3 ms·

This idea of "prosocial" lying is a problem in just about every field where experts are supposed to provide policy advice. Everybody who takes part in it thinks

This idea of "prosocial" lying is a problem in just about every field where experts are supposed to provide policy advice. Everybody who takes part in it thinks they're doing good, but all it achieves is that people stop trusting their institutions. Environmental doomsaying is seen by many as an entirely noble pursuit, but all it does is make climate science skeptics. The pandemic has seen a few big ones. "Masks don't work" was an obvious lie being spread around Feb/Mar, people would get called out in public for wearing them. The truth was that they actually do work, it's just there was a massive shortage, and hospitals needed them. "There is no food shortage" was one in my area (and a lot of other places). I contract with a large grocery chain, and I know for a fact that there were major shortages, but officials figured lying about it might stop it from getting worse. 9 months later, and look at how many people have a complete distrust for these institutions now.

TAForObvReasons 6y ago
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" - Abraham Lincoln
amp180 6y ago
Agree on everything else but climate change is real, it will screw us over, and we are not doing enough.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  But that just makes things worse. I grew up in the '80s, and for my whole life I've been told by climate scientist that we are 5/10/15/20... years away from one particular climate catastrophe or another. The field has been heavily promoting doomsday predictions for even longer than I've been alive. At first to get people to take them seriously, and since then to scare them into action. However, regardless of any good the scientists have accomplished, any climate skeptic today can say "climate scientists are full of shit" and point to literally decades of climate scientists being full of shit. The noble lies have done irreversible damage to the credibility of the field amongst large portions of the population.
  - tremon 6y ago
    Basically, your position is that doomsday hasn't arrived yet, so it never will?
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      You have completely missed my point. I am not commenting on the actual scientific merit of the field, I am only commenting on how the science is communicated to the public, and how that has impacted it's credibility amongst certain (rather large) groups of people. Predictions of climate catastrophe have been heavily promoted with the public for decades, and typically in a way that either implies or explicitly states a very high level of confidence. Anybody who's lived long enough will have seen multiple predictions of this nature fail to materialize. It's pretty clear to me at least that the rationale behind this style of science communication is that it will scare people, which will motivate them to take action, which will result in better outcomes. So these misrepresentations (or lies depending on how you look at things) are entirely justified by the desired ends that the people who propagate them hope to achieve. However, one of the other outcomes they achieve is that some people notice this and come to the conclusion that the field simply lacks credibility and can be safely ignored, or even that public derision of the field is justified. Such people can easily point to the historical failures of the field to justify their position. A lot of people will say that the people who hold these views are simply stupid, and that their views are incredibly harmful. While that might be true, it doesn't mitigate any of the harm that has been caused by the (what I would see as) highly irresponsible communication strategy employed by many of the fields scientists and advocates.
    - mcswell 6y ago
      AC answered your question well, I'll just add the old story about the boy who cried "Wolf!" Eventually the wolf did come, but the boy's deception prevented any useful response.
- throwawayzRUU6f 6y ago
  I don't believe that's what the parent post meant. The state of the art climate modelling predictions output confidence intervals. If you quote the low end of the confidence interval, and claim that climate change is a manageable inconvenience, you'll be (justifiably) called out by climate scientists. If you quote the high end of the confidence interval, and elicit a picture of catastrophic consequences, mass migrations, or even runaway greenhouse effects, the climate scientists are suspiciously aloof. Even if you add zealous insistence that not a single country in the world will benefit from the warming; and that we're hurtling towards becoming the next Venus.
  - tremon 6y ago
    If you quote the high end of the confidence interval [..] the climate scientists are suspiciously aloof. I'm not sure I agree with that perception, but even if it were, I don't find that suspicious. It may be that climate scientists are already aware that the current policies are not doing enough to avert the scenario's at the middle end of the confidence interval, so they know the high-end effects are becoming more likely each year. zealous insistence that not a single country in the world will benefit from the warming By all means, name a country that's completely self-sufficient for its current development level and is in a climate that can tolerate a 10%-deviation in any direction, and I'm sure many people will be able to suggest scenario's how that country will be negatively affected by the volatility of international markets or relations that are projected to occur in the second half of this century.
zests 6y ago
Because of the mask debacle I would say that Twitter was a better source of information about the pandemic than any major world health organization. I dislike social media more than the average bear. Imagine a crack pot on twitter gets one or two things right before spouting nonsense? Lying to the public is a dangerous game. It disappoints me that people give these orgs a free pass.

TAForObvReasons 6y ago

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time" - Abraham Lincoln

amp180 6y ago

Agree on everything else but climate change is real, it will screw us over, and we are not doing enough.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
But that just makes things worse. I grew up in the '80s, and for my whole life I've been told by climate scientist that we are 5/10/15/20... years away from one particular climate catastrophe or another. The field has been heavily promoting doomsday predictions for even longer than I've been alive. At first to get people to take them seriously, and since then to scare them into action. However, regardless of any good the scientists have accomplished, any climate skeptic today can say "climate scientists are full of shit" and point to literally decades of climate scientists being full of shit. The noble lies have done irreversible damage to the credibility of the field amongst large portions of the population.
- tremon 6y ago
  Basically, your position is that doomsday hasn't arrived yet, so it never will?
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    You have completely missed my point. I am not commenting on the actual scientific merit of the field, I am only commenting on how the science is communicated to the public, and how that has impacted it's credibility amongst certain (rather large) groups of people. Predictions of climate catastrophe have been heavily promoted with the public for decades, and typically in a way that either implies or explicitly states a very high level of confidence. Anybody who's lived long enough will have seen multiple predictions of this nature fail to materialize. It's pretty clear to me at least that the rationale behind this style of science communication is that it will scare people, which will motivate them to take action, which will result in better outcomes. So these misrepresentations (or lies depending on how you look at things) are entirely justified by the desired ends that the people who propagate them hope to achieve. However, one of the other outcomes they achieve is that some people notice this and come to the conclusion that the field simply lacks credibility and can be safely ignored, or even that public derision of the field is justified. Such people can easily point to the historical failures of the field to justify their position. A lot of people will say that the people who hold these views are simply stupid, and that their views are incredibly harmful. While that might be true, it doesn't mitigate any of the harm that has been caused by the (what I would see as) highly irresponsible communication strategy employed by many of the fields scientists and advocates.
  - mcswell 6y ago
    AC answered your question well, I'll just add the old story about the boy who cried "Wolf!" Eventually the wolf did come, but the boy's deception prevented any useful response.
throwawayzRUU6f 6y ago
I don't believe that's what the parent post meant. The state of the art climate modelling predictions output confidence intervals. If you quote the low end of the confidence interval, and claim that climate change is a manageable inconvenience, you'll be (justifiably) called out by climate scientists. If you quote the high end of the confidence interval, and elicit a picture of catastrophic consequences, mass migrations, or even runaway greenhouse effects, the climate scientists are suspiciously aloof. Even if you add zealous insistence that not a single country in the world will benefit from the warming; and that we're hurtling towards becoming the next Venus.
- tremon 6y ago
  If you quote the high end of the confidence interval [..] the climate scientists are suspiciously aloof. I'm not sure I agree with that perception, but even if it were, I don't find that suspicious. It may be that climate scientists are already aware that the current policies are not doing enough to avert the scenario's at the middle end of the confidence interval, so they know the high-end effects are becoming more likely each year. zealous insistence that not a single country in the world will benefit from the warming By all means, name a country that's completely self-sufficient for its current development level and is in a climate that can tolerate a 10%-deviation in any direction, and I'm sure many people will be able to suggest scenario's how that country will be negatively affected by the volatility of international markets or relations that are projected to occur in the second half of this century.

zests 6y ago

Because of the mask debacle I would say that Twitter was a better source of information about the pandemic than any major world health organization. I dislike social media more than the average bear. Imagine a crack pot on twitter gets one or two things right before spouting nonsense? Lying to the public is a dangerous game. It disappoints me that people give these orgs a free pass.