Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

In Washington, D.C., revelers and protesters are marking the ascendance of a new president and the populist movement he says he has mobilized.

Some 1,600 miles away in San Antonio, thousands of psychologists from around the world are also marking the dawn of the Trump era by focusing their attention on the thought processes that prompt some people to resist and reject science. Matters for which there is a broad scientific consensus — including man-made climate change, the safety of childhood vaccines and Darwin’s theory of evolution — have been attacked as hoaxes and lies by senior members of the new administration.

Psychologists have come up with a name for this trend: the “anti-enlightenment movement.”

To better understand it, these professional observers of human behavior will draw from a recent election campaign in which fake news exploded, conspiracy theories flourished and derision was heaped on elites of all kinds.

“We were motivated by anxiety,” said social psychologist Matthew Hornsey, who organized a symposium on the issue for this weekend’s annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

The popular rejection of scientific thinking — and sometimes of facts that are plainly evident — didn’t begin with the campaign that brought forth Donald Trump’s presidency, Hornsey and others said. But if anyone doubted its existence before, they could do so no longer.

”We’re asking, ‘What are these biases leading people to resist science? Where do they come from? How do they operate and what can be done about them?’” said University of Oregon social psychologist Troy H. Campbell, who will be speaking at the symposium.

Those questions won’t be easy to answer. Psychologists will have to delve into the guts of human decision-making. They will dissect the ways in which we discount information — however well evidenced — that conflicts with what we want to believe about ourselves and the ways things work. They will examine the role of our social networks, and the cognitive shortcuts we take to interpret scientific conclusions we don’t really understand. They will consider the role that declining trust plays in people’s decision to believe what they’re told.

“People don’t act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way,” said Hornsey, a professor of psychology at the University of Queensland in Australia. “When someone wants to believe something — for whatever reason — then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they selectively attend to and critique the evidence to be able to do that.”

Full report

Bubblecar said:

Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

In Washington, D.C., revelers and protesters are marking the ascendance of a new president and the populist movement he says he has mobilized.

Some 1,600 miles away in San Antonio, thousands of psychologists from around the world are also marking the dawn of the Trump era by focusing their attention on the thought processes that prompt some people to resist and reject science. Matters for which there is a broad scientific consensus — including man-made climate change, the safety of childhood vaccines and Darwin’s theory of evolution — have been attacked as hoaxes and lies by senior members of the new administration.

Psychologists have come up with a name for this trend: the “anti-enlightenment movement.”

To better understand it, these professional observers of human behavior will draw from a recent election campaign in which fake news exploded, conspiracy theories flourished and derision was heaped on elites of all kinds.

“We were motivated by anxiety,” said social psychologist Matthew Hornsey, who organized a symposium on the issue for this weekend’s annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

The popular rejection of scientific thinking — and sometimes of facts that are plainly evident — didn’t begin with the campaign that brought forth Donald Trump’s presidency, Hornsey and others said. But if anyone doubted its existence before, they could do so no longer.

”We’re asking, ‘What are these biases leading people to resist science? Where do they come from? How do they operate and what can be done about them?’” said University of Oregon social psychologist Troy H. Campbell, who will be speaking at the symposium.

Those questions won’t be easy to answer. Psychologists will have to delve into the guts of human decision-making. They will dissect the ways in which we discount information — however well evidenced — that conflicts with what we want to believe about ourselves and the ways things work. They will examine the role of our social networks, and the cognitive shortcuts we take to interpret scientific conclusions we don’t really understand. They will consider the role that declining trust plays in people’s decision to believe what they’re told.

“People don’t act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way,” said Hornsey, a professor of psychology at the University of Queensland in Australia. “When someone wants to believe something — for whatever reason — then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they selectively attend to and critique the evidence to be able to do that.”

Full report

Science generally suffers from a lack of appreciation via a lack of R&D funding.

When you look at how much money is spent on advertising pseudoscience.

Isn’t it obvious? With advances in science comes advances in technology, which many people see as bad. This view isn’t without justification. After all, can anyone here name an advance in technology that has had significant impact on society and hasn’t caused any problems? People old enough to have seen a number of changes within society will probably regard the time of their youth as ok without the new technology, and that the subsequent changes being a mixture of good and bad and not the greatness that science has promised us. It seems to me that in spite of all the advances in technology that has occurred over my lifetime, society still doesn’t have enough money to provide a quality life to everyone.

Given that science has made promises that it hasn’t been able to keep, as well as giving us a whole range of new problems to deal with, is it any wonder that many people reject science?

• Mark Latham Has Opened The Door To A Political Comeback

He crazy…

Nevermind…

KJW said:

Isn’t it obvious? With advances in science comes advances in technology, which many people see as bad. This view isn’t without justification. After all, can anyone here name an advance in technology that has had significant impact on society and hasn’t caused any problems? People old enough to have seen a number of changes within society will probably regard the time of their youth as ok without the new technology, and that the subsequent changes being a mixture of good and bad and not the greatness that science has promised us. It seems to me that in spite of all the advances in technology that has occurred over my lifetime, society still doesn’t have enough money to provide a quality life to everyone.

Given that science has made promises that it hasn’t been able to keep, as well as giving us a whole range of new problems to deal with, is it any wonder that many people reject science?

Persomnally have always enjoyed technology but thta doesn’t mean that I trust it all as gospel.

FFS, scientists are humans too.

KJW said:

Isn’t it obvious? With advances in science comes advances in technology, which many people see as bad. This view isn’t without justification. After all, can anyone here name an advance in technology that has had significant impact on society and hasn’t caused any problems? People old enough to have seen a number of changes within society will probably regard the time of their youth as ok without the new technology, and that the subsequent changes being a mixture of good and bad and not the greatness that science has promised us. It seems to me that in spite of all the advances in technology that has occurred over my lifetime, society still doesn’t have enough money to provide a quality life to everyone.

Given that science has made promises that it hasn’t been able to keep, as well as giving us a whole range of new problems to deal with, is it any wonder that many people reject science?

I don’t think that’s terribly relevant. It’s a deeper problem of supposedly educated people being unable to distinguish between reliable information and bullshit.

Bubblecar said:

KJW said:

Isn’t it obvious? With advances in science comes advances in technology, which many people see as bad. This view isn’t without justification. After all, can anyone here name an advance in technology that has had significant impact on society and hasn’t caused any problems? People old enough to have seen a number of changes within society will probably regard the time of their youth as ok without the new technology, and that the subsequent changes being a mixture of good and bad and not the greatness that science has promised us. It seems to me that in spite of all the advances in technology that has occurred over my lifetime, society still doesn’t have enough money to provide a quality life to everyone.

Given that science has made promises that it hasn’t been able to keep, as well as giving us a whole range of new problems to deal with, is it any wonder that many people reject science?

I don’t think that’s terribly relevant. It’s a deeper problem of supposedly educated people being unable to distinguish between reliable information and bullshit.

it is the economy.. science costs real money.. bullshit comes cheap.

there’s an army of psychologists working on it.

it needs an army of psychologists.

Oh yeah those Psychologists are right at the bleeding edge of social science research, man…

Christopher Lasch wrote an extensive dissertation on it in 1979, called ‘The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations’.

Sheeley Gare investigated it in exquisite detail in ‘The Triumph of the Airheads and the Retreat from Commonsense’ ten years ago.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that the ‘science’ of Psychology might share a lot more in common with the pseudo-science it’s not railing against than any of its practitioners would admit.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

KJW said:

Isn’t it obvious? With advances in science comes advances in technology, which many people see as bad. This view isn’t without justification. After all, can anyone here name an advance in technology that has had significant impact on society and hasn’t caused any problems? People old enough to have seen a number of changes within society will probably regard the time of their youth as ok without the new technology, and that the subsequent changes being a mixture of good and bad and not the greatness that science has promised us. It seems to me that in spite of all the advances in technology that has occurred over my lifetime, society still doesn’t have enough money to provide a quality life to everyone.

Given that science has made promises that it hasn’t been able to keep, as well as giving us a whole range of new problems to deal with, is it any wonder that many people reject science?

I don’t think that’s terribly relevant. It’s a deeper problem of supposedly educated people being unable to distinguish between reliable information and bullshit.

it is the economy.. science costs real money.. bullshit comes cheap.

The real issue is that governments allow free speech in marketing bullshit.
All the while avoiding research into what is real.

roughbarked said:

it is the economy.. science costs real money.. bullshit comes cheap.

“We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.” – Denis Diderot

;-)

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

it is the economy.. science costs real money.. bullshit comes cheap.

“We swallow greedily any lie that flatters us, but we sip only little by little at a truth we find bitter.” – Denis Diderot

;-)

Quite true.

Bubblecar said:

I don’t think that’s terribly relevant. It’s a deeper problem of supposedly educated people being unable to distinguish between reliable information and bullshit.

Consider the global warming debate as an example. Why should we trust what the scientists are saying? And yes, it does involve trust because we don’t have direct access to the raw data. Also, the issue is a political issue and not simple one of pure knowledge. Thus, there is an emotional aspect that goes beyond factual correctness.

The relevance of what I said also lies in the assumption by scientists that knowledge is always good thing. Experience seems to say the opposite. If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing, then the whole basis of science as something we look up to falls apart.

KJW said:

The relevance of what I said also lies in the assumption by scientists that knowledge is always good thing. Experience seems to say the opposite. If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing, then the whole basis of science as something we look up to falls apart.

So the advances in child mortality, human longevity, higher standard of living are all bad things?

KJW said:

Bubblecar said:

I don’t think that’s terribly relevant. It’s a deeper problem of supposedly educated people being unable to distinguish between reliable information and bullshit.

Consider the global warming debate as an example. Why should we trust what the scientists are saying? And yes, it does involve trust because we don’t have direct access to the raw data. Also, the issue is a political issue and not simple one of pure knowledge. Thus, there is an emotional aspect that goes beyond factual correctness.

The relevance of what I said also lies in the assumption by scientists that knowledge is always good thing. Experience seems to say the opposite. If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing, then the whole basis of science as something we look up to falls apart.

I’ve asked farmers if they expect God to fix it and had them answer yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/26/donald-trumps-brazen-first-interview-as-president-annotated/?utm_term=.9a01a2009b67

it’s long and rambling.

JudgeMental said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/26/donald-trumps-brazen-first-interview-as-president-annotated/?utm_term=.9a01a2009b67

it’s long and rambling.

wrong thread.

>If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing

If that’s a common view these days (and I sincerely hope it’s not) then it would point to some sort of massive failure of education systems.

I think most people still readily acknowledge the huge improvements that science has brought to human life over the past several generations. But there is a substantial minority who associate science with “misinformation” rather than reliable information, and unfortunately, they tend to be thick on the ground in the right-wing circles who are now in power in the US and elsewhere.

We do need to understand the relationship between “science denial” and various foolhardy and dangerous sociopolitical leanings.

Bubblecar said:

>If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing

If that’s a common view these days (and I sincerely hope it’s not) then it would point to some sort of massive failure of education systems.

I think most people still readily acknowledge the huge improvements that science has brought to human life over the past several generations. But there is a substantial minority who associate science with “misinformation” rather than reliable information, and unfortunately, they tend to be thick on the ground in the right-wing circles who are now in power in the US and elsewhere.

We do need to understand the relationship between “science denial” and various foolhardy and dangerous sociopolitical leanings.

Again it is the preponderance of bullshit in the media.. pounding our heads.

We are lucky that there are some of us who are able to think we have clear minds.

Bubblecar said:

We do need to understand the relationship between “science denial” and various foolhardy and dangerous sociopolitical leanings.

To what benefit? Any possible explanation will eventually face Hemingway’s challenge from the fifties: If it were true, what difference would it make?

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

We do need to understand the relationship between “science denial” and various foolhardy and dangerous sociopolitical leanings.

To what benefit? Any possible explanation will eventually face Hemingway’s challenge from the fifties: If it were true, what difference would it make?

Knowledge is always useful :)

Especially if it leads to improvements in educating new generations.

Bubblecar said:

Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

I can’t readily think of any examples.

Bubblecar said:

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

We do need to understand the relationship between “science denial” and various foolhardy and dangerous sociopolitical leanings.

To what benefit? Any possible explanation will eventually face Hemingway’s challenge from the fifties: If it were true, what difference would it make?

Knowledge is always useful :)

Especially if it leads to improvements in educating new generations.

It follows that this flows on from the efforts of those pioneers.

Time though is in deficit.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

I can’t readily think of any examples.

Is that because you aren’t smart or that none of the smart people you know are skeptical?

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

I can’t readily think of any examples.

No, we don’t think they’re smart, but they do. And quite often they’re people who are socially resourceful enough to influence a lot of other people. So it’s important to ask what’s going wrong.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

I can’t readily think of any examples.

Is that because you aren’t smart or that none of the smart people you know are skeptical?

No

Bubblecar said:

Knowledge is always useful :)

Especially if it leads to improvements in educating new generations.

I’m sure they’ll be lining up to solve the issue of dumbfuckery and roundly ignore debilitating mental illnesses that profoundly effects on people’s lives.

They’re too late – The psychological fish rots from the head first.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

I can’t readily think of any examples.

No, we don’t think they’re smart, but they do. And quite often they’re people who are socially resourceful enough to influence a lot of other people. So it’s important to ask what’s going wrong.

Perhaps they have the best words.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Psychologists ask: What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

I can’t readily think of any examples.

No, we don’t think they’re smart, but they do. And quite often they’re people who are socially resourceful enough to influence a lot of other people. So it’s important to ask what’s going wrong.

answer is money.. ie: trumppence.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I can’t readily think of any examples.

Is that because you aren’t smart or that none of the smart people you know are skeptical?

No

:)

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

Knowledge is always useful :)

Especially if it leads to improvements in educating new generations.

I’m sure they’ll be lining up to solve the issue of dumbfuckery and roundly ignore debilitating mental illnesses that profoundly effects on people’s lives.

They’re too late – The psychological fish rots from the head first.

You’re too cynical.

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

Knowledge is always useful :)

Especially if it leads to improvements in educating new generations.

I’m sure they’ll be lining up to solve the issue of dumbfuckery and roundly ignore debilitating mental illnesses that profoundly effects on people’s lives.

They’re too late – The psychological fish rots from the head first.

You know too much for their view of society’s good. They’ll be putting a hit on you, mark my words.

Human minds haven’t changed much in 150,000+ years, not an entirely bad thing. Plenty of opportunity for human nature studies in that, and certainly the last century.

It’d be something short of a revelation that someone announced there are a few flaws in the wetware, that need work (personal effort).

Doesn’t bother me that the fragile most recently evolved aspects of human higher functions dilute some – devolve – and can’t be recovered with education.

The age of specialist savantism seems to have peaked.

So, love the monkey.

Bubblecar said:

You’re too cynical.

Baaahhh… I’ll agree with just about anything if I think it’s right.

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

Knowledge is always useful :)

Especially if it leads to improvements in educating new generations.

I’m sure they’ll be lining up to solve the issue of dumbfuckery and roundly ignore debilitating mental illnesses that profoundly effects on people’s lives.

They’re too late – The psychological fish rots from the head first.

You seem to have issues with psychologists. Best see a therapist.

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

You’re too cynical.

Baaahhh… I’ll agree with just about anything if I think it’s right.

Though not always being right and never wrong?

People have been lied to too often, now many are cynical and disbelieving.

It is not unreasonable to think big Pharma is keeping products off the shelves and they sell bad health. It is not unreasonable to think that fossil fuel companies have knobbled designs that don’t use fossil fuel. Not thoughts I hold myself, but it is not unreasonable to think such things.

Witty Rejoinder said:

You seem to have issues with psychologists. Best see a therapist.

Indeed, there must surely be something terribly wrong with me: I feel fine.

AwesomeO said:

People have been lied to too often, now many are cynical and disbelieving.

It is not unreasonable to think big Pharma is keeping products off the shelves and they sell bad health. It is not unreasonable to think that fossil fuel companies have knobbled designs that don’t use fossil fuel. Not thoughts I hold myself, but it is not unreasonable to think such things.

They are all commonly held thoughts by many. Promulgated via media.

Witty Rejoinder said:

KJW said:

The relevance of what I said also lies in the assumption by scientists that knowledge is always good thing. Experience seems to say the opposite. If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing, then the whole basis of science as something we look up to falls apart.

So the advances in child mortality, human longevity, higher standard of living are all bad things?

With regards to child mortality and human longevity, are the consequences of overpopulation such as overcrowding, resource depletion, pollution, etc good things? As for the standard of living, I think whether or not it has increased depends on the individual circumstances because some things are cheaper today whereas other things are more expensive (in real terms). People still struggle to make ends meet.

However, it should be noted that we are talking about why particular individuals might reject science, and therefore need to consider individual points-of-view. It is not a case of arguing that science is bad, but why many people might think so.

roughbarked said:

KJW said:

Bubblecar said:

I don’t think that’s terribly relevant. It’s a deeper problem of supposedly educated people being unable to distinguish between reliable information and bullshit.

Consider the global warming debate as an example. Why should we trust what the scientists are saying? And yes, it does involve trust because we don’t have direct access to the raw data. Also, the issue is a political issue and not simple one of pure knowledge. Thus, there is an emotional aspect that goes beyond factual correctness.

The relevance of what I said also lies in the assumption by scientists that knowledge is always good thing. Experience seems to say the opposite. If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing, then the whole basis of science as something we look up to falls apart.

I’ve asked farmers if they expect God to fix it and had them answer yes.

My point is that the issue goes beyond the notion of truth about how the world works. Science would argue that it does provide enlightened truth about how the world works, but rarely questions whether that is actually a good thing except for such extreme developments as nuclear weapons. A belief in God or pseudoscience represents the same desire for truth as science, but from the wrong source. But some people just want to get on with their lives without having to deal with the interferences that technological development imposes. It is not about truth but stability. Thus, arguing against science is not arguing for God or pseudoscience.

Bubblecar said:

>If one holds the view that knowledge is not a good thing

If that’s a common view these days (and I sincerely hope it’s not) then it would point to some sort of massive failure of education systems.

I don’t think so, because young people tend to like technology because they don’t know any different and haven’t really experienced the problems of change, whereas it is the old folk who tend to feel left out of the modern world.

Bubblecar said:

But there is a substantial minority who associate science with “misinformation” rather than reliable information

Some scientists can be a little too quick to report their findings to the media, which later turn out to be wrong. While scientists themselves may argue that this is just the self-correction mechanism in action, to the general public, it makes them take what scientists say with a grain of salt. I personally have little interest in cutting edge science, preferring to get my scientific knowledge from textbooks, where the knowledge has stood the test of time.

Bubblecar said:

and unfortunately, they tend to be thick on the ground in the right-wing circles who are now in power in the US and elsewhere.

We do need to understand the relationship between “science denial” and various foolhardy and dangerous sociopolitical leanings.

Once there is a political element, it is no longer just about truth but about how policy changes may affect the individual. However, note that it is the right-wing that has the most to lose as a result of change.

Bubblecar said:

Knowledge is always useful :)

And yet we have such sayings as “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and “ignorance is bliss”.

KJW said:

Bubblecar said:

Knowledge is always useful :)

And yet we have such sayings as “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and “ignorance is bliss”.

A little knowledge is still ignorance, but permits the person to think they know more than they do. As such they are unable to see the real situation, with its problems and consequences and therefore have few worries by being always confident that they are right. However, these people do not have real knowledge, but an illusion of knowledge and are really ignorant. If they did have knowledge, life would be more complex and less certain, with potential threats a reality requiring serious consideration; things that do not concern the ignorant.

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

And yet we have such sayings as “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and “ignorance is bliss”.

A little knowledge is still ignorance, but permits the person to think they know more than they do. As such they are unable to see the real situation, with its problems and consequences and therefore have few worries by being always confident that they are right. However, these people do not have real knowledge, but an illusion of knowledge and are really ignorant. If they did have knowledge, life would be more complex and less certain, with potential threats a reality requiring serious consideration; things that do not concern the ignorant.

Even the proper meaning of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” is still saying that having knowledge is dangerous. Bear in mind that we usually don’t have the complete knowledge, so that the knowledge we do possess may be just the amount that is dangerous. It is usually only in hindsight that we find out if the knowledge we had was enough.

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

And yet we have such sayings as “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and “ignorance is bliss”.

A little knowledge is still ignorance, but permits the person to think they know more than they do. As such they are unable to see the real situation, with its problems and consequences and therefore have few worries by being always confident that they are right. However, these people do not have real knowledge, but an illusion of knowledge and are really ignorant. If they did have knowledge, life would be more complex and less certain, with potential threats a reality requiring serious consideration; things that do not concern the ignorant.

Even the proper meaning of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” is still saying that having knowledge is dangerous. Bear in mind that we usually don’t have the complete knowledge, so that the knowledge we do possess may be just the amount that is dangerous. It is usually only in hindsight that we find out if the knowledge we had was enough.

Not sure I entirely go along with you there, although I do agree about hindsight. However, a non-ignorant person realises the world is a complex place and there are usually many factors involved, so even if not in possession of all the facts, would still know there are other things likely to influence the outcome, therefore will be far less dogmatic than a more ignorant person who makes ill-considered judgements based on fewer insights. Therefore if a person has devoted a considerable amount of time investigating something, as against someone who has only a passing interest, they will be less ignorant and be more aware of their own limitations.

> What makes some smart people so skeptical of science?

Easy question to answer.

All most people ask is: “Is there easy money in it for me?”
And with science the answer is almost always “No”.

PS. “dismissive” is the right word to use here, not “skeptical”.

in the light of the discussion, what are we going to do with the Trump administration of anti-enlightenment?

roughbarked said:

in the light of the discussion, what are we going to do with the Trump administration of anti-enlightenment?

The same as we did with the Nixon, Reagan, Bush administrations of anti-enlightenment.

Science is a blunt weapon. The technologies that utilize it are mostly unforseen…

>All most people ask is: “Is there easy money in it for me?”
And with science the answer is almost always “No”.<

.. unless you are a scheming giant corporation.

We get both radiators and radiation sickness.
Telephones and telemarketers.
Computers, M$ and malware.
GMOs and Monsanto.

Inequality and corruption continue to rise… people look for someone to blame. Is it surprising that anti-intellectualism is on the increase?

Ian said:

Science is a blunt weapon. The technologies that utilize it are mostly unforseen…

>All most people ask is: “Is there easy money in it for me?”
And with science the answer is almost always “No”.<

.. unless you are a scheming giant corporation.

We get both radiators and radiation sickness.
Telephones and telemarketers.
Computers, M$ and malware.
GMOs and Monsanto.

Inequality and corruption continue to rise… people look for someone to blame. Is it surprising that anti-intellectualism is on the increase?

Yes. The first time I saw TV, I thought what a wonderful educational tool. Walking out of the room i had the thought that humans would use it for nefarious purposes and ruin it’s greatest purpose.