On the Other Hand

Anything you learn changes your brain. That’s the point of learning. And different types of learning strengthen different parts of your brain. For example, learning math changes your brain in a different way from learning art, or learning to juggle.

I studied economics in college. One thing I’ve noticed is that other people who have studied economics tend to think a similar way. Some of the similarity is probably because it takes a certain kind of person to be interested in economics in the first place. But I’m convinced that the study of economics changes brains in a way I can identify after about five minutes of conversation. In particular, I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena. Cognitive dissonance is, at its core, the inability to recognize and accept other explanations. I’m oversimplifying, but you get the point. The more your brain is trained for economics, the less it is susceptible to cognitive dissonance, or so it seems.

The joke about economists is that they are always using the phrase “On the other hand.” Economists are trained to recognize all sides of an argument. That seems like an easy and obvious skill, but in my experience, the general population lacks that skill. Once people take a side, they interpret any argument on the other side as absurd. In other words, they are relatively susceptible to cognitive dissonance.

Recently I saw the best case of cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It was on Bill Maher's show, Real Time, which I love. Bill was interviewing Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, who has a book about global warming, called "Cool It." The economist made the following points clearly and succinctly:

1. Global warming is real, and people are a major cause.

2. When considering the problems that global warming will cause, we shouldn't ignore the benefits of global warming, such as fewer deaths from cold. 

3. The oceans rose a foot in the last hundred years, and the world adapted, so the additional rise from global warming might not be as big a problem as people assume.

4. Developing economical fossil fuel alternatives is the only rational solution to global warming because countries such as China and India will use the cheapest fuel, period. If only the developed countries who can afford alternatives change their ways, it’s not enough to make a dent in the problem.

The Danish economist’s argument doesn't fall into the established views about global warming. He wasn't denying it is happening, or denying humans are a major cause. But he also wasn’t saying we should drive hybrid cars, since he thinks it won’t be enough to help. He thinks we need to make solar (or other alternatives) more economical. That’s the magic bullet. His views don’t map to either popular camp on this issue, and it created a fascinating cognitive dissonance in Bill Maher (a fan of hybrid cars) and his panelists. Here are their reactions after the interview:

Rob Thomas said the interview "...confused the shit out of me." (Yet the economist was completely clear and communicated well.)

Salman Rushdie said, jokingly, that what he heard was "There's no connection between smoking and lung cancer." By that he meant the author was denying that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. (The economist said exactly the opposite, and clearly.)

Bill Maher said, "...20 years later, this guy is going to say, 'You know what? Yeah, there is global warming." (The economist already said exactly that during the interview. In fact, his entire book is based on global warming being true and hastened by fossil fuels.)

You can see the full transcript for yourself here. The interview is about 60% into the show.

http://billmaher.com/?page_id=209

Bill Maher is a brilliant guy, whether you agree with his views or not. Salman Rushdie is brilliant too. I don’t know about Rob Thomas, but he looks bright enough. Why couldn’t these three people hear anything the economist was saying? It looks to me like a classic case of cognitive dissonance . They literally couldn’t recognize that the economist was on their side because he suggested considering both the positive and negative effects of global warming.

I know I harp on this topic too much. But I do think that understanding cognitive dissonance, especially when it happens to you, is the only way to understand the world.

You can see this phenomenon on this blog on a regular basis. If I say Iran has a legitimate economic reason for building nuclear reactors, because experts agree Iran is running out of oil, it will be interpreted as anti-semetic. If I say the evidence for evolution that is available to me personally, as a non-expert, looks sketchy, it is interpreted as an argument for creationism.

In summary, if you ever plan to use the phrase “on the other hand,” be sure to wear your Kevlar underpants.

Comments

[needfornews]

urls to the latest world news.
the only bookmark you need
needfornews.com

[Mohammad]

hello people

I have 4 questins

can some one answer it please as sonn as possible
thanxxx

here

1: whta type of air pollution contribute to climate change?
namee the greenhouse gasses?
200 words?

2: where does this air pollutionf come from?> wht souses?
200 words?

3:how soes air pollition lead to climate change?
(explain the greenhouse effect)
200 words?

4: and wht can be don to reduce/ lesen this air pollutiong?
200 words?

thanxxxx

if u done this?

[Steve]

I have read State of Fear and am reading Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.

They are both Highly Recommended

[Peter G. Klein]

Scott:

I blogged about this very phenomenon some time ago:

http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2007/04/13/mel-gibson-and-social-category-bias/

How could you have forgotten? :-)

[pontus]

Only problem; Lomborg is not an economist. He's a political scientist (gone economist though).

[Marcin]

I only got about 10% of the way up the page before I got bored with all you open minded economists. Yes it's is all economics lectures, that's the secret.

As an engineer I find it quite funny. We call it trade off analysis. But I'm sure mine's not as big/open as yours.

[psychology prof]

Dear Mr. Adams,

My comment has nothing to do with global warming, Bill Maher, etc. Rather, it is of a more academic nature. I'm not sure how to say this kindly, so I'll just go ahead...with all due respect, your post reveals that you don't understand the principle of cognitive dissonance. Perhaps you should read up a bit.

[Branden Berns]

Mr. Tauhidi's comment only serves to support the assertation of this column. His point was not that India is a producer of cheap products in contrast to the commenter's view that Indians produce quality products. He simply states that India uses cheap fuels. This statement does not place him on either side of the fence. Another great example of cognitive dissonance.

[Syed Ibtisam Tauhidi]

What the crap did you say about Indians using cheap fuels? India is not what you imagine. The next time you use a computer software to draw a cartoon or write a blog... remember a part of the software might have been created in India.

[davea0511]

Those who define "cognitive dissonance" don't have the intelligence to intuitively understand the phrase. It needs no definition, as the meaning is intuitively obvious if you know what the words "cognitive" and "dissonance" mean on their own. Arggg! The idiots run amok. Adam's use of the term if perfectly fitting with the contraction of those two words. Only a simpleton confines the meaning to a narrow subset of what the contraction can be interpreted to mean.

[davea0511]

Maher is very intelligent, but he is a dim as a 10 Watt bulb. There's a huge difference between intelligent and brilliant and nobody makes this more obvious than Maher himself. He has said, perhaps more than anyone I know, the words "I don't understand it" or "I don't understand them", or "It makes no sense." ... etc.

The true mark of a brilliant person requires the ability to remove yourself from your own perspective and see things through the eyes of another ... something which Maher admittedly is incapable of doing.

This is precisely why he gets so many things wrong - like misunderstanding what Lomborg was saying. This is also why he spews so many complete fabrications - he's either too lazy to put himself in the shoes of another or he's too lazy to take the time to find out if the rumor he heard is correct. If you got a penny for every false rumor he carelessly claimed was a fact then you'd be rich.

Mr. Adams, your further shock me with your disregard of these facts.

[TallDave]

Trust me, Bill Maher is not brilliant. Above average, at best.

Personal experience.

[Joe]

Are there two types of economists? One immune to cognitive dissonance (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg)and one suffering from cognitive dissonance (e.g. Partha Das Gupta who recently pointed out why the "Danish economist" was telling a wrong story). The coverage which Lomborg receives demonstrates that in the name of economics one can talk nonsense and get respect!

[Joe]

Are there two types of economists? One immune to cognitive dissonance (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg)and one suffering from cognitive dissonance (e.g. Partha Das Gupta who recently pointed out why the "Danish economist" was telling a wrong story). The coverage which Lomborg receives demonstrates that in the name of economics one can talk nonsense and get respect!

[General Specific]

Scott Adams wrote: "Salman Rushdie said, jokingly, that what he heard was "There's no connection between smoking and lung cancer." By that he meant the author was denying that fossil fuels contribute to global warming. (The economist said exactly the opposite, and clearly.)"

First, Lomborg is a Political Scientist with a speciality in statistics (remember the old saying about statistics?). He's not an economist.

Regarding the smoking cancer quote, you interpret it with your own possible bias. What Rushdie could very well mean is that the doctor says "you need to stop smoking" and the smoker's response is "let's do research on alternatives to cigarettes" when in fact the solution is to stop smoking.

People don't want to quit smoking. And they don't want to stop using fossil fuels (One oil production peaks in the next few years and economic problems result from it I think people are going to puff long and hard on whatever form of carbon they can get--but that's a different issue/argument).

Scott Adams wrote: "I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance" and "The primary skill of an economist is identifying all of the explanations for various phenomena."

I actually think physics is a better way to learn about explanations and physicists who have taken at look at economics have found it wanting. Economics, as a social science, tends to be infected with ideological bias.

The problem with Lomborg's approach is that he selectively quotes information in order to make his case. He focuses on Britain when discussing heat deaths versus cold deaths because it looks good for Britain. For the world, heat deaths will swamp the gain from less cold deaths. He doesn't consider the populations that exist on the coastlines now compared to in the twentieth century in order to account for sea rise. He doesn't look at agricultural effects. He selectively quotes the IPCC report, only pulling and using data that supports his case.

The problem with Lomborg is that he really doesn't have a proposal. He's just telling the smoker to keep smoking and hopefully research and development might make a difference someday.

[Kymbos]

I'm not sure I agree with you on this. I studied economics and politics, and I'm now a practicing economist. I find that as long as a viewpoint fits within the economic paradigm, it can be readily accepted by economists. Where a viewpoint cannot be assessed numerically (for example), it is rejected out of hand. This leads to the rejection of solutions to problems which are less easily quantifiably assessed.

On the other hand, it's a rigorous and transparent approach

[Krzysztof Wiszniewski]

Actually I had a rather similiar discussion with my former boss a while back. He was vehemently for reducing carbon emissions. This took place in a room with no less than three computers running. He had just returned from a business meeting. In his car.

I wonder how much power it takes to get Bill Maher into your TV set. I wonder if HE knows. I wonder if he cares. Surprisingly enough, I don't see many people in favour of austerity riding around on bicycles. The general attitude seems to be: someone should do something about it!

My call to them: Reduce atmospheric CO2! Stop breathing!

[Dick King]

I was about ready to give up on Bill Maher, but on two shows that took place about a month ago, rather than mouthing the liberal canon when a so-called environmentalist came on, he called the "environmentalist" to task for opposing expansion of nuclear power in the United States while continuing to blather about global warming.

However ...

In the 2006-07 season he had a panel with two lefties and one reasonably articulate conservative. However, with the new season he seems to have given up on that. Now, as previous posters have said, it's a circle jerk.

-dk

[edh]

Part of the problem is that Maher's show has devolved, sadly, into a very predictable circle-jerk of the like-minded.

There is no more balance on his "flat-table" discussion panel. It's a non-stop Bush-bash.

When Lomborg's comments wouldn't process through the Bush-bash consensus alogorithm, the panel reminded me of the Lost in Space robot when overloaded, he begins to belch smoke and repeats: "Does not compute. Does not compute."

[Julia]

Understanding cognitive disonance is quite useful to buy in a supermarket.

Get a light chocolate cake with tons of chocolate chips inside covered with chocolate and made with real butter.

Light??!!!??¿¿¿

[Jacqueline]

"I don’t know about Rob Thomas, but he looks bright enough."

So, tall with good hair?

[Phillip]

Josh's statement prior was pretty accurate with what I've been taught of cognitive dissonance, which is dissonance arising between ones own thoughts/beliefs and ones actions. I think this is a much simpler case of the straw man distortion of Lomborg's argument, arising from the fact that Lomborg doesn't conform to the same exact perspective that Maher has on Global warming. As a result of groupthink, they suppress the actual statements made and see only what they want to see. Same thing we all have a tendency to do and must be aware of in order to avoid such fallacies. Maher's content is generally brilliant though, I agree.

[Sean]

Look, Scott, refusal to acknowledge facts is one possible result of cognitive dissonance. But it may also be caused by many other psychological effects. You keep throwing out this term "cognitive dissonance" but what you're describing is more about information bias and selective attention. I know it makes you sound smarter, but your misuse of the term is really starting to get old.

Cognitive dissonance is what happens when someone's view of themself is threatened. For instance, someone believes, "I am a nice person." You might then point out, "But you just beat a hobo with a stick of salami." This causes a threat to their self-view of them being a nice person. Confronted with evidence to the contrary of *how they define themselves* (the crux of cognitive dissonance you keep seeming to miss) they feel threatened. They must resolve the discomfort. They either accept the new information OR engage in cognitive dissonance. An example would be them replying, "Well, he was looking at me funny, and besides, Salami doesn't hurt that much." The answer doesn't quite address the problem, but it lets them explain away the discomfort.

Every time a person refuses to acknowledge information or fails to see things from a logical perspective isn't necessarily a case of cognitive dissonance. There are many other terms that better explain what is going on.

So stop getting it wrong.

(Now, the question is, will the fact that I'm pointing out your use of your favorite term is incorrect lead to you accepting this information, or will it lead to real, bonafide cognitive dissonance?)

[BioMaxi]

"If I say the evidence for evolution that is available to me personally, as a non-expert, looks sketchy, it is interpreted as an argument for creationism."

You're wrong. We just say that that is one of the arguments creationists use. And to them (and therefore to you too) the answer always is the same: that means you don't know enough. The evidence available to me, personally, as an expert, looks appallingly overwhelming.

[César]

All this theory that you are trying to develop in this splendid topic was ALREADY developed by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman in his heuristic studies. Harvard has an entire book and class topics based in it. I base my entire comprehension of complex adult society and economy on this Nobel winning theory. I´m a doctor, I have already attended psychiatry in medical school, and I´m really sorry for not having enough time to further develop this comment here, today, but I would be content or fortunate if you want to discuss this. I have exactly the same problem of yours. I´m a rheumatologist, already participated in stem cell transplantation (yes, some rheumatologists do stem cell transplantation and chemotherapy). Because of this, I have to study ALL point of views, ALL expert opinion and ALL alternatives to save lives, and people frequently do not understand that multiple point of view. They simply adopt "a cause" and follow it. This is "heuristics of availability" (Kahneman´s explanation). Please, enter in contact (for free, of course) to discuss this topic and some health topics, if you want. There are serious media studies showing that health issues raise the audience in any kind of program or newspaper report. With respect, César.

[Decker97]

I applaud you. I think you are trying to raise the discussion from the actual issues to how we discuss the issues. Are people smart enough to talk about how we debate issues, or does it get to abstract? I think people in general are smart, and have been about the same level of smartness for the last 100,000 years or so. Let's raise the level of dialogue from demonizing people to understanding each other.

[henry]

I didn't do economics, and Cognitive Dissonance is my middle name(s) [sic]

[Lazy Boy]

OK Scott, let's drop this charade and call a spade a spade. Cognitive Dissonance is just a politically correct way of saying obtuse.

And I don't mean it in a derogatory way but just as a statement of fact. Being smart is way overrated. I meet very successful and respected obtuse people everyday. For some, being obtuse is the very reason why they became so successful in the first place.

Although very difficult and potentially harmful to the patient, it is possible to cure someone of their obtuseness. It’s called a cephalocolectomy. It’s a fairly simple operation that consists of removing one’s cranium from their rectum. The side effects of this procedure often leave the patient with an overwhelming sense of guilt. In some cases the guilt is so unbearable that the patient will violently reinsert their cranium back up their rectum with such force that any future attempt to perform a cephalocolectomy will invariably fail. People afflicted by this latest condition will often refer to it as certainty, holy truth and righteousness.

Lazy Boy

[Borjan]

[I've written that quantum physics and string theory sound sketchy to me. But at least with quantum physics, the math works. That's a lot different from showing the non-expert some photos of bones pretending anyone can know if one descended from the other or was just a cousin. -- Scott]

Ah, but the math in Quantum Physics and String Theory works ONLY when you add (as yet not even glimpsed, but possible) new dimensions. That is - as skeptics say - a solution that's more complicated than the problem.

It could still be true, but we have to find those other dimensions before we say it's real, like we had to find Dark Matter or Super Massive Black Holes...

[kily]

so wonderful blog on learning something, No matter economics, law, or commercial.when learing certain suject,it always needs persistent, and patience, especially the language studying, which cause much more. Just as some one show in http://interracialsingleonline.com

[Amcguinn]

You say:
"It looks to me like a classic case of cognitive dissonance . They literally couldn’t recognize that the economist was on their side because he suggested considering both the positive and negative effects of global warming."

But the economist certainly was not on their side. For Maher and the others, the important thing is that a policy of austerity be introduced, because they consider it morally right. Global Warming is just the excuse. Global Warming is true because it justifies austerity. If Lomberg or anyone disagrees with austerity he is not on their side, whatever he says about the climate. By arguing against austerity, he is removing the reason for Global Warming to be considered true, and therefore he is anti-Global-Warming. Denier! Burn Him!

[workerant]

Or you could be an engineer see neither side.

[Ken Lovell]

While not having a go at economists, many of whom can be quite sensible when they can discard their absurd assumptions about markets tending towards equilibrium and people being rational economic actors, it's worth pointing out that Lomborg doesn't seem to be one, unless the term is so wide that it covers anyone who's ever taken any economics courses in which case there must be hundreds of millions of the buggers out there. I for example studied economics for three years at undergraduate level but would never call myself an economist.

According to Wikipedia:

'Bjørn Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned a Master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen in 1994.

He lectured in statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, as an assistant professor (1994–1996) and associate professor (1997–2005). He left the University of Aarhus in February 2005 and in May of that year, became an Adjunct Professor at Copenhagen Business School.'

Statistics is not a sub-discipline of economics.

[Richard Stewart]

Scott,

As an economics major myself, this caught my eye one day:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/08/sociology-of-economics.html

It talks about the different ways that trained economists think. Kind of the same thing you talk about here.

[Steve G.]

Calling Bill Maher brilliant is beyond generosity. He hasn't demonstrated deep thinking on any issue that I've heard him comment on. Which is fine for a comedian, but makes him hard to listen to when people are taking him seriously.

[Pervy Grin]

"God bless the universe!" WHAT?? Why on earth would YOU want God to bless ONLY this universe and not all the other parallel universes?? And why would God actually do that??

Can someone please explain?
God bless all the universes! ;-)

[Jonathan Burdick]

"Cognitive dissonance" is just a fancy phrase for "doubt". I just wrote the definitive post here:

http://www.girlrobot.com/leek/2007-09.htm#2007-09-28+15:50:32+1

and I've promised to update it, though not due to any lingering doubts.

Jon Burdick

[gr8hands]

Rob, anything less than "global warming" is downplaying the fact that the globe, as a whole, is warming. The globe, as a whole, is not cooling -- even through there are certainly pockets of which are cooler than normal (this is to be expected in a planet with weather systems).

If I'm warning you that the water is about to boil over, and you state that you agree it is changing temperature, that doesn't mean we agree, nor that you understand the problem or the scope of the problem.

Lomborg repeatedly used 'climate' -- which is defined as "the weather in some location averaged over some long period of time" -- even though everyone else was trying to talk about 'global' warming. That's why Maher said that in 20 years the guy would discover that global warming was happening -- because Lomborg's statements show he doesn't feel it is truly global warming, only climate change.

"Change" is less accurate than "warming" because "change" could mean "cooling" -- which is not happening on a global basis.

The economist kept purposely using the wrong words, which demonstrates that he is unable or unwilling to accept the reality of the situation. Whether that's endemic to economists (who show an amazing propensity to be out of touch with reality), or is just this one economist's problem, remains to be seen.

The use of particular phrases is important in setting the dynamics of conversation. Take 'illegal immigrant' versus 'undocumented worker' for example. The latter is not acknowledging the criminal element involved.

[Chris Hulley]

About the first bit of rational thought I've seen on the GW debate. Asking "yes, but what will MOST people actually DO" is always a good starting point.

Certainly, India & China will use the cheapest fuel they can get. That is human nature.

Another point is, WE will SELL it to them.

Or, if not us, someone else. That is also human nature.

Oh, sure, no politician will. Nor any actor or actress, or television personality. Or any other people who choose to pay extra for a hybrid. Or an intellectual, an academic etc.

But that still leaves plenty of faceless people with power, who are probably no worse than you or I, who are confronted with a personal economic dilemma: shall I sell a trillion tonnes of coal to China, make a big pile of money for the stockholders and $20m for myself, or shall I leave it in the ground?

Added to this dilemma is the certain knowledge that if I don't sell that coal, Fred Nurke from United Coal and Global Warming Pty Ltd certainly will.

Or, if we all band together and refuse to sell coal, probably some other country will. Or oil, or uranium. Or, China & India will dig it up themselves.

The only way guaranteed to work is to come up with a non-pollutiong energy source that is cheaper than a polluting one. The politicians at least recognise this with the concept of a CO2 tax.

[A.N. Architect]

Architects are also trained to recognize all facets of any given thing.
It's not for nothing that Architecture is called the Mother of all Arts and Sciences.
Having said that, on the other hand, let me tell you that I've given up all the dirty work that Real Architecture is in order to make Money, as an Economist!

[Lars]

All proffesions have their quirks- though those who study engineerign may be prone thinking in boxes and tolerances to start with they are far far worse at it when they are done. I seem to remeber someone saying that managers work around problem, and engieneers solve them. Economist apparantly argue wheter we should solve them or work around them.

Personally I think that Lomborg is right that we should consider what we use our resouces for in concern to global warming. Just don't forget that part of the way you develope new tech is to creat a market. The windmills we have today are the results of twenty years of Danish state subsidies to green energy- and now it's one of our major industries. If you make an enviorment where people can make money a fledgling technology with potential in the short term they'll most often use that to develope it in the long term. Its right to do the math- just make sure he's doing the math right...

[Anon]

Bjorn Lomborg's theories are basically this:

If you have 100$ and you can choose between spending them on a cow, a pig and a mule, it would be nice if you got the most value for your money.

[Craig Fluck]

DL from Heidelburg (up near the top), are you saying that it's a Bjorn Identity problem?

[Josh]

Sometimes the best you can do is shuffle the kitty litter.

Sometimes the best you can do is shuffle the kitty litter around a little bit.

[Josh]

Sometimes the best you can do is shuffle the kitty litter.

Sometimes the best you can do is shuffle the kitty litter around a little bit.

[Craig Fluck]

This form of cognitive dissonance is called Perceptual Blindness, we can't see what we can't 'see' It's the old double shot that ignorance brings, i.e., we don't know and we don't know that we don't know. Typically the ingnorant wrongly over estimate their knowledge due to this fact, while the competent usally guess that they are in the middle of it all, they wrongly assume that they are just like everyone else. I'm more familiar with CD as a conflict between one's thought and one's action, e.g., "the continued occupation of Iraq is caused somehow by oil, but I still drive an SUV at 80 mph." Sometimes we turn a blind eye to what we think (know) because we are doing the opposite.

[Jordi]

"God bless the world!" WHAT?? Why on earth would YOU want God to bless ONLY this world and not the whole universe?? And why would God actually do that??

Can someone please explain?
God bless the universe! ;-)

[st512]

This danish guy got a point there. But I see a second side of this medal: To make 'green' energy the cheapest you could also try make fossil fuels the most expensive. So go stirr up the shit in Iran, Iraq, Saudi-arabia, Venezuela, Russia and all the other evil fossil fuel diggin countries!

[it's me]

There you go again, Scott, saying Iran is a country full of creationists.

[VJ]

I actually think cognitive dissonance is good. Shopping with my wife would be so much easier. However, it might then be very boring and repeatable. Either way I'm f!@#$%$

[zxz]

I don't know what actually happens in the brain during these activities. But interesting to note is the close relationship between juggling, numbers, juggling numbers, and numbers juggling.

http://www.juggling.org/help/siteswap/dancey.html

Peace

[markb]

"Seeing both sides of an argument" -- you don't have to be an economist. Just get a good liberal arts education. You learn the same skill studying philosophy, art, religion, literature....
Old adage my professor told me when starting college, "We are going to teach you how to learn."

[GLK]

Bill Maher is simply the Left's Bill O'Reilly. Neither of whom I regard as particularly brilliant. Successful at spinning hyperbole into gold, yes. But the world is full of successful un-brilliant people.

[what-if]

"God bless America"
This cognitive dissonance is also very apparent in things like nationalism, which unfortunately is so strong with many of the general population. It leaves people incapable of understanding that somebody from a foreign country might actually have a legitamate different viewpoint on things.

"God bless America!" WHAT?? Why on earth would YOU want God to bless ONLY America and not the whole world?? And why would God actually do that??

Can someone please explain?
God bless the world!

[R]

"Economists are trained to recognize all sides of an argument."
I work in a business school. Many of my colleagues are economists. Trust me, the only side of the argument that they recognise is their own.

[jerry w.]

An economist is said to be someone who believes that when five people will come out of a room that was thought to have only three people in it, two people will have to go back in so it can return to an empty state.

On the other hand, I have four fingers and a thumb.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Sunil Bajpai]

You are a funny guy, Scott. On the other hand you do often make sense.

[Leonel]

Some random link I found about economics and economists:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/jul/11/the_ten_boxes_of_heterodoxy_or_why_economics_sucks

[Angela Johnston]

Sometimes a short attention span can be mistaken for CD. This happens to me with some family members. They can't be bothered to listen to a whole sentence/paragraph so they listen to the first couple of phrases and immediately make assumptions about the rest of what I'm going to say and which they then pretend to listen to. Then they respond to what they assumed I was going to say. It's different from cognitive dissonance because that involves the hearer actually hearing everything the person says and still categorising wrongly because of the need for simplicity and the awkwardness of complexity. It's not always easy to tell the difference. When I clarify with these family members it becomes clear that they genuinely did not hear the rest of what I said. But to an outsider it would also look exactly like CD, especially when it comes to political discussions.

But I also think that the reason they so easily do the short attention span thing is because they've suffered from CD a lot as well meaning that they've already simplified things in their minds about my views. Therefore in the future, based on their having categorised me, in their minds it is perfectly legitimate for them to respond to what they've imagined I've said because they 'know' that that is what I think.

[Mark]

"Now warming is real. If temperature trends continue in the cycles they have, we are due for global warming.

Okay, I just know there are people who want to attack me for what I said.

Posted by: Adrian D."

Well of course, you're going to be attacked for what you said. You're wrong. We've actually been in a warm period for longer than the average. There have been longer and there have been a lot shorter. So, if temperature trends continue, we are due for an ice age.

If I said "George Bush is a hamster-eating alien, looking to ruin the Earth for the alien invasion force" I would be attacked for what I said. Likely told I'm a loon. And, oddly, this doesn't make my statement about Bush right...

[jerry w.]

A large part of what I really like about this blog is how Scott will go along with what the people that have a comment will say, with little regard as to their agreement or not with his position.

A certain amount of this is done just to watch the various monkey dance routines, usually fun for all and seldom tiresome. But to have posters slam him for making (most of the time) ironic statements day after day, well it's got to hurt sometimes.

I have to think that if this site had a parking lot, any short yellow bus would be lost in a crowd of similar vehicles, parked in nice rows.

I'm not sure where all of this is going, but I just wanted to express my gratitude for providing us a forum where almost anything goes. I remember the day when, as it turned out, Scott was just on his way to a vacation and because of technical issues, was unable to post on his regular schedule. In spite of his "eat no food made of meat" lifestyle, I was sure that internal body parts failure had knocked him down, and this was no longer going to be an open to all playground.

Glad I was wrong.

Live long and perspire (in your Kevlar undies) Scott.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Ibid]

There are certain inherent ways of thinking that lead people into certain jobs. Proofreaders tend to be very anal retentive. Surgeons tend toward being analytical and not terribly good with people where internists tend toward being better with people but lose some of their technical skills. So certain people go into those jobs, but the jobs then enhance that type of thinking.

I keep certain authors' works handy for when I'm trying to write certain ways. Larry Niven (specifically "Ringworld") helps me write outlines and background. Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams help me phrase things how I want. Kim Stanley Robinson has helped my blog a few times. When writing code I work best with something heavy with a beat playing. It's a temporary measure, but what you're reading, watching, listening to influences your thinking for short periods. So I totally believe that talking economics for five minutes can also alter how you think.

As far as the discussion on Bill Maher goes I'd say they spent their time thinking about what they were going to say instead of what was being said.

[Steven McDaniel]

mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com:

"P.S. When you are you going to study my many words of wisdom and express your excitement and enlightenment in a blog-post of yours? You know I'm not getting any younger..."

Yeah, Scott, what he said about me too..

[DL From Heidelberg]

I'm paraphrasing here but who was it that said an economist is someone who predicted 13 of the last four recessions?

[DL From Heidelberg]

Scott,
I agree with your observation on CD. But it also smells like a thinly veiled whine. You have a blog; you write controversial opinions designed to solicit comments; and then seem to be puzzled when people disagree with you. (Implying they wouldn't disagree with you if they were smart enough to really understand what you were saying.) Maybe its the other way around; you don't understand what you're writing. Your lack of experience outside of your environment makes you unable to see that your words have a very different meaning to an audience that does not share your experience and background. (An an econ major you probably never took any courses on the meaning of meaning.)

[Allan]

Actually Bjorn Lomborg, is a Phd. in Political Scene(I come from Denmark). And he started his "career" by denying humans responsibility in global warming. Maybe Salmon Rushdie was confused by Bjorns different positions?

[Mark]

Jason asks:
"There is no observable, empirical, measurable evidence in nature to suggest that mutations of any beneficial reproducible sort occur."

There's no need. Just a change. there are hairless people amongst those you know and there are those apparently being attacked by a shag-pile carpet. Mutations. And currently, no need for one to die out.

Now if it gets much warmer, the hairy ones will be more likely to die of heatstroke. They will be more stressed and therefore less likely to respond well to further stress. This now puts evolutionary pressure on the population that will weed out the hairy people.

[Mark]

A twofer:

"Apart from that, global warming and rising CO2 levels are not necessarily all bad either, plants need warmth and CO2 to grow, larger crops are all good.

Posted by: Theo Bee"

Plants also need fixed nitrogen and other minerals. Global warming has no giarantee of producing more of this...

"He didn't realize the degree to which the Athropogenic GW zealots believe in their dogma. Their immutable beliefs can pretty much be stated as follows:

2. It's mankind's (mostly the US's) fault

Posted by: Bruce Harrison "

Ah, persecution complex. An american thinks that something that will affect him MUST be against him. And your rage against being responsible for your actions is taken out by demonising those pointing out the possible consequences of your thoughtless actions.

Classic

[Seth]

It seems evident to me that Joe is incapable of reading and has completely missed the plot like so many others. Let's summarise for those who struggle when they're not given cliff notes:

a) In this instance cognitive dissonance is reflected in the difference between what is actually said and what is perceived to have been said.

b) Because the Danish economist didn't burn his bra or whatever it is that environmental alarmists do, Maher and Co interpreted his statements (wrongly) and classified him as batting for the other team. (so many metaphors to mix, so little time)

c) Scott thinks that this behaviour is a noteworthy example of cognitive dissonance.

In this instance I have to agree that this is both interesting and a little scary because it's another example of the entrenched Us vs. Them mentality (far more common in the states than anywhere else except for the Jew/Muslim, Muslim/Hindu divides). A social phenomenon that I find rather repugnant. It didn't sound like the economist was entirely on their side so Maher and co stuck him in a pigeon hole on the other side.

Yeah... a little less faith in humanity every day.

[Aaron]

Claiming that economists are "relatively immune to congnitive dissonance" is a little bold, I think. No-one is immune. Even zen buddhists are not immune, although their religion is largely dedicated to trying to understand and remove the factors that filter their perception of the world.

I suggest that thinking one is immune to cognitive dissonance is proof that one is suffering from it.

[Joemer]

Cognitive dissonance is reinforced by conditioning the subject to defer conclusions to the primitive brain so that these conclusions will be ultimately based on the primitive desires such as Feed, Flight, Fear, or Fornicate.
Scientific study has shown that not only is the earth warming, but so are other planets. They continue to explain that the warming is partially the result of recovering from the last ice age and the heating up of the sun. Those who are conditioned to allow their primitive brain to dominate during a weighing of all the existing evidence are most likely to succumb to cognitive dissonance, where primitive survival instincts prevent them from taking into account this data. Societal tastemakers further the process by using straw man, red herring, and ad hominem techniques to validate this behavior and pacify those who are the victims of this malformed conclusion. In other words, make them feel good about being undisciplined in their non critical or pseudo critical thought processes.
This of course, does not mean that pollution and fossil fuel emissions are good or not harmful. They most likely are. Interestingly, the tastemakers, define both poles of this argument thereby oversimplifying it and diverting focus from real hazardous polluting practices that are not significantly contributing to warming but are significantly contributing to many diseases and the premature death of earth's inhabitants.
Those that are behind this are brilliant people, although evil, and have devoted a lot of study to how the mind works and how in turn to manipulate it.

[Mark]

"For example, in Britain we had a pretty miserable summer this year with lower than normal temperatures and quite a lot of rain.

Posted by: Rob "

And the Antartic had more snow. Odd thing is, this is still consistent with global warming: warmer air can hold more water. More water means more rain or more snow if it's cold enough.

Now the antartic winter temp is down to -30C. The earth warms up 10C globally. More water can be stored and falls down. But the winter temp in antartical is -20C and still cold enough to freeze water.

Hence, 10C warmer but more snow.

Here in the UK, it isn't cold enough to snow but more water means more rain (which cools the air when it evaporates) and more clouds (which hide the sun). It isn't inconsistent with global warming.

If it was globally wetter and cooler, THAT would be against the idea of global warming.

Really, it's a bit of a bugger.

[Brazilianguy]

Since this discussion will eventually head towards fossil fuels and that's a subject prone to be talked about here, may I just point out that oil ain't made out of decomposing dinosaurs. It's produced when organic matter is changed under very special circumstances, and that organic matter comes from smaller life forms, mostly algae. Higher life forms (plants) can also be transformed in that way, but they tend to form other forms of materials, like mineral coal and gas.

But getting back to the issue here, I recently saw a good example of cognitive dissonance. I went to the movies to see the documentary "The Eleventh Hour", that talks about climate change. Since most of the audience were defenders of the ideas in the movie, they readily associated the content with the quality of it, cheering and applauding the whole thing. The fact that the movie sucked never crossed their minds and my comments towards that were taken harshly, just because I said "some of the ideas are correct, but that was a very crappy way of presenting them and you should not accept statistics that are just thrown around like that without referencing".

Anyway, that's just my humble opinion on this. Thanks, Scott, for giving us a blog that can be accessed behind the corporate firewall, giving something to do in my cubicle.

And the first paragraph is a gift so people can benefit from my post instead of just reading another "in my opinion" post.

[IG]

Finally a name for it! This all makes sense now that i realise that people do suffer this affliction and that it's not that i'm being unreasonable in suggesting different points of view, even if i don't share all of them myself.

[Mark]

"It's also the reason why communism failed. Leaders of Communist states, being leaders, will be stuck with the concept that leaders should have power, as opposed to being on par with everyone. Then they will realize that the government owns everything, and then that power will crack em.

yeah....

Posted by: Adrian Emmanuel"

This is also the reason why capitalism will fail. The wealthy who MADE their wealth know their value. Their children inherit wealth but may have grown up "normal". And with enough money, you can't help but make more money. Then their children, growing up with all the money and the power that gives them start believing that they are deserving of that moeny and power. And so, as inheritance keeps the money pooling, the capitalist top dogs believe the inherent moral rightness of their power.

And so we get monarchy or communism but with people not in the government (though see if you can get someone not old money in the US presidency).

[Mark]

[I've written that quantum physics and string theory sound sketchy to me. But at least with quantum physics, the math works. That's a lot different from showing the non-expert some photos of bones pretending anyone can know if one descended from the other or was just a cousin. -- Scott]

Try it, Scott. As an astrphysicist I don't have the right answers wrt paleontology but it does have recursive self referential evidence (the distance to a star is based on the absorbtion lines, but these change with temperature and can be scattered mid-flight, but temperatures are taken from absolute brightness which depends on distance (um) or from spectra (um)).

Look at the human hip. It is markedly different from a four-legged creature because we can no longer go on all fours. Unless we are a baby. So an adult skeleton hip that is better (but not as good) as our hip at walking upright could be an ancestor. If the hands are less specialised than another similar age skeleton then we may have either quick speciation or dual-path speciation. So you pick more clues.

The bones of ancient animals are different for warm blooded than cold blooded animals, so (despite there being no hearts preserved), we can tell that the sauropods were warm blooded.

But you only know this when you start down the road of specialisation.

[wernman]

Brillant post, Scott.

[Joe]

Scott,
I think you misunderstand cognitive dissonance, but lets run with your limited definition for the sake of argument.

In terms of the economists argument, it sounds clear and succinct but their are still evident knowledge gaps in it. Such as with rising sea levels, you need to actually look at a map of where people live and what areas will be flooded before you can make a call about the impacts of rising sea levels. Also, with less problems from cold, fine - fair call - but what about increased problems from heat such as seen in Paris.

I'm not cognitively dissonant on this subject as far as I can see, but I think presenting an argument with limited knowledge that promotes complacency on what is likely to be a very serious problem is good.

Putting together a coherent and logical argument doesn't make it right, even acknowledging an opposing view point doesn't mean you understand its complexities enough to make a call on its relative importance.

The attacks against it may be a case of come sort of Ripperitis, but they also might be a formulated PR response to minimise the damage from a dangerously outlying statement that promotes complacency where action is required - the masses wouldn't get the intracacies because they all have Ripperitis too.

[Mark]

"He doesn't know any more (or less) about such things than you or I do.

[His non-economic pronouncements are from scientific sources that he references. -- Scott]

Posted by: Tom Beck"

Scott, those references would be from non-economists and therefore, in your mind, as guilty of cognitive dissonance as all non-economists. Tom's point is still valid. At least until the economist becomes a climatologist and engineer.

[Mark]

Figuring in all sides of an argument? Don't make me laugh.

2) ...we shouldn't ignore the benefits such as...

what about the downsides? Yup, upsides ARE persued. Climate models trie to include as many corrective feedbacks as possible. Never credited with it though.

3) Oceans rose a foot...

Yup, but problem is that when is the last foot we can handle going to happen? If you stand ficed to the bottom of an empty pool, 6ft deep, I can raise the water 1ft and you'll survive. I can do it again and again. When it's at 5ft and I add another foot to it, can I predict you will be OK or are you now going to drown.

On balance global warming will be bad at the rates currently likely to occur given where we are at the moment. Some of the ideas for fixing the problem won't work. There's plenty of scope for discussion there. Some will become necessary. The biggest "necessary" is to reduce the ammount of power we need. If that means recession then we can plan for it and instead of people being made unemployed (what's the point of being the boss of Ford if nobody can afford a car?).

[Anfauglir]

Before this, I had no idea who Maher was. Now I have information - that he invites someone with a clear and interesting view on his program, and (deliberately?) misinterprets what he says in order to get some cheap laughs.

I have no idea what Maher's show bills itself as. If it falls under "entertainment" then fine. But if he touts the show as having any kind of documentary or critical angle, then he is a liar, and a jerk.

Of course, that opinion is based only on a few minutes - enough to make a judgement? Maher felt it was enough time to judge Lomborg, so why not?

[Cristen]

Very interesting today; I am not an economist, but I have often noticed that I get accused of 'sitting on the fence' or 'taking the other person's side' (particularly when someone has offended my wife and I can see their POV).

But does relative immunity from CD make one intrinsically indecisive? I'm not sure...

[Ale.]

"I think the study of economics makes you relatively immune to cognitive dissonance."

Heh, you just proved yourself wrong!

[Matthew]

Lomborg is a political scientist and satistician.

[Anfauglir]

Having read this blog, and then the wiki piece, I was reminded that I never said "thanks" for recommending the book by Cialdini some months back - I got hold of a copy, and it was an excellent read. Thanks Scott!

[christian huber]

funny, i actually ever thought that getting the economics of alternative sources of energy right was the only solution to be seriously considered. and i thought everybody would agree to that.

btw: i studied economics as well

[Tatter]

I believe the difference was that Bjorn Lomborg just has better access to analysis tools. If you can step out of your pre-conceptions and use Porter's forces tool, then it becomes much easier to be rational. I studied a little economics and I feel just as bound to cognitive dissonance as a hysterical dancing monkey on a particularly high Potassium hit.
Life is too short to decide which tool to take out the tool box and analyse the crap out of anything that I feel I cannot adequately influence.

I do not think is not about being bright, I'm sure Bjorn would mis-interpret a complex sonnet to the amusement of Bill and Salman. Personally, I like my literature to include the word "Nantucket".

I does show that economists lack a sense of humour. Who wouldn't see Salman Rushdie and shout "Fucking Hell! Who is that behind you with a AK?". I'm sure Salman would see the funny side.

Never said "On the other hand", but "Ceteris paribus" comes in handy when a prediction goes tits-up.

[me]

re Posted by: Thomas | September 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM
"in addition, i think cognitive dissonance is mainly due to the Aristotelian two-valued logic (either-or) that most of us have learned from Western culture."

Aristotelian two-valued logic (either-or) is correct in its own context. Every process no matter how complex has certain True/False steps that you can pursue actively or passively by choosing to not make choice (randomly) and go with the flow.

As an example; When you look at a restaurant menu you may have multiple dishes but each one of them is going to come down to order or not-order choice. You can order multiple dishes or not order any but the choice is still the same; either order –or not.

I think we all have cognitive dissonance to some degree; perhaps those that think they are immune suffer more then others. Metacognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition ) ones ability to trace and diagnose why we perceive (know, do) things the way we do is what allows people to be more effective in dealing with cognitive dissonance. Engineers and analysts trace and diagnose causes and effects all day so for them its second nature, but that does not mean ALL of them are good at it.

[Nick]

It seems to me that while economists may be trained to find varied viewpoints non-threatening within the subjects they perceive as part of the discipline, they are just as susceptible to cognitive dissonance as anyone else when the conversation comes to question things they would rather hold as inviolable. For example: a friend of mine is a statistics PhD who recently started taking an economics doctorate. He attended a lecture on 'stats for economists' and was horrified to find the models being taught were outdated and would yield ludicrous results. He asked the lecturer afterwards if he would like to discuss the model. No, replied the other, these models yield the kind of results we need. When my friend objected that that might not be the point, the discussion... degenerated.

Maybe its more about what you don't want to question.

[neopolitan]

I am going to throw my 2 cents in, and add to the clamouring voices saying that engineers can be relatively immune to cognitive dissonance.

Let me note that I am an engineer myself, electrical engineering by undergrad education, maintenance engineering and management by the bulk of my experience and project engineering and management by post-grad education and current employment.

While engineers are not specifically trained to see all sides of the argument, they are trained to identify a problem and solve it. Engineers are well aware that there are a range of solutions to every problem and are, usually, masters of compromise. They certainly tend towards the most complex, all encompassing, rugged and hence expensive solutions - but can be reigned in by budget and schedule requirements. Anyways, an engineer knows there is more than one way to skin a cat so different opinions are not threatening.

An engineer often runs into trouble when politics becomes involved. Politics (both big p Politics and little p politics) is usually not so much beyond engineers as of little interest. Politics is often more about making people happy, giving them input into the decision making process. Sadly most people seem not to think "if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem" but rather "if you are not part of the problem then you are not part of the solution".

Furthermore, a lot of Politics (ie government level politics) is about ideology, which is complete bollocks for most engineers. Ideologues apply the one solution to all problems. From an engineer's persective, you can't take one prepackaged solution and apply it to all problems. You don't just change the problem to fit the solution.

For most engineers, a solution is the natural biproduct of scoping out the problem. If you can't see the solution yet, then most of the time you haven't finished scoping out the problem. The rest of the time the problem you have been presented with is impossible - and that is usually due not so much to a technical issue as a politico-economic issue.

Example: reducing usage of fossil fuels - this is not a technical problem but a politico-economic problem. Too much money is made from fossil fuels, too much of that money props up politicians and alternatives are not likely to be as lucrative (in the short term). Engineers can give you some solutions, if you have the political balls to implement them and the money to pay for them. Remember that not all the solutions are technical and so will have to be developed by less technical people.

Anyway, back to cognitive dissonance ...

It seems that a lot of cognitive dissonance relates back to either Politics or politics. People hear an discussion about a topic and form an opinion about it, is it good or bad? An engineer's immunity stems from not making that determination. There is no good or bad, no right or wrong. There is "it works" and "it doesn't work". An engineer's general lack of interest in politics, and distaste for ideology, immunises him or her from cognitive dissonance.

cheers,

neopolitan

[Andrew]

Only 2 years ago I started working as an analyst with economists. They rub off on you [erm…]. I see it every day – they find both sides of an argument, then use that knowledge to advance the view the company wants to see as right. They call it such things as “optimisation” and “everyone gets a slice from a bigger pie”. They often fail to notice that a lot of people see right through it and smell the BS. But people care less than you would think.

[Charley]

_____________________________________

Geven the qualety of spelling e see on thes blog et could very well be you'd be mesconstrued as anti-semetic

[Ranger]

Economists... Aren't those the people that always desperately try to use math to support their arguments, but since they're not very good at it, often fail and try to make up with lots of talk?

That must be why they're immune to cognitive dissonance. Once people have pointed out that the math supporting your arguments is flawed and the new math supports the opposite, you tend to be more open to reversing positions.

I once had a college professor made a fool of himself by basicalle saying that 2.7 = 2 (only he wrote that in a less obvious way), only because he wanted to use a complex mathematical construct (the simple math would have easily shown him where the factor 1.35 came from).

Note that in Holland we have Economists and Econometrists. And the latter excel in math. A good ecomonist always uses an econometrist to do the math and then bases his conclusions on it.

[Ian Smith]

What an absolute crock.

Economists are some of the WORST for critical thinking and understanding. These are the people that can take short term, empirical rules-of-thumb and consider them "laws", despite the fact that they regularly fail to describe the world and its actions.

What you are considering a positive point is nothing of the sort. The fact that an economist will try to present contradictory views to ensure that they will always be able to claim they weren't wrong actual hides their picking of the status quo option in all circumstances. These are the quintessential bootlickers of political life.

Take as an example, 1 foot rise in sea level over the last century (its actually 20cm) that is somehow supposed to say that sea level rise isn't going to be a major problem. It totally ignores the predictions of 80cm rise over the next century, or the more realistic predictions of METRES of rise over the same period when you take into account Greenland ice sheet melting. Its not a case of building sea walls slightly higher, its a cumulative effect that turns progressive more key land in non-viable propositions (see New Orleans). The whole conceptual basis of the statement is flawed because the real world isn't a case of 'everythings grey' - there are some things that are black and white and have to be dealt with.

What we need are less economists in a position to make or influence decisions, and a whole lot more scientists and engineers. We need people with understanding and the capability to make real statements. We need a whole lot less people who believe money is a god and that doing what you did before is an optimum strategy.

[Jan]

I trust this geek way more than Bjorn Lomborg:
(the 1st minute is boring, but please bear with him)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

The additional videos are especially great:
Patching holes #1: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EGpYI9LcJkA
Patching holes #2: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iBy8dEtiCc4
Patching holes #3: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FjqikCEzP7w

He reminds me of Scott. What a brain! Maybe Scott should pick him for vice president when he makes it to the White House?

[Aardwizz]

I think that WM hit the nail on the head.

From your Wiki link: "Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time...."

From your blog: "Bill Maher is a brilliant guy,...."
Implied in your blog: (I watched Bill Maher act like not a brilliant guy}

The dissonance between these two thought made you uncomfortable, and the resulting tension produced this blog.

You are not immune from CD, Scott.

And now you may likely do the money dance as you hold two thoughts ("I am immune" & "It's proven that I'm not immune") in your head, and try to rationalize why you're right and I'm misinterpreting you.

It's like you said in a post a few weeks ago: " Any incompatibility between a human and the world is seen as proof that the world is screwed up."
Or a few days ago, with sacastic reversal: "Evidently all of you are brilliant, so I assume the problem is on my end."

It's like you said at the begining of The Dilbert Principle: "Everyone is Stupid", and include yourself in that statement.

It isn't that people don't use their brain, is that they are more than just a brain. They are also heart and hormones and adrenal glands and bile ducts. And so emotion and desire and fear and orneryness is going affect their actions.

You talk as if you want people to be just brains in a bottle, rational 24/7. But that's illogical. They are whole people, as screwed up as that is. They don't, they can't, think with just their brains.

----

On the other hand, you are correct in saying that saying "On the other hand" does help sharpen the brain, so that when it IS used, it is used more effectively. Mental flexibility is as important as stretching and warming up before exercising.

What happened on Real Time (my guess, and only an post hoc rationalization) is that they didn't think with their brains, they thought with their EARS ("He said 'Global Warming is Good' - he must be ridiculed"). It's similar to when you pull your hand back from a hot stove. The thinking part of your brain isn't involved. Thinking doesn't happen until after your hand is safe. A "knee-jerk reaction".

You seem to have this on your mind alot lately. Don't sweat it, (Or maybe, these blogs are your way of sweating it out of your system. Can I push these body parts metaphors any harder?) Recognise that you and everyone in it are really screwed up, and think that they are thinking with their brains, when they aren't. It's the pre-programming in the wet robots thinking, not the brain (which clearly has free-will and the power to control all the other parts, right? - Lol).

©¿©¬

[Jonas Islander]

I'd just like to point out that people are using the term "cognitive dissonance" in the wrong way.

"Cognitive dissonance" is the uneasy feeling you get when you receive a signal that your thoughts or actions are "wrong" or contradictory. Cognitive dissonance is not the source of contradicting thoughts or actions - it's the warning signal your brain uses to make you aware of them.

What we usually see when people hold contradictory views, is not immunity to or lack of cognitive dissonance, but rather an inappropriate response to it. Instead of examining their beliefs and trying to resolve the contradiction, they may rationalise it away or try to drown it under the sound of their own voices. That's what makes people look so irrational, or even funny, when they are subject to cognitive dissonance.

But it's not the warning signal - cognitive dissonance - that is at fault, it's people's inability to cope with it. Without the warning signal, we wouldn't even be aware when something was wrong with our thoughts or actions.

[Steve]

To me this is plain common sense. It's so absolutlely fkn simple that I'm beginning to wonder if I've got cognitive dissonance the other way. I've been beating this drum to anyone who'll listen for the last 6 months. If only he'd gone one step further and argued that the repspective governments know that hybrid cars aren't the answer, but are using trendy global warming as an excuse to raise taxes. (maybe he did I'm too lazy to read the transcript)

[Statto]

Scott said:
[I've written that quantum physics and string theory sound sketchy to me. But at least with quantum physics, the math works. That's a lot different from showing the non-expert some photos of bones pretending anyone can know if one descended from the other or was just a cousin. -- Scott]

That's daft. In evolution, "the math works", too.

There are two different ways I can think of in which that's true (I'm only a physicist, so there may be more):
* Abstract modelling, where simulations are run and the best species "evolves" before your eyes.
* Genetic analysis, done statistically with computers, which demonstrates the genetic family tree.

This is the much-lauded "math" proof of evolution—and is almost word-for-word the same as the "proof" when a physicist with a particle collider discovers a new particle or, in fact, when a scientist models climate change.

[ShirtBloke]

The geological evidence seems pretty accurate that this planet of ours goes through an ice age every 100,000 years or so. And the next ice age is already a couple of thousand years overdue.

So it may well be that what people call global warming is keeping the next ice age at bay.

So what's worse? A relatively small rise in sea level, or most of the northern hemisphere covered in ice sheets a mile deep?

Speaking as an inhabitant of the northern hemisphere, I know which I'd prefer.

but then, on the other hand......

[ShaunL]

The whole ‘On the other hand’ economist thing is unsurprising because pretty much every economic theory is constructed from a slew of markedly ropey assumptions. There’s no point in overcommitting to something that’s quite possibly rubbish, right?

I think every assumption made should be prefixed with the phrase “Wouldn’t it be cool if…?”. So we get “Wouldn’t it be cool if there was perfect information?” and “Wouldn’t it be cool if there were an infinite number of sellers?”. And don’t get me started on the Dornbusch model of exchange rate overshooting.

Coincidentally I’m reading Rushdie at the moment. Great author but not exactly, um, grounded is he?

[AJ]

On the other hand,
the developed countries in Europe & America are the biggest contributors to CFC emissions, which deplete the Ozone layer, which contributes to global warming..
using hybrid cars is a small step towards reducing green house gases... its not the ultimate solution.
"The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step."
cheap non-conventional fuels have to be developed. there is no alternative to that.

[Kevin Kunreuther]

1.)I love Bill Maher's program, but if you ever met him in person, say, during a promotional tour, he's a Bill Maher robot, incapable of saying anything but pre-programmed responses. So, I view him strictly as entertainment, not as some annoyed yet above it all libertarian.
2.)Read the book. Agree with him. Unfortunately, Bjorn's now been mocked by a person of reasonable cultural influence suffering from cognitive dissonance, pandering to a large audience of sufferers of cognitive dissonance, and will by and large be dismissed as a crank by the media and public at large.
3.)This is why I do not take into account the opinions of celebrities - thank gosh you're not a celebrity Scott!

[twounicycles]

Sometimes you depress me Scott.

This economist was making a good point, no-one was interested.

[Arturo]

I don't think this "talent" is unique to economists.

If you want to see cognitive dissonance in action you should try explaining to people that Astrology doesn't work, or water dowsing, or any other woo-woo thinking.

[Rob]

gr8hands, the change of using "Global warming" to "Climate change" is not to soften it, it's because things aren't just warming, they're changing.

For example, in Britain we had a pretty miserable summer this year with lower than normal temperatures and quite a lot of rain. If people tried to explain it as being caused by global warming everyone would point out that it's not warmer so global warming must be a load of rubbish. Hence it was attributed to climate change (and the government can continue to invent new taxes and claim they're "green" while not actually doing much).

[Melanie]

Now I know what to label my husband - cognitively dissonant.

Does anyone have any tips for living with the cognitively dissonant?

We were watching the Rugby world cup (go SA!) and I was commenting that wasn't it odd that Tonga and Samoa, two small polynesian islands far from Rugby, England where the game began, are relatively important rugby nations.

He just looked at me blankly and said "How is that odd?". I prodded with some silly stereotypes like "Shirtless fisherman in grass skirts & body art? Sand & palm trees on a volcanic island with barely any level land and no lawn?" Obviously pushing the ridiculous but HE COULD NOT SEE that to plunk and old english schoolboy game often played on frozen fields of a largely flat, cold, grassy northern nation in the middle of that scenario could be concieved as odd. Obviously there is a cultural link via New Zealands involvement with these islands & their english history but STILL, you have to admit its a strange juxtaposition, ignoring all historical context. And yes I also see the African rugby tradtion can be viewed as being odd but that didn't happen to the be the point of our conversation, and trust me wouldn't have gotten a different response....

Now I know why he and I get into so many dumb arguments about nothing. They mostly consist of me saying "But dont you think its possible?" or some such and him saying either "I don't know I've never thought about it" or "But thats the way it is so I don't know why you are worried about what is possible".

[Francesco Orsenigo]

Very, very good point, Scott.

Since I decided to be skeptical about my own ideas, I found myself in a stronger position when arguing about controversed topics (but it's damn hard to be always skeptical...)

Stuff about CD and bullshit detection should be taught in school.. we may have healthier democracies than we do now...

[mnuez]

What can I say? I think you're mostly right. I'm not certain that I would categorize this under the heading of "cognitive dissonance" but whatever one would choose to call it, I'd say that you're right. Most people are ideologues rather than honest to God truth-seekers and they have the magical power to immediately deal with any cognitive dissonance in a way that anyone impartial to the subject at hand would recognize immediately as non-logical.

Cheers mate ~

mnuez
www.mnuez.blogspot.com

P.S. When you are you going to study my many words of wisdom and express your excitement and enlightenment in a blog-post of yours? You know I'm not getting any younger...

[Ferran]

"You just vehemently agreed with Lomborg while thinking you were disagreeing. Let's call you "exhibit B." -- Scott"
I fail to see how Susan agreed with the guy.
I didn't see the interview, so I'm based on your description of his arguments. Susan's post definitely don't agree with the 4 arguments in your post; so there are 2 possibilities:
1. The 4 points don't really describe what Lomborg defended. In which case she could actually be agreeing with what he said in the interview, but still not be agreeing with what's described in your post.
2. The 4 points describe well what Lomborg defended. In this case she is not agreeing to what he is saying, or not in a way I can see. If so please enlighten me, otherwise I can only conclude you said so only to piss her off.

I have a slighlty higher opinion of you (due to dilbert stripes smartness), that's why I was surprised to see this comment.

[Bradley Gardner]

Besides saying "on the other hand" economists generally argue that everyone makes arguments based on personal interest. In other words, few Republican who argue for the benefit of supply side economics are really doing so with supply side economics in mind, they are doing so with the lovely upper-class tax cuts in mind, similarly Democrats arguing for higher state funding of various inner city programs generally do so less with the knowledge that more education is the best thing for GDP, but more with the idea that "I want government money."

Its perfectly understandable that economists would be able to see both sides of this story, because after all, they are being paid to give good advice

[Prashanth J]

Hey Scott,

Reading through comments, (actually got confused while reading your post,but it went to a point where I had to put a comment for) I am somehow feeling we are not using a right phrase to say what we are all saying and meaning.

The phrase in question:
"immune to cognitive dissonance".
Isn't it meaning "being immune to the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance itself, which is to avoid (immune)recognizing the conflicting ideas/thoughts/arguments from what we are alreardy believing in and hence not trying to see the other side of it". That's, arent you saying exactly opposite of what you meant to say?
Am I getting it wrong?
-Prashanth J

First a real question: The other day I heard Alan Gree