4 ms·

> why is this still so controversial? IMHO, this theory explains that and many other mysteries of the beliefs of the right wing: A large segment of U.S. societ

> why is this still so controversial? IMHO, this theory explains that and many other mysteries of the beliefs of the right wing: A large segment of U.S. society now prioritizes ideology over fact. Climate change is fact, but fails their ideological test. Thus, they reject it.

api 10y ago
This is shallow and is part of the reason Trump won. They prioritize culture, heritage, tradition, community, and stability (economic and social) over academic knowledge, mobility, novelty, etc. They are not dumb or more dishonest on average than anyone else, and the cognitive biases and blind spots they have are identical to yours. They are 99.99...% genetically identical to you. What they have is a different goal function. If you want to solve a monster global problem like climate change, part of it is finding solutions that can be viewed as positive from the perspective of the many operating goal functions in the world. The world is huge so this is hard. One sided answers that try to herd the rest through shame will fail, as they have for the right on other issues like abortion.
- hackuser 10y ago
  My comment didn't assert most of the things you attribute to it. The existence of climate change is not an issue of priorities, but of facts. > academic knowledge It's just knowledge about reality; reality doesn't change depending on where the knowledge comes from. Academia happens to have far smarter people and far more resources for examining the world; it's a pretty good resource. Rejecting knowledge because it's from academia is exactly what I described, putting ideology (anti-intellectualism) over fact. > stability (economic and social) They voted overwhelmingly for massive change and some made calls for revolution if they don't get it. The policies they favor, including radical changes to government and social programs, would greatly reduce stability.
- ant6n 10y ago
  People who make money on the status pro control media specifically targeting people to change their opinions. Those opinions include hate for the 'elite', which is code for intellectuals, academics and environmental activists who are exactly the people warning of climate change. This is easier of course because of the social cultural divide between those peoples. And before you say I'm calling people 'dumb' to be influenced by media that they are consuming; I think people at every level of intelligence are influenced by the media they are consistently consuming. That's why I don't like watching Fox news -- I started realizing that I will subtly adopt their way of thinking, even if I'm consciously critical of everything they're saying.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > I think people at every level of intelligence are influenced by the media they are consistently consuming Indeed. I think the Wall Street Journal is Fox News for the 'elite' (and both are owned by the same people).

api 10y ago

This is shallow and is part of the reason Trump won. They prioritize culture, heritage, tradition, community, and stability (economic and social) over academic knowledge, mobility, novelty, etc. They are not dumb or more dishonest on average than anyone else, and the cognitive biases and blind spots they have are identical to yours. They are 99.99...% genetically identical to you. What they have is a different goal function. If you want to solve a monster global problem like climate change, part of it is finding solutions that can be viewed as positive from the perspective of the many operating goal functions in the world. The world is huge so this is hard. One sided answers that try to herd the rest through shame will fail, as they have for the right on other issues like abortion.

hackuser 10y ago
My comment didn't assert most of the things you attribute to it. The existence of climate change is not an issue of priorities, but of facts. > academic knowledge It's just knowledge about reality; reality doesn't change depending on where the knowledge comes from. Academia happens to have far smarter people and far more resources for examining the world; it's a pretty good resource. Rejecting knowledge because it's from academia is exactly what I described, putting ideology (anti-intellectualism) over fact. > stability (economic and social) They voted overwhelmingly for massive change and some made calls for revolution if they don't get it. The policies they favor, including radical changes to government and social programs, would greatly reduce stability.
ant6n 10y ago
People who make money on the status pro control media specifically targeting people to change their opinions. Those opinions include hate for the 'elite', which is code for intellectuals, academics and environmental activists who are exactly the people warning of climate change. This is easier of course because of the social cultural divide between those peoples. And before you say I'm calling people 'dumb' to be influenced by media that they are consuming; I think people at every level of intelligence are influenced by the media they are consistently consuming. That's why I don't like watching Fox news -- I started realizing that I will subtly adopt their way of thinking, even if I'm consciously critical of everything they're saying.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > I think people at every level of intelligence are influenced by the media they are consistently consuming Indeed. I think the Wall Street Journal is Fox News for the 'elite' (and both are owned by the same people).