Brain Limitations - 202

 Before I launch into the shortcomings of our gray matter, I will make an assertion. To act on a problem, we must have knowledge about it. Then, we must have a moral compass capable of motivating us to act. Finally, we must have courage to act.

I will come back to this at the end of the column.

When I started writing four years ago my initial area of climate focus was not physics but how we think. Physics was easy but many people simply refused to pursue knowledge. This, psychologists tell us, is because we have many mental processes which are, to put it bluntly, illogical.

If you lump logic inadequacies together three aspects stand out. First, we all form beliefs. Beliefs are sometimes called ideologies or worldviews. Second, after we form ideologies, we naturally and selectively choose more information to bolster our ideas.  This is called confirmation bias. Third, we are herd or tribal animals, so we gravitate to groups with similar ideologies. As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together.

Many groups have a leader who has great influence over their tribe. Psychologists label these individuals as “trusted messengers”. When these people reach this status, they can say anything and the membership will blindly accept their statements. The Nazi’s Hitler, the Fascist’s Mussolini, and the Communist’s Stalin were all trusted messengers to their core followers.

Notice, I never mentioned the use of science, facts, logic, or rational thought when we create our worldviews because all too often, we ignore these tools.

Once we create or someone else creates an ideology then our brain automatically looks for ways to validate the ideology while ignoring facts threatening our worldview. At this point, the worldview becomes part of our core identity.

If someone offers a counter worldview their information is viewed as a threat to their core identity. This causes what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance” which is a big term meaning mental pain. Many people, if not most, will simply deny the new information because to accept it leads to the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. It makes NO difference if the challenging argument against a worldview is an ironclad argument backed by facts, or not. Cognitive Dissonance works like a cognitive circuit breaker turning off rational thought.

Cognitive dissonance is even more painful if the tribe the person affiliates does not tolerate independent thought. Those who do not adhere to the tribally accepted worldview risk ostracization by their associates. In response, our brains latch onto tribal myths to replace fact. If a person accepts the myth, then the cognitive discomfort ceases. This process is called, “Identity Protective Cognition”.

Sometimes unprincipled people will go one step further in this process to advance their political ambitions. They search out ways to advance their rank within the tribe by subverting truth and fact with politically motivated lies. One of the worst examples of this was committed by a Russian Scientist under the Dictator Stalin. His name was Trofim Lysenko. Lysenko started as a dedicated biologist but his ambition within the Communist Tribe corrupted him. He presented his biology and agronomy ideas in a political form appealing to the Communist Ideology which ingratiated him to the Communist Party and Stalin.

The trouble was his ideas were not based on good science. In a free society like ours which demands peer review of ideas the science community here would have called out the bad science. Lysenko’s peers, those who called out the inadequacies of Lysenko’s ideas ended up fired, jailed, and sometimes even killed.

When Lysenko’s ideas about agronomy were applied to Russian cropland Russian yields plummeted. The same happened in Communist China using the same politically corrupted science. Millions died of starvation. The mismanagement went on for years. People denied the obvious fact that Lysenko’s ideas were killing people because these facts didn’t fit their politically distorted worldview. And, understandably, honest scientists clammed up fearing demotion, being fired, jailed, or killed.

The beauty of science in our free society is corrections can and usually will be made within the science community by fellow experts. Constructive criticism within the science community is not just encouraged in free societies, it is considered a scientist’s duty.

Additionally, in a democracy, political fools can be voted out IF the citizenry is educated and tuned in. If democracy is lost and an autocracy is allowed to rule, fools cannot be voted out.

Unfortunately for us, politically motivated lies about global warming have been with us for at least 30 years. Many citizens have bought into climate lies. The biggest predictor of climate denial is political affiliation.

Since we are at least 30 years delayed trying to turn the climate back to something safer, the government will have to intervene with incentives and market corrections to save our kid’s future. Statistically, those who abhor government action in the marketplace are predominantly conservative older men. With the world’s climate turning more destructive it is now obvious the decades old warnings by scientists were accurate.  The men who cling to unsupportable denial have succumbed to cognitive dissonance.

Do you remember the progression of positive action I mentioned in the first paragraph? The first hurdle is the acquisition of knowledge.

Climate deniers never get past the first hurdle because, intuitively, they know if they accept the facts then the path to climate success requires a robust intervention by the government. Accepting science facts challenges their market worldview which, in their minds, threatens their self-image. And, intuitively, they know if they accept the facts there will be a moral imperative to stand up. To compound this, the pain of supporting climate saving fixes means these men risk tribal ostracization.

Courage to learn, courage to step up, courage to speak up and courage to act is required. Do not think this is easy. For most, denial happens at the subconscious level shutting down rational thought before it can start. Deniers fail at the first hurdle.

I wish I knew how to get them over this hurdle but, at this point, we have the moral imperative to move on without them.

Added Note:  There should be no conflict, only respectful dialogue, between Christians and Scientists because all legitimate Christians and Scientists strive for truth.

Professional References:

Dr David Robert Grimes, Dublin City University, Physics

Search: “David Robert Grimes Skeptical Inquirer Jan/Feb 2022”

Dr. Grime’s Book: “The Irrational Ape: Why Flawed Logic puts us all at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World”

 

Dr. Ron Kramer, Western Michigan University, Sociology and Criminal Justice

Search: Resilience 2012 Sociological Climate Denial Ron Kramer

Kramer’s New Book: “Carbon Criminals, Climate Crimes”

 

Dr.Naomi Oreskes, Harvard Professor of Science History

Search: “Naomi Oreskes Scientific American”

Oreskes’ Books: “Merchants of Doubt” and “Why Trust Science”

My search engine is DuckDuckGo