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)

Thanks again, Joshua! Saw some stuff in 2016 on intellectual humility, but not much since. It could be an alternative to Dan's science curiosity hypothesis, or perhaps a generalization.

As for attempting to clarify what I said above: substitute correlation for causality (causality doesn't actually matter to the argument), and I was assuming general skepticism increases with age (and thought you were willing to do the same for this argument), at least for high OSIers, because that was Paul M's argument. By making that assumption, I was just trying to clarify how, if general skepticism for high OSIers increases with age, that would not necessarily happen much for lefties, hence Dan's graphs show pretty much no change for lefties as they age. But, anyway, this isn't my hypothesis to defend. I'm sticking with my no young econ cons hypothesis.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Yet more symmetry:
http://www.psypost.org/2018/01/study-leftists-just-likely-dogmatic-authoritarians-right-50674

no non-paywall version of their paper, though. I recall we heard LWA proposed in some video link that was posted a while back.

January 31, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

Democrats of the silent generation are interesting. They're the only ones who start at 75% accepting of AGW at low OSI. Not even the Millenials do that. I think they lived through the Dust Bowl and so can actually process the idea of great geophysical hazard. In fact, there's a uniform trend with age given low OSI and leaning Democrat; the younger, the less likely to accept AGW. This patttern suggests that people who lean Democrat are trying to think about how the environment affects people around them; succeeding, if they have the experience, failing otherwise.

The utter lack of response in conservative Millenials is also interesting. Accepting the first assumption (that the Democrats are thinking about how the environment affects people around them), I venture the guess that young lean-Republicans are approaching the AGW question from the more selfish vantage point of, "how does climate change affect me?" They know they can't tell. They know it's going to be big, but they don't know how to feel about it. And how much you know about science doesn't change what they feel about climate change, because there has hardly been any widespread messaging about what's good or bad in climate change adaptation.

If what's being measured in this question is effectively not a statement of knowledge but the general emotional affect about climate change, this is actually really hopeful for the future. Millenials are trying to see the opportunities beyond the fearmongering.

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered Commenterdypoon

In re intensification of propaganda on assorted SJW causes: 12-minute excerpt from speech by guest speaker given at Brown University on Jan. 26th, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gErZbD_tZKc

Summary:
Antifa man supported by the SPLC advocates sending all European-ancestry Americans, South Africans, and all others occupying "indigenous lands" back to Europe, and murdering those who refuse to leave. Calls president Trump "orangutan-in-chief" and MAGA "toxic whiteness". Students do not appear to react in any way - just watch!

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PS There is an internet "law" that extremist speech cannot be distinguished from satire.

But the undeniable fact is that the speaker in the preceding video - who may well be a satirist - is not banned from the internet, while the Daily Stormer - also claiming to be joking - still has to keep changing domain names in order to stay online. The Tor mirror fortunately works - that is, if the censorship software here will allow me to post it:
https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.link/

N.B. The video is properly attributed to the DS link.

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

"Poltergeist checklist" hilarious cartoon by Scott Adams in his article in yesterday's WSJ
(plus another missing post of mine, just above this one).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mystery-of-trumps-lousy-polls-1517355689?/

".... Anti-Trumpers take it as a given that this president is a racist. As evidence, they point to a series of news stories and quotes that seem to support that position. Your common sense tells you that even if some of the claims are exaggerated or taken out of context, there are so many of them that they can't all be wrong.

But as any cognitive scientist will tell you, they can all be wrong, and that wouldn't be unusual. Confirmation bias looks exactly like a mountain of evidence. If that sounds crazy, consider how much solid evidence the press gave us in 2016 that Mr. Trump could never get elected. Let's consider three bits of so-called evidence about Mr. Trump's alleged racism to illustrate my point:..."

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Jonathan -

and I was assuming general skepticism increases with age (and thought you were willing to do the same for this argument), at least for high OSIers, because that was Paul M's argument.

OK, if we accept that for the sake of argument...

By making that assumption, I was just trying to clarify how, if general skepticism for high OSIers increases with age, that would not necessarily happen much for lefties, hence Dan's graphs show pretty much no change for lefties as they age.

Well, ok, but then how do you differentiate between the effect of age and the effect of political orientation? I think it's pretty clear that the effect of aging on "skepticism," on the specific topic of climate change, is at least mediated by political identity. Or maybe political identity is the moderator and age is the mediator? Who know?

And it may well be that the attribute of being skeptical (without quotes) increases with age. I certainly don't know that it doesn't, and I can see a certain common-sense logic working there. But my point is that we don't actually have any evidence presented in this convo to support that perspective. (Let alone the assertion that "smart" people get more skeptical as they age).

And again, I think that a big missing piece in the whole convo is that people are crossing over between trends in climate "skepticism" and trends in skepticism (more generally). That, it seems to me, is a highly problematic crossover.

But, anyway, this isn't my hypothesis to defend. I'm sticking with my no young econ cons hypothesis.

I'll go back to look at that again. I didn't quite follow it the first time.

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua - if your latest outburst of boundless babbling is quite over, might I remind you that I (and NiV, who's much too polite to speak up to claim his turn, an affliction from which I've admittedly never suffered) have been waiting for the courtesy of a reply since the previous page?

Thank you.

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Ecoute -

I'm still working on more boundless babbling.

You're welcome.

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua,

A boundless babbling longitudinal study story for you:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/two-psychologists-followed-1000-new-zealanders-decades-here-s-what-they-found-about-how

February 1, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJonathan

How did the climate change flatline for the millenial demographic - Dan's original question here - has an answer:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/steven-pinker-excessive-political-correctness-feeds-dangerous-ideas

The NZ study advocates more social engineering because "all men are not created equal"? Guys - not sure how to break the news to you, but all this PC babbling is the most effective recruiting tool discovered yet for the alt-right. Personally I hope you ignore Pinker and keep it up!

February 2, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

Ecoute -

all this PC babbling ...I hope you ignore

I can quite assure you that I don't ignore all the "PC babbling" from Fox News, Trump, the Republicans in Congress, folks over at Breitbart, etc.

February 2, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Jonathan -

Thanks for the link. Very interesting article. I've been a bug fan of the Framingham heart study for a long time, first time I've ever heard of this study.

February 2, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Joshua

"I don't ignore all the "PC babbling" from Fox News, Trump, the Republicans in Congress, folks over at Breitbart, etc."

Perfect! I have just succeeded in giving an - ethically required - fair warning while simultaneously encouraging the very behavior strenghtening the alt-right. The Economist magazine - solidly pro-Clinton, going as far as to donate significant sums to her campaign, presumably via a US entity, since contributions by foreigners are prohibited by law - has been trying to sound the same warning, also with notable lack of success. From latest lead article:

"FRENCH railway crossings bear warning signs that writers of books about Donald Trump should heed. “One Train Can Hide Another” their neat enamel plaques declare. The risks of Trump-distraction are great, because the 45th president is such a spectacle—a tooting, puffing, brass-and-steam-whistle commotion liable to draw all gazes, all the time. But a narrow focus on the man risks a potentially grave mistake: paying too little attention to large, slow-rolling yet remorseless political forces that were in motion long before Mr Trump chugged into view."

https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21735579-two-books-look-changes-donald-trump-has-wrought-narrow-view-risks

February 2, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

PS The Daily Stormer link is back as top result on Google - the internet ban backfired. Spectacularly. Anyone getting queasy with the DS but still interested in the topic can look upTwitter alternative, now with 400,000 users.
https://gab.ai/home

February 2, 2018 | Unregistered CommenterEcoute Sauvage

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>