I wonder if the study is able to make a distinction between solution aversion and what could be called "proponent aversion". That is, it is normal to be skeptical of a statement when it comes from somebody we don't trust. And our level of trust can be dependent from another statement coming (or perceived to be coming) from the same source. In this case, the proposed solution to the problem.<p>I've concocted an example:<p>Statement:
The rate of suicides among teenagers in the US has been growing steadily in the last two decades, to the point of constituting now a real public health emergency.<p>Solution 1:
Naturopathic nutrition, holistic and homeopathic medicine are fundamental to ensure the well being of the young generations - courses in these subjects should be part of the standard curriculum starting from primary schools.<p>Solution 2:
Standard psychological welfare assessment tests that can help detecting early signs of depression should be conducted at regular time intervals in schools starting from sixth grade, and counselling should be provided to those who display early symptoms of depression.<p>Now, I've no clue of whether the statement is true (I made it up). But I'll dismiss it readily as BS if it's followed by proposed solution 1. I'll take mental note if it's followed by proposed solution 2. I simply don't trust any statement coming from proponents of snake oil.
It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that.<p>(Go programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by generics as real, C++ programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by garbage collection and boundary checking as real, Python programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by static typing as real, same for Haskell programmers & lazy evaluation, etc. This is "political" in the sense, for instance, that a more popular language is tremendously more useful, so you want a language you've invested into to be popular even if it fails badly at solving a real problem; there are real benefits to denying it being a real problem if others believe it isn't real and that belief makes the language more popular.)
I've got somewhat unorthodox views on global warming that might make for a good test of this:<p>I fully accept that global warming is real, human-caused, and a major problem in the coming century. However, I don't believe we should limit carbon emissions. Instead, we should earmark all the money that would've gone into reducing carbon emissions (a carbon tax could be useful for this) into developing comprehensive evacuation plans for every major city, as well as a fund for rebuilding. As the effects of global warming hit (which will more likely be in the form of severe weather events than a global rise in sea levels), we migrate away from the hardest hit areas and rebuild in the areas made more hospitable by climate change.<p>There are two advantages of this:<p>The first is that many climate scientists believe that it's already too late, and a tipping point was reached around 2000 that's set in motion a catastrophic climate shift that we can't reverse now. Cutting carbon emissions now is a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have left. It won't actually fix our predicament, though it may slow it.<p>The second advantage is that this covers a number of contingencies <i>other</i> than climate change. A freak hurricane sweeps up the Gulf Coast, headed for Houston or New Orleans? No problem, all of the evacuation routes have been mapped out, we've built enough roads that the population can get out (as an additional plus, this helps rush-hour traffic), and the insurance companies are ready to pay out to help the victims. Drought in California? Move to Seattle or Portland and stop buying beef and almonds. It'd help if we let the price of affected commodities (water, and the things it helps grow) float to reflect their true scarcity rather than subsidize them.<p>The idea is to fix the problem closer to the symptoms rather than trying to get to the source. Accept that the planet's climate <i>will</i> change, and then work to adapt to that with minimal dislocation rather than prevent it from changing.<p>Thoughts? It's certainly not the party line, but it makes sense to me. And if you're currently a climate-change denier, would <i>this</i> proposed solution make you reconsider the facts?
In the past I've felt that arguing "X is not a problem" is sometimes a proxy for "we should not solve X" because it's taken as axiomatic that if X <i>is</i> a problem it <i>should</i> be solved. (And the solution, of course, usually involves compulsory rules enforced by the government or some administrative body.)<p>I wonder if it goes in the other direction too: people <i>exaggerate</i> problems and evidence if they like the proposed solution. Not even for personal gain, but for emotional reasons. (So not somebody exaggerating the threat of terrorism to consciously expand their power or sell detectors but <i>unconsciously</i> because of patriotism or a desire to get the terrorists.)
I am curious if this is hurt by people denying[1] the pain a solution would cause. A massive shift away from petrocarbon exploration would cause a great deal of unemployment (and consequently suicide, domestic violence, etc) in areas like Houston.<p>[1] <a href="http://m.imgur.com/r/energy/up6yu" rel="nofollow">http://m.imgur.com/r/energy/up6yu</a>
I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: <a href="http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/</a><p>Even though the article proposes something (green energy as opportunity for capitalism), I think there is a huge problem with climate change for free market proponents, and deeply inside they know it. I don't see how the issue, which is "the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground", can be dealt with free market only.<p>And I wish it had a solution, so we could get these people to cooperate and acknowledge that there is a climate change problem (for which there is a lot of scientific evidence).
Another related fallacy I see all the time is dismissing a problem by inventing a terrible solution.<p>E.g.<p>Climate change is real -> "So you are saying we should just shut down all industry and go back to the dark ages"<p>The establishment of Israel was unethical -> "So you are saying we should just push all the Jews currently living in Israel into the sea."<p>Even asking a question shows a fallacy, since it implies that the existence of an adequate solution is related to the truth of the existence of the problem. A very common example is<p>There might be innate differences in ability/interests between men and women -> "If this was true, what would that imply? What is your end goal here"
If "we don't like the solutions", this means that proposed measures are not "solutions", as they do not solve the problem properly. It's better to keep looking.
This results in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_withdrawal" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_withdrawal</a>
I think its simpler than that. No one looks at scientific evidence or anything else objectively. Everyone has pre-existing beliefs. And the nature of a belief is that you don't change it easily and it overrides everything else.<p>So its not that people don't like science or don't know how to think rationally. Everyone is just really good at rationalizing their pre-existing worldview.
Problem denial can take the form of claiming there's nothing wrong at all. But more common seems to be the attempt to jump straight to a 'solution', without any trial and error thinking in between. Which is OFC impossible. Either way I guess it takes a certain amount of imagination to perceive problems in the first place.
While it sounds very reasonable as far as I can read it's one study, three experiments, less than a thousand data points total. Let's not jump to conclusions here. Usually you need quite a few studies and a paper that repeats and summarizes them before you can say you have a conclusion, right?
See famous "The Black Knight" scene from Monthy Python.<p>Question remains, what can we do about people in denial? Because many problems won't solve themself.
Time to spend some karma.<p>Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same tactic.<p>The fact remains that current proxy studies are thoroughly insufficient as p̶r̶o̶o̶f̶ evidence of any long-term trend we can expect to continue in a non-linear system as complex as the global climate.<p>I guess these folks think I must be unhappy about the "necessary solution" (oh hey, it turns out to be reorganizing society according to their political beliefs!) but that amounts to an elaborate and silly ad hominem, nothing more. I think I'll write more about the "psychology journal ad-hominem" because it has become annoyingly common in recent years.<p>The science of climate is not settled, and will not be settled in your lifetime. Get used to it.<p>[0]<a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/full" rel="nofollow">http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00...</a>