"Finally, here's a useful subject," I thought when I saw the Marketplace story Climate Change — how to talk about bad news. Maybe these guys could give me some useful advice
And the story's subtitle?
Talking about global warming makes people's heads explode. It's a tough subject.
Here's the audio. I will quote the story itself (a rough transcript) below.
Here we go.
It’s been almost eight years since "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore’s call-to-action on climate change. Now the televison channel Showtime is taking up the challenge with its nine-part docu-series "Years of Living Dangerously." In between these two films, advocates have learned a lot about communicating climate change. No. 1, it’s harder than anybody thought.
After years of dire warnings, a little over half of Americans worry about climate change “only a little,” if at all, according to a Gallup poll.
“At first the attitude was, the truth speaks for itself,” says Dan Kahan, a professor of law and psychology at Yale Law School and a member of the Cultural Cognition Project.
“Show them the valid science and the people will understand. That’s clearly wrong.”
That's clearly wrong! Let's list the DOs and DON'Ts.
DON'T show humans the science (i.e., with humans, the truth does not speak for itself)
Here are some more things you shouldn't do.
Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, says there are at least three things “we know that you shouldn’t do,” when communicating the science: don't use language people don’t understand, don't use too many numbers, and don't talk about “plants, penguins and polar bears” instead of people. Maibach says another error is talking about the threat of climate change without giving people solutions.
OK, that's three more DON'Ts.
DON'T employ complex explanations or use too many numbers
DON'T talk about animals—even if they are cute, charismatic animals. Talk about humans instead.
Regarding that last rule, see my post The Human Conceit. Also, that rule could have been framed as a DO, but was not presented that way in the text because environmentalists often use polar bears (or some other cuddly species) as global warming poster children. This next one could also be reframed as a DO (but see below).
It's all DON'Ts so far (given our qualifier). Let's continue.
Elke Weber, a business and psychology professor Columbia University’s Earth Institute, takes that one step further. She believes that instead of “scare campaigns” and “visions of apocalyptic futures,” climate advocates need to present visions of what a world less dependent on fossil fuels would look like.
“Focus on the benefits,” Weber says.“Scare campaigns work extremely well when there’s a simple thing you can do to remove the danger. But if it takes protracted action, over time, nobody wants to feel bad for that length of time. People just tune out.”
Here we've got yet another DON'T but we also have our first DO!
DON'T employ scare campaigns or talk about apocalyptic futures
DO present positive visions of a world less dependent on fossil fuels. Focus on the imagined benefits of living in such a world.
Visions? Benefits? Uhmm ... Well, OK, let's press on.
The real challenge, however, may be to talk about climate change in ways that don’t push people’s cultural and political buttons. Dan Kahan’s research shows that the way people view climate change is closely tied to their values.
People “aggressively filter” information that doesn’t conform to their worldview.
Ah, the heart of the matter. This requires a little discussion.
According to Kahan, humans "aggressively filter" information that doesn't conform to their worldview (political or cultural values). But a typical human's worldview, regardless of political or cultural values, does not permit (by default) acknowledgement or acceptance of Bad News, especially in big matters like anthropogenic climate change. And remember, anything which contradicts a person's worldview will be construed as negative information by that person.
Therefore, the more general hypothesis states that humans aggressively filter or reject negative information, as I first discussed at length in The Optimist's Brain (originally published on October 23, 2011). This appears to be closely related to what neuroscientist Tali Sharot calls optimism bias, which is associated with a specific region of the brain.
Thus humans also passively filter or reject negative information by means of hardwired cognitive processes or psychological defense mechanisms. Subsequently on DOTE, I pointed out many, many examples illustrating how such filtering works. That's clearly what we're talking about today.
Following Kahan's lead and my own insights, our next DON'Ts look like this—
DON'T contradict what people think they already know (i.e., their worldview, their political or cultural values)—this is Kahan's rule.
This straightforward corollary follows from Kahan's rule.
DON'T try to teach or otherwise educate people anything about anything which contradicts their preconceived beliefs—it's pointless.
And now, here's my "bad attitude" rule, the most general rule of all.
DON'T focus on negative (threatening) information, especially in big matters like global warming, the health of the oceans, or the long-term growth potential of the global or U.S. economy. People will aggressively or passively filter such information.
Or, if you feel you must do so, always include a spoonful of sugar (some optimism or obligatory hope) to help make the bitter medicine go down. It's OK to point out temporary setbacks in such matters while remaining optimistic about the long-term future.
Long story short, you're always expected to remain upbeat even when a positive attitude is not warranted. The climate change people have learned this the hard way.
For example, on a different subject, always ask Is the United States becoming a corrupt oligarchy? Never directly acknowledge or (God Forbid) assert that the United States is a corrupt oligarchy. Alternatively, make some irrelevant technical points about how the word "oligarchy" is defined, and then conclude the United States is not an oligarchy (denial).
And here's a further observation from Dan Kahan.
“And remarkably, the more proficient somebody is at making sense of empirical data," he says, "the more pronounced this [aggressive filtering] tendency is going to be.”
Ah! People aggressively filter information not conforming to their worldview even when they are perfectly capable of understanding and interpreting it. Analytical ability—Naomi Klein calls it our "capacity for advanced reasoning"—doesn't matter at all
Let's sum up. Remember, the problem is how to talk to these guys without making their heads explode.
And here's what we can conclude—
DON'T focus on scary negative REALITIES—data trends, likely potential outcomes and of course the science itself; more positively, keep things simple and human-centered.
Violating this rule will make people's heads explode, which is a No-No.
DO conjure up alluring positive FANTASIES ("solutions") focusing on the benefits of a world using less fossil energy.
If you stay positive, regardless of what's really happening, people's heads won't explode and life can go on (at least until it doesn't).
I believe these two rules really do sum up the human capacity to respond to potentially catastrophic global warming (and many other ongoing disasters). I hope you found this brief guide useful. Now you fully understand the awesome power of positive thinking.
So much of Human Nature usefully described in one short post!
Bonus Video — Neuroscientist Tali Sharot on optimism bias
Concise and handy. A keeper. Thanks.
Perhaps some examples might help clarify for those who are unclear...
BAD Messaging:
If humans cannot change their behavior, they (and many other species) are screwed.
GOOD Messaging:
In a few years we will be growing genetically modified corn the size of redwoods in the arctic. Don't worry. Be happy!
Posted by: Brian | 04/29/2014 at 12:15 PM