear others..l
“Albeit brief, that is a short view of my journey. Curious to hear others.”
My journal is similar. Until “Climategate” I didn’t think about it much; it was a rather expensive hobby for people to pursue, no worse and no better than studying the mating habits of moths. Climategate blew the lid off and suddenly this wasn’t just an expensive hobby. It took at least a year of study to glean what so many AGW’ers deprecatingly call “basic physics” which in my case was mostly chemistry; the behavior of carbon dioxide. Finding useful information untainted by global warming was remarkably challenging. I also explored “in situ” scenarios; some physics from Lubos Motl for instance, learned about “phonons” which are like “photons” but deal with mechanical transfer of energy. In the near-surface atmosphere CO2 rarely gets a chance to emit photons in any direction; mechanical collisions transfer heat energy to nearby non-radiating molecules.
The effect is similar; heat transfer out to space is delayed somewhat but it doesn’t re-radiate back into the ground. It’s in the air. This causes convection, rising air eventually is thin enough that CO2 can emit; and at that altitude it also starts to absorb heat from other molecules and emit that, too.
All of this happens much more often with water vapor which is why to observe the effect of CO2 vs water vapor visit a desert where the day-night temperature swing is enormous because CO2 simply cannot prevent loss of heat; but water vapor excels at moderating the day-night temperature swing. Much of that phenomenon isn’t due to water vapor interaction with infrared but rather its heat of fusion or enthalpy.
FTOP-T and Michael,
Yes, and yes.