Climate Skepticism Vs 9/11 Skepticism

Hmmm... interesting blog post about the psychology of climate science skeptics:

Whether it’s climate hawks talking about why there are so many skeptics, or skeptics talking about why there are so many climate hawks, the story is mostly the same: A nefarious minority seizes control of cultural institutions, using them to peddle falsehoods to a public that doesn’t have the time or scientific literacy to separate truth from lies; this process of deception is assisted by lazy, biased media and an army of online zealots.

Unfortunately, social-science evidence suggests that pretty much every part of this story is wrong. Kahan:

• If public confusion over climate change was a consequence of over-reliance on heuristic reasoning, we’d expect the beliefs of those members of the population who are highest in science comprehension to be most in line with the best available evidence. In fact, those members of the public highest in science literacy, numeracy, and critical reasoning skills are the most culturally polarized ones.

• No doubt, misinformation on climate change abounds. But scientifically sound evidence that misinformation causes polarization does not. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that ordinary people, as a result of the ubiquity and intensity of cultural cognition, aggressively mislead themselves. They aggressively seek out information that confirms and avoid information that challenges their predispositions. And when exposed to the same sources of valid information selectively credit and discredit it in patterns that amplify polarization. Polarization, in sum, creates the demand for professional misinformers, who can profit handsomely by enabling people to persist in culturally congenial beliefs.

• Blaming the media is also pretty weak. The claim that “unbalanced” media coverage causes public controversy on climate change science is incompatible with cross-cultural evidence, which shows that US coverage is no different from coverage in other nations in which the public isn’t polarized (e.g., Sweden). Indeed, the “media misinformation” claim has causation upside down, as Kevin Arceneaux’s recent post helps to show. The media covers competing claims about the evidence because climate change is entangled in culturally antagonistic meanings, which in turn create persistent public demand for information on the nature of the conflict and for evidence that the readers who hold the relevant cultural identities can use to satisfy their interest in persisting in beliefs consistent with their identities.

• The “internet echo chamber” hypothesis is similarly devoid of evidence. There are plenty of evidence-based sources that address and dispel the general claim that the internet reinforces partisan exposure to and processing of evidence (sources that apparently can’t penetrate the internet echo chamber, which continues to propagate the echo-chamber claim despite the absence of evidence).

The theme in all these bullet points is the same: Cultural identity precedes, and creates demand for, distorted media, internet echo chambers, misinformation, and all the rest. The people engaged on climate change, pro or con, seek out confirmation of their beliefs (a process known as motivated reasoning) and a market has arisen to provide it. Much of what people see as a cause of climate polarization is better viewed as an effect.

So, what if we substitute climate change for 9/11?

Whether it’s 9/11 official story supporters talking about why there are so many skeptics, or skeptics talking about why there are so many official story supporters, the story is mostly the same: A nefarious minority seizes control of key information, using it to peddle falsehoods to a public that doesn’t have the time or scientific literacy to separate truth from lies; this process of deception is assisted by lazy, biased media and an army of online zealots. 

Unfortunately, social-science evidence suggests that pretty much every part of this story is wrong. Kahan:

• If public confusion over 9/11 was a consequence of over-reliance on heuristic reasoning, we’d expect the beliefs of those members of the population who are highest in science comprehension to be most in line with the best available evidence. In fact, those members of the public highest in science literacy, numeracy, and critical reasoning skills are the most culturally polarized ones.

• No doubt, misinformation on 9/11 abounds. But scientifically sound evidence that misinformation causes polarization does not. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that ordinary people, as a result of the ubiquity and intensity of cultural cognition, aggressively mislead themselves. They aggressively seek out information that confirms and avoid information that challenges their predispositions. And when exposed to the same sources of valid information selectively credit and discredit it in patterns that amplify polarization. Polarization, in sum, creates the demand for professional misinformers, who can profit handsomely by enabling people to persist in culturally congenial beliefs.

• Blaming the media is also pretty weak. The claim that “unbalanced” media coverage causes lack of skepticism of the 9/11 official story is incompatible with cross-cultural evidence, which shows that US coverage is no different from coverage in other nations in which the public isn’t polarized. Indeed, the “media misinformation” claim has causation upside down. The media fails to cover competing claims about the evidence because 9/11 is entangled in culturally antagonistic meanings, which in turn fails to create persistent public demand for information on the nature of the conflict and for evidence that the readers who hold the relevant cultural identities can use to satisfy their interest in persisting in beliefs consistent with their identities. (THIS PART DIFFERS FOR 9/11)

• The “internet echo chamber” hypothesis is similarly devoid of evidence. There are plenty of evidence-based sources that address and dispel the general claim that the internet reinforces partisan exposure to and processing of evidence (sources that apparently can’t penetrate the internet echo chamber, which continues to propagate the echo-chamber claim despite the absence of evidence).

The theme in all these bullet points is the same: Cultural identity precedes, and creates demand for, distorted media, internet echo chambers, misinformation, and all the rest. The people engaged on 9/11 research, pro or con, seek out confirmation of their beliefs (a process known as motivated reasoning) and but no major market has arisen to provide it. Much of what people see as a cause of holding onto the official 9/11 story is better viewed as an effect.

So, while there may be some interesting similarities in the climate change skeptic mentality, 9/11 skepticism engenders a very different response in the media, for sure. Likely because climate change skepticism FAVORS the evil PTB, whereas 9/11 skepticism does not.

It's actually pretty clear to know how the corporate media will cover stories-- anything that helps the power and monied interests of the US, they will promote. Anything that is damaging to the power structures in the US, they will downplay or ignore.

Climate change skepticism helps the evil big oil polluters and the power and money in the US.

9/11 skepticism does not help any of the moneyed interests in the US.

While there are some points here worth considering about predisposition towards a certain view, it ultimately doesn't hold up for 9/11.

Another difference with climate change skepticism and 9/11 skepticism is that people fall on the climate change denial side, basically on partisan (GOP-based) grounds, whereas this really isn't the case for 9/11 (though 9/11 skepticism is probably stronger on the left-side of the political spectrum).