follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« More glossary entries: pattern recognition, professional judgment & situation sense | Main | Weekend update: who has more items for "Cultural Cognition Dictionary/Glossary/whatever"? »
Monday
Jan292018

Meet the Millennials, part 4: Motivated System 2 reasoning ...

First, this (familiar) result --

Then this --

Do you see what I see? What does it all mean, if anything??

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (65)

Intelligent people get more sceptical as they get older.

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterPaul Matthews

@PaulMatthews:

Could be.

January 29, 2018 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Cool! Makes me think: Does a horizontal conservative millennial result mean they aren't showing motivated reasoning here, or is it *just enough* motivated reasoning to keep the response from increasing with increasing science knowledge?

I don't suppose there's climate science knowledge data in this set, is there?

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterScott Johnson

What is the relationship of OSI and age, more generally, not viewed through the window of views on climate change?

Intelligent people get more sceptical as they get older.

It's always interesting to see people drawing longitudinal conclusions from cross-sectional data.

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Very interesting! I wonder if global warming is becoming less of a "core" issue for young Republicans...

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterGord Pennycook

Observation: Conservative Republican millennials with high OSI are no more likely to adopt an incorrect view regarding global warming attribution than their low-OSI Conservative Republican millennial peers, while in previous generations, high OSI among Conservative Republicans increases the rate of adoption of an incorrect view. Among liberals, high OSI increases the rate of adoption of the correct view, such that polarization increases with increasing OSI in all groups.

Possible explanation for the flatness of the probability of agreement vs. OSI curve among conservative millennials: The flatness results from cancellation between two opposing mechanisms, (i) the desire for group belonging (increases polarization with increasing OSI) and (ii) exposure to the topic in school (decreases polarization with increasing OSI, but only among those who learned the correct view about global warming in school).

(i) Desire for group belonging: Those with high OSI become more polarized due to their better-calibrated filtering of scientific information to maintain agreement with their group. This mechanism is dominant among the older generations and is active among millennials but is approximately cancelled out by…

(ii) Exposure to the topic in school: Suppose that OSI is related to receptiveness to formal science education in high school and college. The Silent generation/Baby boomers/Generation X never learned about global warming in formal science education. A member of this set of generations could have absorbed 100% of their formal science education, contributing to a high OSI, without ever exploring the topic of global warming (due to its recency as a major issue of concern and subject in science courses). Global warming is tacked on to their belief set later as an already polarized issue (not sure how). In contrast, if it is that case that many millennials learn that global warming is attributable to burning fossil fuels in their formal education, then a millennial who absorbed 100% of their formal science education, contributing to a high OSI, may be already exposed to a correct view about global warming that would incline them to answer [agree] to the statement.

Caveats: Why should these two processes cancel out exactly, leaving virtually no relationship between probability of agreement and OSI among conservative millennials instead of opposing each other with some cancellation but a nonzero residual? It seems that exact cancellation would be an unlikely coincidence.

Parts left unexplained: I cannot presently imagine why low-OSI liberals appear to have a slightly lower probability of correctly agreeing with the statement than low-OSI conservatives.

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterAaron Match

The "A" word (asymmetry) is back! Of course, now that I labelled it so, Dan will make it disappear. In fact, I'll help: what is the breakdown of economic vs. social conservatives among millennials vs. older gens? I suspect more social and fewer economic because the combo of being young and economically advantaged shields one from economic concerns. That, plus a higher tendency of economic vs. social conservatives to adopt AGW denial sentiments as OSI increases.

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Taking Dan's dictum "It's not what you know, it's who you are" as our working hypothesis:

It seems Millennial conservatives don't know or care who they are. They find out who they are as they get older, and the highest in OSI are the fastest learners.

High OSI millennial liberals are aware of what they're culturally supposed to believe significantly earlier on, but the the beliefs don't spread to their low OSI co-partisans until very late on.

"Observation: Conservative Republican millennials with high OSI are no more likely to adopt an incorrect view regarding global warming attribution than their low-OSI Conservative Republican millennial peers, while in previous generations, high OSI among Conservative Republicans increases the rate of adoption of an incorrect view."

You're assuming you know what the "correct" view is. Since it's split on partisan lines, what you believe most likely has more to do with your politics than what's correct.

What is it about motivated cognition that no matter how many times you point out that the effect is symmetric, and that on such disputed topics *everyone* is biased to believe what they do by their politics in the same sort of way, that people persist in believing that only the *other* side is biased and incorrect?

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

what you believe most likely has more to do with your politics than what's correct.

That a general rule might be valid doesn't mean it applies to any particular individual. Do you think what you believe has more to do with your politics than what is correct?

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Dan - chances are your millennials are showing eminently good sense in distinguishing science from cultural variables. Possibly they are fans of Jordan Peterson:

"......Sociology? It’s done. Social work? It’s corrupt. Faculties of education? They are so done they are not salvageable, as far as I can tell. Anthropology, history, literature, the humanities, generally speaking, they are done. ...Law is the worst of the bunch."

http://quillette.com/2018/01/27/walking-tightrope-chaos-order-interview-jordan-b-peterson/

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

"That a general rule might be valid doesn't mean it applies to any particular individual."

That's why I said "most likely".

But this is what always happens in these cases. There's a general rule that makes people's beliefs unreliable about certain topics. If somebody ignores the rule in one direction - generalising about conservatives, saying they're wrong and biased - you don't appear to notice. When someone points out that the same rule applies just as much to liberals - you *do* suddenly notice, and pipe up with an objection. This fits the predicted pattern perfectly. Even though they claim to accept the symmetry thesis, lots of people only ever apply the general rule one-sidedly. The *other* side is always wrong and biased, *their* side consists entirely of scientifically-educated individual exceptions to the rule.

For such a collection of exceptional individuals, you guys sure do take every opportunity to confirm the predictions of the general rule!

As you know, the IPCC's "consensus" position on attribution of climate change to anthropogenic causes was: "The approaches used in detection and attribution research described above cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgement is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change." Plenty of people think that the opinions of experts based on work of unquantifiable uncertainty doesn't constitute "solid evidence" ("'Science' is the belief in the ignorance of experts"), although obviously whether any of us do or not in this case depends more on our politics than the principle's correctness.

A good scientist tries hard not to do that. If I do it and it's drawn to my attention, I take that seriously. But I'm not stupid enough to think I'm never lazy and careless about checking stuff I already believe as carefully as I check the stuff I disagree with, which as I've repeatedly said is why I like to debate it with people who disagree with me and are sure to point out my blindspots. I do enjoy our little arguments! And it's only polite for me to return the favour!

Yes, it's *possible* Aaron is an exception to the rule. What *evidence* do you have that he is? Do you actually *believe* in the symmetry thesis? Yes or no?

"Do you think what you believe has more to do with your politics than what is correct?"

Don't you?

:-)

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Jonathan -

I'm thinking you must have seen this... But just in case.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3110929

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Can't help but notice you didn't answer the question.

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Yes, it's *possible* Aaron is an exception to the rule. What *evidence* do you have that he is? Do you actually *believe* in the symmetry thesis? Yes or no?


That thinking runs pretty much diametrical to my own. In my thinking, it is a false dilemma to try to figure out who might be an "exception to the rule," as we have no basis for the very question in context. I think it is useful to work with the idea that the general patten applies, and completely useless, let alone illogical, to make any conjecture, either way, with respect to any given individual - certainly without a crossing a high bar of evidence with which to ground such conjecture. Thinking that you have enough evidence to even venture a viable guess based on a brief blog comment, absent any first hand knowledge about the individual, as you just did, looks rather like motivated reasoning in my book. In my book, the fact that the general rule applies is not a valid reason to bet what is "likely" for any particular individual.

It's like when I read "skeptics" giving a testimonial about their path to "skepticism" where they describe scales falling from their eyes once they stumbled across "climate gate" or some such catalyst, and offer such a path as an explanation for "skeptics" in general. And of course, the vast majority of times I've seen such testimonials, I've seen right wing ideology expressed by those very same "skeptics." Now I am often tempted to say that it is "likely" that their views have "most to do with" their politics. But I know that would be wrong. In fact, I have no idea what is "likely" to the explanation for what their beliefs "have to do with." But what I also know is wrong is when they extrapolate from their own views, as outliers, to explain why other "skeptics" belief as they do - not only because they are extrapolating from outliers, but also because their proposed etiology, as it were, would not likely be correct because it fails to account for the overwhelming ideological associations with views on climate a change that parallel patterns in views on many other similar topics as well.

If you get my drift. 😎

How back to that answer to my question....

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Initial thoughts: Presuming a random sample of the public, the position they each occupy anywhere in these charts whether red or blue, has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or any knowledge of the climate system (even high OSI by Dan's measure, does not grant such). It is to do only with cultural mechanics. And these are dual culture charts of a 3 culture system, the 3rd of which only arrived approximately with the millennials, plus has an asymmetrical relationship to red and blue. The centre of the silent generation would be about 50ish with that arrival, and likely have very mature political outlooks with more pre-bias towards official party positions, which may not be as dependent on the actual nature of particular issues. Nevertheless their position polarizes somewhat with increasing OSI from a greater av gap, as it also does more with the Boomers and GenX from a more common starting position. Knowledge is part of culture (steepest part of gradients are often in the early, knowledge dominated part of Dan's OSI scale), and it seems cog skills defending culture add to this later down the curves. Much of the very same data can be interpreted differently in different matrix relationships (and therefore meanings) of knowledge, as stored for different cultures. So left to right on the charts is a cultural journey, rather than one of true education as we would normally consider it for largely culturally untainted topics. However as Aaron rightly points out, for the millennials, the educatuion system is different, not only with GW now formally taught, but being entirely appropriated by the 3rd culture, which itself is driven by narratives that represent, to use Dan's term, a major 'pollution of science communication'. Hence I presume this has curtained off for the millennial conservatives routes to acquire skeptical knowledge, which perhaps they aren't so aware exist, though they maintain their cultural resistance too. I do find it somewhat surprising that routes via older cultural travelers would not have more effect, but maybe there is a generation gap thing going on here, and it may be this flat-line will tilt with further aging. The very low initial starting position for millennial Dems is likely a sign of over-culturalization. E.g. excessive consensus hammering and / or fear messaging associated with GW orthodoxy, creating a 'negative start' that is only expunged at the ~20% OSI mark. If so, futher progression of such messaging (messaging strategies tend to have a life of their own, as the messengers are not objective), will cause that under-start to get worse, and it could, potentially, one day flip the whole line. Innate skepticism is cultural value dependent, but historically seems to form a strong reaction to over-culturalization (and in fact one that is never zero so every culture has this as an oppositional balance) as well as to 'alien' cultures. My initial guess is that this effect is stronger for low OSI millennial Dems, than belief is for equivalent Reps regarding their party's position on GW.

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

Joshua, Thanks - I missed that one. It evaded my semi-daily SSRN search.

Here's one for you: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190142

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

I wonder if different generations are consuming different media...

January 29, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterRobin

Joshua and Gordon:

I think I figured out why "Cognitive Reflection and the 2016 US Presidential Election" is not showing up in some SSRN searches - it has an empty posted date field. I sort my searches by "Date Posted, descending" and that appears to eliminate any without a posted date. Maybe if I was a libertarian, I would have noticed that sooner (but maybe not tell you because, hey, you're on your own).

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan:

The POTUS paper is still "under review" by SSRN, which is probably why it doesn't have a posted date and isn't yet showing up on the searches.

Don't ask me what, if anything, SSRN "reviews".

Hope you enjoy the paper!

-Gord

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterGord Pennycook

Gord,

From the POTUS paper - "Cognitive reflection is a stable trait." due out soon?

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan,

Yes! Hopefully this week or next! (as a working paper)

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterGord Pennycook

Warning: confused ramble follows...

Being a big-time practitioner of motivated reasoning myself....from the aforementioned paper...I cherry-picked the following to confirm some of my biases...(my bold to highlight what I'm cherry picking)...

Furthermore, although we find that Democrats/liberals are somewhat more analytic than Republicans/conservatives overall, political moderates and non-voters are the least analytic whereas Libertarians are the most analytic. Our results suggest that, in addition to the previously theorized positive relationship between analytic thinking and liberalism, there are three additional ways in which intuitive versus analytic thinking is relevant for political cognition: 1) Facilitating political apathy versus engagement, 2) Supporting the adoption of orthodox versus heterodox political positions and behavior, and 3) Drawing individuals toward political candidates who share an intuitive versus analytic cognitive style, and towards policy proposals which are intuitively versus analytically compelling.

So I always run into a cognitive roadblock when Dan starts attributing causality between scores on assessments of cognitive attributes and polarization on climate change (or other, parallel issues). I know that people smarter than I seem quite convinced of the causal mechanism - whereby "smart" people are "better" at coming up with rationalizations to confirm their ideologically-rooted biases - concluding that the causal mechanism goes in the form of:

Cognitive attributes (as revealed by higher scores on specific assessments of cognitive reasoning) ===>> more polarization

...but I remain stubbornly unconvinced. I guess in being a motivated reasoner who tends towards the intuitive, my sense is that people of all cognitive profiles are pretty much equally inclined towards motivated reasoning and polarization, as a result of what I consider the roots of the phenomenon: the inextricable role in human cognition of pattern recognition, and the role of identity preservation as a fundamental component of human psychology.

I don't see those root functions likely to be, at least materially, in a relative sense, disproportionately distributed between the "smart" and less "smart." And neither, in my life experiences, do I see any clear differences in how those root functions manifest in the people I observe.

So, my basic working theory is that strength of identity orientation is what best (i.e., not exclusively but in a relative sense) explains polarization in ideologically charged contexts. So, I see the basic mechanism as being something akin to:

strength of identity orientation ===>> "motivation" for analytical processing ===>> polarization.

As I've said many times, (but have yet to convince anyone) my sense is that scores on cognitive assessments (that seem to indicate "smartness" or greater tendency towards "analytical" thinking) are more of a moderator in the mechanics of identity ===> polarization than a mediator. And as such, the directional flow of causality is rather more complicated, than it seems to me, portrayed by that bevy of smart people who quite convinced that rather simply, cognitive attributes ==>> more polarization.

Of course, the main problem with my way of seeing it (in a circular fashion, at least as I see it) is then, why would there be a mechanism of linkage between strength of identity orientation and cognitive profile (as revealed in specific assessments of cognitive attributes)?

My sense is that that connection is an artifact of a couple of factors. One would be the specifics (and lack of true validity) of the cognitive assessments and another would be the "cultural" roots of why various people score better on those assessments.

Anyway, the point of this ramble is to offer a question to anyone lunatic enough to have read this far: Given all these studies that are used to support conclusions regarding the causal linkage between scores on specific cognitive assessments and degree of polarization, where is the evidence that controls for strength of ideological orientation on the measuring of those cognitive attributes to which the causality of polarization is ascribed?

As a follow-on, in the excerpt I bolded above from the aforementioned study, where an association between being a non-voter and/or moderate and intuitive thinking is outlined, it also seems (to me) to be asserted that intuitive thinking ===>> political apathy, and I wonder how we know that the reverse flow of causality isn't (at least) in play?

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

From the POTUS paper - "Cognitive reflection is a stable trait." due out soon?

What about the paper, "Donald Trump is a stable genius." When's that coming out?

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Who knew that attending the State of the Union speech constitutes support of ..."an administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science." ?

A group named "500 Women Scientists", claiming to speak for "science", in a formerly respectable publication:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/bill-nye-does-not-speak-for-us-and-he-does-not-speak-for-science/

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

"That thinking runs pretty much diametrical to my own. In my thinking, it is a false dilemma to try to figure out who might be an "exception to the rule," as we have no basis for the very question in context. I think it is useful to work with the idea that the general patten applies"

!?!!

That was what I was doing! *You* objected, pointing out Aaron might be an exception to the rule!

"but also because their proposed etiology, as it were, would not likely be correct because it fails to account for the overwhelming ideological associations with views on climate a change"

Their proposed etiology *does* account for it - at least based on the evidence they have seen - because they are generally strong believers in the asymmetry thesis. The common hypothesis is that liberals all believe in climate change because they're gullible idiots with defective cognition (which is why they're liberal in the first place), and like to follow the liberal crowd. They have no knowledge of climate science themselves - they simply parrot uncritically the AfA 'ninetysevenpercentofscientists', 'peerreviewedliterature' talking points taught to them by Al Gore & Co. There is a subculture of liberals who consider themselves scientifically literate, but actually substitute knowing and parroting the atheist-fanatic cultural consensus for real scientific understanding and scepticism. As such, liberals who hew to the self-identified "scientifically literate" subculture are even *more* likely than average to follow the liberal party line on matters scientific. Science is their religion; their faith is blind. And if any of them have heard of the science of science communication, they write it off as just another pseudoscience partisan attack on conservatives by a predominantly liberal 'elite' of social scientists, who can't see their own political bias.

The claim that social science is impartial similarly fails to account for the overwhelming ideological associations. Why is such a high proportion of academic scientists politically *liberal*, if they're really blind to ideology? What are the odds of that happening by chance?

Personally, I think they're (mostly) wrong about all that. But I can't fault their consistency. They have a hypothesis that fits the evidence they know of, and they don't trust the judgement or motivations of the people who might provide contrary evidence. It's "The Liberal Brain" - to go with "The Republican Brain".

However, people here at this site *do* know of the contrary evidence, and *do* generally claim to believe in the symmetry thesis. The question then is, why do they too continue to apply it asymmetrically?

--
"whereas Libertarians are the most analytic"

:-)

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

@Dan

So what are your own early thoughts?

Regarding Paul M's useful suggestion, which may indeed have legs, it did occur to me though that *if* Rep millennials are indeed curtained off from pathways to anti-orthodox GW knowledge by the education system, it would require plenty of skepticism to stay flat-lined against all proffered knowledge, rather than rise up with OSI like the Dems.

If you are still framing the red line overall as a feature of cognitive dualism, what does this age breakdown suggest within that framing?

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterAndy West

Regarding Paul M's useful suggestion,

LOL. Sure, it's useful... well, at least for those who ignore the data about libz/demz, who the data suggest don'tget more "skeptical" as they get "smarter."

But then the question necessarily arises...useful for what?

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Oops..

(Trying to do too many things at once.)

"smart" demz/libz, who the data here suggest don't get more "skeptical" as they get older.

At least as I understand the data, "smart" demz/libz seem more or less equally "skeptical" across the age ranges.

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua,

Since nobody seems to like my there are no young economic conservatives (at least since Alex P. Keaton) hypothesis, I'll try to defend Paul M's hypothesis against your criticism:

Suppose that high OSI is unequally represented in the 4 quadrant model - more common in hierarchical individualists on the right and egalitarian communitarians on the left than in hierarchical communitarians on the right or egalitarian individualists on the left. Then suppose that skepticism correlates with individualism. That gives us two left-right symmetric effects that combine into an asymmetric effect - high OSI skeptics would be righties.

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Jonathan -

I can't quite follow. Maybe if Dan graphed what you're describing...? But....

high OSI skeptics would be righties.

I have little doubt that high OSI "skeptics" (regarding climate change) are more likely to be righties. But going from that to Paul's conjecture - that "smart" people get more "skeptical" as they get older - seems to me almost completely unsupported by the data Dan presented, and most particularly if he was suggesting it as a general phenomenon as opposed to only with respect to climate change (in which case how would you disentangle the influence of ideological orientation?)

Leaving aside my skepticism about the (real world) validity of measures of "scientific intelligence," my first problem with any of these conjectures is that the data are cross sectional, thus causal conclusions are highly dubious, IMO. My second problem is that people seem to want to generalize abut far-reaching effects from data that are limited to views on climate change. Dan linked to data on age-associated views on other issues, in response to Paul's comment , but I fail to see how they support conjecture about increased "skepticism" in people as they get older, let alone increased "skepticism" in "smart" people as they get older.

My guess is that what the data show is pretty straight forward. People on the right tend to be more "skeptical" about climate change, and yes, older righties tend to be more "skeptical" about climate change, and older people tend to align further rightward - when viewed, importantly, in cross-sectional data. I don't know what longitudinal data say about whether people more generally tend to get more "skeptical" generally as they age, tend to get more "skeptical" about climate change as they age, or even tend to get more conservative as they age.

January 30, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

@Robin-- check out this Pew report: http://www.journalism.org/2015/06/01/millennials-political-news/
Likely Pew or other survey firms have done something more recent too

January 31, 2018 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

@Jonathan--

You say,
<<The "A" word (asymmetry) is back! Of course, now that I labelled it so, Dan will make it disappear. In fact, I'll help: what is the breakdown of economic vs. social conservatives among millennials vs. older gens? I suspect more social and fewer economic because the combo of being young and economically advantaged shields one from economic concerns. That, plus a higher tendency of economic vs. social conservatives to adopt AGW denial sentiments as OSI increases.>>

Can you say more about how these data bear on symmetry/asymmetry issue?

January 31, 2018 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Dan,

"Can you say more about how these data bear on symmetry/asymmetry issue?"

Not sure what you are asking there. My "A" word remark was just reflecting that your millennials graph is showing asymmetry. Nothing more.

About the hypothesis I offered - I suspect that economic conservative beliefs, which are those most correlated with anti-AGW beliefs, are underdeveloped in conservative millennials vs. their elders due merely to lower familiarity with the business world.


Joshua,

If you accept that old skeptics are righties, and that skepticism increases with age, and skepticism is a major driver behind anti-AGW beliefs in those with high OSI, then the combo suggests that the lack of skepticism could be responsible for the flat righty millennial curve vs. the others. Skepticism increases with age, but also pushes people right with age, so has little impact on the remaining lefties as they age.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

More on the elusive backfire effect:

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/01/29/yanss-120-the-backfire-effect-part-four/

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

To expand a little on my answer, climate activists have been deluding themselves for years, observing that older people are more sceptical than younger ones, and fooling themselves into thinking that this is "good news" for them because as the older people die off, scepticism will die off too.

But this isn't happening. Levels of climate concern have hardly changed over the last decade or so

http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ps_2016-10-04_politics-of-climate_1-05/

It varies a bit according to which graph you choose, but the general picture is not much change, despite the relentless propaganda. So the naive idea that people carry their climate beliefs from cradle to grave is inconsistent with the data. If it was true, climate concern would have soared. This leaves the only consistent answer - people get more sceptical as they get older.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterPaul Matthews

Paul Matthews - there is at least one missing dimension in the Pew time series you linked. The intensity of the anthropogenic global warming propaganda has intensified. Intensity can be measured using "memes" as proxies, e.g. use of terms like "denier".

Another missing element (not a dimension orthogonal to the first one) is that over time, and ever as the SJW rhetoric has intensified, dire predictions of the global warmists of the early '90s have NOT come to pass. People seem to tune them out - nobody wants to listen to screeching hysterics:

"The New York Times Is Now a Nazi Paper. Wait, What?"
https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/29/the-new-york-times-is-now-a-nazi-paper

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

This leaves the only consistent answer - people get more sceptical as they get older.

Once again, failing to account for the overt signal of ideological disposition on how people view climate change (no evidence of such among lefties).

Also, conveniently omits your facile inclusion in your earlier statement of the influence of the attribute of "smartness"

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Jonathan -

...and that skepticism increases with age,

Climate "skepticism," or skepticism (without quotes) more generally?

Although Dan has shown that older righties (using static measures) are more "skeptical" about climate change than younger righties, I haven't yet seen evidence (at least that I can understand) to support the conclusion that skepticism (again, which brand are you describing) increases with age?

and skepticism is a major driver behind anti-AGW beliefs in those with high OSI,

Yeah, well, there's that whole chicken/egg, direction of causality, factor again. I'd say that there is some strong evidence that in general (i.e., not following NiV's brand of reasoning) ideology is what best explains anti-AGW beliefs (among those who do, and don't, perform relatively well on tests of OSI).

I must be missing something, but I don't yet get how you're addressing my points.

Skepticism increases with age, but also pushes people right with age, so has little impact on the remaining lefties as they age.

Again, what do you see as direct evidence of such?

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Levels of climate concern have hardly changed over the last decade or so...This leaves the only consistent answer - people get more sceptical as they get older.

And according to Dan's (static) data, older "smart" lefties are no more "skeptical" than younger "smart" lefties.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

The intensity of the anthropogenic global warming propaganda has intensified.

Which, of course, is a completely unquantified statement, but moreover, also ignores the other side of the fence. Acceptance of "consensus" views on climate change used to be much more prevalent among Republican Party political candidates than they are now. Trump is the first president to advocate the position that the consensus view is a "Chinese hoax" (not sure if any other presidents have weighed in on whether the Ice caps are "setting records" and whether it's "getting too cold all over the place."). Surely, the advocacy of politicians has an impact on public opinion, at least to some degree.

Of course, Trump does seem to have gotten more "skeptical" about climate change as he has gotten older. In fact, his views changed dramatically on that issue, as it did on so many others, in a matter of months after he entered the presidential election. I guess the impact of age on increasing his "skepticism" has been magnified by his stable genius?

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Unquantified???

repeat
"The intensity of the anthropogenic global warming propaganda has intensified. Intensity can be measured using "memes" as proxies, e.g. use of terms like "denier""

Word frequencies can be measured, ahem! This is an OK source, there are better ones but they're proprietary:
https://sources.mediacloud.org/#/home

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Intensity can be measured using "memes" as proxies, e.g. use of terms like "denier""

That's one measure. Good for you. At least you brought something.

But if doesn't suffice for establishing the validity of your broad statement. Establishing a trend across one factor doesn't show that the "propaganda' (a subjective term, and undefined in this context, to start with) has 'intensified."

Try again.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"Try again" to somebody who got it right the first time, just because you were not able to understand it until it was repeated?

Perhaps reading over and over again until comprehension finally dawns might be the better option - at least as a courtesy to Dan and the 14.3 billion readers of his blog.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

"I'd say that there is some strong evidence that in general (i.e., not following NiV's brand of reasoning) ideology is what best explains anti-AGW beliefs"

I assume you meant to say *i.e., following NiV's brand of reasoning", since that's what I said. (i.e. "Since it's split on partisan lines, what you believe most likely has more to do with your politics than what's correct.")

"Establishing a trend across one factor doesn't show that the "propaganda' (a subjective term, and undefined in this context, to start with) has 'intensified.""

So since Dan's graphs are also "Establishing a trend across one factor" they don't mean anything either? Or does this principle only apply to conclusions you're ideologically opposed to?

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV


Or does this principle only apply to conclusions you're ideologically opposed to? </>

??

First, there are quite a few issues that u have expressed disagreement with Dan on. I'm not entirely sure how much ideological congruence there is between us. Are you?


I have offered the same criticism w/r/t some of Dan's conjecture.

In this specific thread, I have questioned whether we can infer anything meaningful about trends in the general public's attribute of skepticism generally, from one (cross-sectional) measure of views on one particular topic.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

BTW - the end of that You are not so smart podcast (long but good) on backfire has some news - Dan himself will be interviewed there in two weeks. Maybe Dan can use that opportunity to justify his ongoing belief in backfire...

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

... Should be... That I have expressed disagreement with Dan on....

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"Try again" to somebody who got it right the first time,

OK. If you believe that you have proven the (relatively undefined) stated phenomenon based on the evidence you provided, then there's really nothing more to be said on that topic.


Sometimes ya' just gotta sit back and marvel at the logic of a "skeptic."

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

"First, there are quite a few issues that [I] have expressed disagreement with Dan on. I'm not entirely sure how much ideological congruence there is between us. Are you? "

What on Earth are you talking about?! I've not said anything at all about any congruence between you and Dan. I wasn't talking about Dan. I was talking about you talking to Ecoute.

"In this specific thread, I have questioned whether we can infer anything meaningful about trends in the general public's attribute of skepticism generally, from one (cross-sectional) measure of views on one particular topic."

You questioned whether we could infer longitudinal conclusions from cross-sectional data. (We can, of course, so long as the likelihood ratios are not equal to one.) I don't recall you having an issue with Dan using only a single metric to measure it. (Which again is not in itself an issue - it depends on the likelihood ratio.)

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Jonathan -

Got one for ya'

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861

Don't have a link to non-paywalled version for common folk, but there is this summary over at heterodo (although I can't attest to the intellectual humility of the summary's author).

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2018/01/31/research-summary-intellectual-humility-and-openness-to-the-opposing-view/

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>