<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div><div>--------------------------------------</div><div><br></div><div>We all are subject to confirmation bias and motivated reasoning filters that with even the best intentions promotes ignoring or downplaying information that contradicts our convictions. What is especially disturbing are the research findings demonstrating well educated and quantitatively capable individuals will construct elaborate and apparently plausible scenarios that explain the world to suit their bias in a manner that appears clearly to ignore credible substantial evidence. It is very difficult to penetrate these motivated reasoning filters, when attempting to persuade someone of high intelligence of a different point of view. This limits the effectiveness of fact and logic based scientific arguments.</div><div><br></div><div>The following research from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project (with others) is focused on public views on climate change, but the broad implications may very well also apply to views on SARS CoV2 (COVID-19)?</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan">http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan</a><br></div><div><br></div><div><h1 style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px 0px 5px;font-size:28px;font-family:NexusSerifWebPro;font-weight:500;line-height:36px;max-width:700px">The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change</h1><div><br></div><div>Abstract</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail-abstract-text" style="box-sizing:border-box;color:rgb(80,80,80);font-family:NexusSansWebPro;font-size:16px"><p style="box-sizing:border-box;margin:0px 0px 10px;font-family:inherit;font-size:inherit;line-height:22px">The conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540) found little support for this account. On the whole, the most scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely, not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is characterized by citizens’ effective use of their knowledge and reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized by citizens’ failure to converge on the best available scientific evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this, “tragedy of the risk-perception commons,” we argue, should be understood as the central aim of the science of science communication.</p></div></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:02 AM Roger Hayes </div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><<a href="mailto:rhayesmoscowid@gmail.com">rhayesmoscowid@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Responding to Dale Courtney's comments (11/25/20) "Questioning mask and COVID-19 narrative," I find it full of untruths and callousness. Firstly, pretending the COVID is nothing to concern ourselves about, tell that to the 260,000 Americans who have suffered and died of it. Secondly, you say that people choose not getting tested for the disease even when they have been exposed or are suffering "mild symptoms." That is the height of irresponsibility and selfishness. Thirdly, you cite an Annals of Internal Medicine study where you claim there is no significant benefit to wearing a mask. The study was about protection of the wearer, not about helping to prevent the spread of the virus. And it did find some small benefit to the wearer. So you are misleading the reader of your column. Lastly, you seem to be bragging about a "local congregation" holding maskless services for 1,100 since May. You exclaim, "No masks, No hospitalizations, No deaths." How many people outside this congregation might they have infected? Way to love your neighbor Dale.<br></div><div>Roger</div></div>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></div>