“I’ll bite the bullet and say global warming is the perfect example here. It’s pretty clear to me that many people hold their positions on this issue—pro and contra—for political/social reasons rather than evidential ones.”
I used to think that global warming was a poor example of this because while the right wing has plenty of reasons to oppose actions to fight global warming, and thus irrational reasons to force themselves to believe that global warming does not exist, the left wing does not have any reasons to support actions to fight global warming aside from evidence that global warming is a threat. Then it occurred to me that many people on the left actually do have alternate motives for pushing anti-global warming actions: other people on the left support it too (see Eliezer’s The Sky is Green/Blue parable, and this article too, I suppose). This is even more irrational, but due to the stunning level of irrationality among humans on all sides of the political spectrum, is probably a factor for some.
the left wing does not have any reasons to support actions to fight global warming aside from evidence that global warming is a threat.
The story conservatives usually tell here is that the left wants to fight global warming as a way to further their economic agenda and narrative: corporations are bad and the government needs to stop them and control them. You see slogans like “Green is the new red”.
the left wing does not have any reasons to support actions to fight global warming aside from evidence that global warming is a threat.
However, someone who believes that global warming is a threat, and who has a poor grasp of ethics, has a motive to exaggerate the evidence, to compensate for others having too strict evidential standards or not doing cost-benefit analysis correctly.
Also, the image of oneself as on the vanguard of saving the world is a strong motivation to believe the world is endangered (overlapping with but distinct from group identity).
(Disclaimer: I don’t think this is most of what’s going on with AGW believers. Not having studied the issue, I default (albeit tentatively) to believing the scientific consensus.)
This is even more irrational, but due to the stunning level of irrationality among humans on all sides of the political spectrum, is probably a factor for some.
It’s absolutely a factor. People are crazy, the world is mad, you shouldn’t be surprised by this or hesitant in calling it as you see it.
Then it occurred to me that many people on the left actually do have alternate motives for pushing anti-global warming actions: other people on the left support it too
Bingo. The Michael Moore-style crowd is engaged in nothing less than an immense progressive circle-jerk, if you’ll excuse my Klatchian. It’s too bad we can’t just throw them at the Limbaughistas and liberate gamma rays.
“I’ll bite the bullet and say global warming is the perfect example here. It’s pretty clear to me that many people hold their positions on this issue—pro and contra—for political/social reasons rather than evidential ones.”
I used to think that global warming was a poor example of this because while the right wing has plenty of reasons to oppose actions to fight global warming, and thus irrational reasons to force themselves to believe that global warming does not exist, the left wing does not have any reasons to support actions to fight global warming aside from evidence that global warming is a threat. Then it occurred to me that many people on the left actually do have alternate motives for pushing anti-global warming actions: other people on the left support it too (see Eliezer’s The Sky is Green/Blue parable, and this article too, I suppose). This is even more irrational, but due to the stunning level of irrationality among humans on all sides of the political spectrum, is probably a factor for some.
The story conservatives usually tell here is that the left wants to fight global warming as a way to further their economic agenda and narrative: corporations are bad and the government needs to stop them and control them. You see slogans like “Green is the new red”.
Fighting global warming can be used to justify the creation of ‘green’ jobs, in a new spin on the old keynesian make work ideas.
Alternatively, it can be used to provide justification for ‘green protectionism’.
However, someone who believes that global warming is a threat, and who has a poor grasp of ethics, has a motive to exaggerate the evidence, to compensate for others having too strict evidential standards or not doing cost-benefit analysis correctly.
Also, the image of oneself as on the vanguard of saving the world is a strong motivation to believe the world is endangered (overlapping with but distinct from group identity).
(Disclaimer: I don’t think this is most of what’s going on with AGW believers. Not having studied the issue, I default (albeit tentatively) to believing the scientific consensus.)
It’s absolutely a factor. People are crazy, the world is mad, you shouldn’t be surprised by this or hesitant in calling it as you see it.
Bingo. The Michael Moore-style crowd is engaged in nothing less than an immense progressive circle-jerk, if you’ll excuse my Klatchian. It’s too bad we can’t just throw them at the Limbaughistas and liberate gamma rays.