The parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change are striking. Both events featured stark warnings from scientists about impending disaster. Both required early, short-term mobilization that would head off severe longer-term pain. And both were routinely ignored and laughed at by right-wing denialists, with prominent Fox News pundits and Donald Trump (among others) labeling them both “hoaxes.”
So why do people cling to incorrect beliefs? UC Berkeley recently featured an interview on this question with Celeste Kidd, a computational cognitive scientist at the university who studies false beliefs, curiosity and learning. First, Ms. Kidd described the problem:
All of us stick to beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. All of us have beliefs that do not match reality. It is unavoidable. But it’s possible that some people are better or worse than others at keeping an open mind. Our previous research suggests that uncertainty makes people more willing to change their mind. The downside of that is that constant uncertainty can make us less willing to make decisions and act, which would make it hard to navigate life.
So can people learn to improve their ability to reconsider beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence? While her research does not yet indicate that training could be effective for intransigent thinkers, she does offer this optimistic note:
But I see hope in the fact that people are fundamentally social and that they seek to engage with one another. People are sensitive to the beliefs of those around them. When those beliefs change, people may reconsider their positions. That’s why talking about what is happening is important, and informed people who know the most should be talking the loudest.
Of course, when everyone thinks they’re informed on a subject, then you end up with a lot of noise. But when the results of certain beliefs lead to undeniable disaster, whether it’s a global pandemic or worsening climate impacts, closed minds do start to change — just hopefully not too late to avert catastrophe.
People who deny the overwhelming science on climate change may seem stubborn, obstinate and close minded. But not all of them. In fact, there are recovering deniers among us, and they may offer interesting lessons for how to reach others stuck in their former state of mind.
A question on Reddit about what changed climate deniers’ minds yielded some interesting answers. Yale Climate Connections then analyzed the 66 responses. The biggest reason was a slow acceptance of clear scientific evidence:
As the news site Quartz explained:
Seeing graphs of atmospheric carbon dioxde and overwhelming data supporting the conclusion that humans are rapidly, catastrophically warming the planet was convincing for many. “It’s just difficult for me to deny it with the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that supports it,” wrote one. The desire to safeguard the Earth, evidence of extreme weather, and dubious sources among climate change deniers sealed the deal for most of the rest.
Yet at the same time, past studies have revealed that showing climate deniers more facts and charts just gets them more dug into their position. So what’s the response?
Perhaps the most important approach is to start with one that disarms a climate denier. Frame climate solutions in less threatening terms, such as starting with solutions like geoengineering and nuclear power that can get deniers thinking productively about the challenge. Other research suggests that talking about what might be lost with climate change or what the impacts of following the denial logic might be could be persuasive to deniers.
Otherwise, these responses on Reddit indicate that continuous hammering of the overwhelming scientific consensus may actually bear fruit over the long run.
William Hayes is a defensive end for the Los Angeles Rams, and he unwittingly just offered one of the great examples of the flawed mental processes that contribute to climate science denial.
Hayes was videotaped by HBO’s NFL show “Hard Knocks” for an episode on the Rams training camp. The cameras followed him to a museum about dinosaurs. The hitch? Hayes adamantly refuses to believe they ever existed, as ESPN reported last year:
“No, I don’t believe dinosaurs existed,” Hayes said last month. “Not even a little bit. With these bones, it’s crazy because man has never seen a dinosaur, we can agree on that, right? But we know exactly how to put these bones together? I believe there is more of a chance you will find a mermaid than you will a dinosaur because we find different species in the water all the time.
“I don’t understand how [Long] just believes in dinosaurs. That’s just crazy to me. We know they died. We know what a T-Rex eats? That don’t sound crazy to you? We have never seen a dinosaur before but we know exactly where every single rib [was] and which rib goes where. That’s crazy to me.”
For many people (at least those who accept the fossil record), it was presented as comic relief to see him at the dinosaur museum. HBO hasn’t released the full clip but you can see an edited version with some highlights here:
What does this have to do with denying climate science? Well, the same flawed mental processes are at work:
- First, the gut reaction: this scientific explanation just doesn’t sound right. It’s privileging a gut, subjective feeling over objective evidence.
- Second, a complete rejection of any facts or data that contradict this belief. You can watch him simply stare in disbelief and reject out of hand anything the tour guide said, as climate deniers reject data on warming.
- Finally, although it wasn’t shown in the clip, an ability to turn the most contradictory fact into an argument for your belief (i.e. this fossil is so ridiculous that it clearly must be a fake). He even photographed some of the fossils to send to a friend as a way to bolster his case. Similarly, “smart idiots” are great at spinning away climate facts that contradict their beliefs.
Of course, this flawed mental processing isn’t just limited to fossil and climate science denial. Beliefs trump facts in many instances (pun possibly intended), despite the human brain’s generally good track record at making accurate snap decisions. If not, we wouldn’t be such a dominant species.
But unless we make more progress unraveling climate science denial, the other areas of flawed thinking won’t matter much.
