3 ms·

I work for an environmental protection nonprofit and we have done research on which arguments work on people across the political spectrum. People on the left

I work for an environmental protection nonprofit and we have done research on which arguments work on people across the political spectrum. People on the left are more easily convinced by scientific studies and by the idea that nature has a right to exist for more than human utility such at the values of wilderness and intact ecosystems. People on the right are more easily convinced by fear that their environment has become toxic and impure and that they want their air, water and food to be natural and unadulterated.

ethbr1 2y ago
Thanks for your work! Always useful to meet people where they are, however they are. Tailoring which presentation one highlights isn't lying: it's simply making the most effective argument.
nightski 2y ago
That's fine for your purposes as you just need the correlation and don't need to find the true cause. But in reality it doesn't tell you much about what the true nature of these people are. It just allows you to label them into groups. There could be plenty of confounding factors.
- futureshock 2y ago
  In marketing and policy advocacy, root psychological causes are not something that we tend to be very interested in. It’s a very behaviorist field.
Hnrobert42 2y ago
Interesting and thank you for sharing. Can you say anything about the politically aligned response to GMOs? It seems like there are groups on both sides who feel very strongly about them. My mild concerns relate to licensing and the economic pressure toward monoculture. It seems many are opposed to them in a sort of conspiracy theory panic. So yeah, do you know what motivates opposition to them and how does motivations breakdown politically?
- futureshock 2y ago
  We don’t work on GMOs, so I haven’t seen any direct research on the topic. I’m guessing it mirrors antivax sentiment though where people on the political extremes are likely to agree with each other but for different reasons.
toxik 2y ago
That resonates with my impression too. The problem is that the two world views have a conflict in what are appropriate climate action policies. If you believe we should protect nature, that humanity is the bad thing, you want to ultimately remove humanity from some contexts (eg protected habitats), whereas if you believe that toxicity is the problem, you just want the toxicity out of /YOUR/ environment, and certainly don’t need to worry about protecting habitats.
- futureshock 2y ago
  Yes, this is exactly why climate is such a hard sell to conservatives. The carbon dioxide is not itself toxic (at least not for another century). I think the strongest conservative argument, and the one that I think has already taken root at the top, is the idea that famine is going to drive refugees across our borders (not to dissimilar to a fear of pollution). Of course, the response to that has been walls, not carbon regulation.

ethbr1 2y ago

Thanks for your work! Always useful to meet people where they are, however they are. Tailoring which presentation one highlights isn't lying: it's simply making the most effective argument.

nightski 2y ago

That's fine for your purposes as you just need the correlation and don't need to find the true cause. But in reality it doesn't tell you much about what the true nature of these people are. It just allows you to label them into groups. There could be plenty of confounding factors.

futureshock 2y ago
In marketing and policy advocacy, root psychological causes are not something that we tend to be very interested in. It’s a very behaviorist field.

Hnrobert42 2y ago

Interesting and thank you for sharing. Can you say anything about the politically aligned response to GMOs? It seems like there are groups on both sides who feel very strongly about them. My mild concerns relate to licensing and the economic pressure toward monoculture. It seems many are opposed to them in a sort of conspiracy theory panic. So yeah, do you know what motivates opposition to them and how does motivations breakdown politically?

futureshock 2y ago
We don’t work on GMOs, so I haven’t seen any direct research on the topic. I’m guessing it mirrors antivax sentiment though where people on the political extremes are likely to agree with each other but for different reasons.

toxik 2y ago

That resonates with my impression too. The problem is that the two world views have a conflict in what are appropriate climate action policies. If you believe we should protect nature, that humanity is the bad thing, you want to ultimately remove humanity from some contexts (eg protected habitats), whereas if you believe that toxicity is the problem, you just want the toxicity out of /YOUR/ environment, and certainly don’t need to worry about protecting habitats.

futureshock 2y ago
Yes, this is exactly why climate is such a hard sell to conservatives. The carbon dioxide is not itself toxic (at least not for another century). I think the strongest conservative argument, and the one that I think has already taken root at the top, is the idea that famine is going to drive refugees across our borders (not to dissimilar to a fear of pollution). Of course, the response to that has been walls, not carbon regulation.