Hacker News Reader

Just recently, I was talking to a group of International Relations graduate students about global problems like climate change. I pointed out that none of them (in this case) had a background in science, and couldn’t even prove to themselves that the e.g. the Earth is round. So, “how can you possibly hope to cause ordinary people to understand, believe, and appreciate anthropogenic climate change?” I asked.

Predictably, most of the rejoinders were some variation of “we just need to show them the studies and the data”. My reply was that was that we all need to be more intellectually humble and realize that, even among us educated people, most of our beliefs come from having attended the right kinds of theatrical performances (e.g. a good lecture, book, documentary, etc.), which is the same for most of the skeptics and deniers. I told them that the best thing that they could do for their cause is to (1) make sure that they have a basic understanding of the principles of climate science and then (2) create a really good theatrical show that includes some powerful props.

> I think Dan Ariely has the right attitude towards all of this [3]. When we design things like buildings and bridges, we take physics into account. We know that we can't build a bridge a certain way because it'll collapse. Similarly, when we're designing for people, we have to take human nature (behavioral psychology, whatever you want to call it) into account.

The difference, of course, is that the laws of physics are, so far as we know, immutable. "Human nature", informed by the culture of the moment, is not. When we accept the strategy of "tailor your behavior to human nature" en masse, we create a feedback loop, without a clear picture of where it leads.

I think you're agreeing with visakanv's point while misunderstanding his words. What he's referring to as behavioral psychology can't be changed by changing society - it's only changed by changing the genome.

This is patently false. There are no fixed constants at the level of social behavior. Nothing about society is "purely genetic", and even if it were, the human genome changes all the time.

There are probably trivially few fixed constants of social behavior. The animal's feedback loop of encoding stimulus and producing response in environment is, though, determined by genetics. For example, you how would respond to me stroking your shoulder is extremely contextual. The given nervous system's training which produces the response to said shoulder stroking is a complicated and chaotic system born from fixed genes.

If anything the case for science and facts is better than ever before in history. People were burned at the stake for talking about facts in the past that didn't agree with authority or mainstream.

Of course, human nature (when given broad free choice) is to polarize into Pro- or Anti- (science in this case) which is bad for the overall conversations.

Solution: Stop caring what others think and accept that the world will often make bad choices, and do what you can.

> If anything the case for science and facts is better than ever before in history.

Oh man, you just reminded me of this really depressing passage I read in a book about biology that I had put out of mind. A career scientist was complaining about how basically he got into science hoping to do science, but witnessed decades of academic politics hampering scientific progress. It's distressing to think about how our own nature holds us back.

That's still a generally good description of science. Can I depress you more? The structure of funding still incentivises fictional work.

Who wants to run a test and fedex direct letters like Davinci's to top CEOs? A long form letter with detailed touting of your technical accomplishments as well as your ideas and inventions, rather than the currently en vogue brief email, "would love to chat with you and see if we can work together to power your growth and mission!"