Cautionary Advice on Opposing Climate Change Denial
Confronting climate change denial carries a social cost. That’s the finding of a study done by University of Exeter, as reported by Adam Corner in The Guardian: Social Cost of Speaking Out
Just think of the social cost in the 19th Century for speaking out against slavery, or against denying women the vote. Or, in 1938 Germany, speaking out against oppression of Jews? From the findings of this survey, you can be pretty sure the cost was high. Adam Corner speaks of the importance of “potential collateral damage caused by challenging climate denial. . . ” He warns against losing the climate opinion war by engaging in battles that may degrade your social acceptability and thus your influence. “Being right,” he maintains, “is not the same thing as being persuasive.”
At What Cost Speaking Your Mind?
I’m not sure whether Adam Corner’s mindset reflects a British bias toward politeness, or a pragmatism that could prove useful in changing public opinion. If the latter, then just how his prescription for “emphasizing positive social norms” could be carried out is pretty vague. You also have to take into account Corner’s using the outworn metaphor, “collateral damage,” to refer to a psychological condition. If “positive social norms” sounds jargony, and the use of “collateral damage” sounds tone-deaf, then you have to wonder about Corner’s analytic edge.
So just how do you arrive at the optimal balance (a “happy medium” as my parents used to say) of speaking your mind on a topic you feel passionately about, without sabotaging your message with perceived stridency or self-righteousness?
I’d say, if you feel strongly enough, leave it to others (skilled persuaders) to find the happy medium. I’d take a page from the playbook of the 19th Century abolitionists, who surely made many of their fellow citizens uncomfortable and lost friends. Would slavery have ended, or ended as soon as it did, without the adamancy of their position, thought of as “extreme” at the time? Extremes define the middle. The middle does not move without forceful challenges.
Warmth as a Measure of Persuasiveness
The study on attitudes finds that “participants in the study felt less warm towards the character in the scenario (and were less likely to want to be friends with them) when they challenged views dismissive of climate change.”
Participants felt “less warm towards?” Is seeking warmth really the most effective approach when the subject is something as crucial to the health of our planet as climate change?
I hear echoes of Dale Carnegie’s masterpiece, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” No one could argue against Dale Carnegie’s powers of persuasion, but we’re not all Dale Carnegies. Some folks are natural persuaders, and if you’re not born to it, is it possible to learn skills to make yourself one? Would it feel inauthentic? Should you go with your gut?
“Everyone is Ignorant Only on Different Subjects” – Will Rogers
It may be helpful to go with your gut (at least you can claim to be authentic if nothing else) but not to the extent that you insult or demean the antagonist. You can say “they (you) are wrong” without saying “they (you) are fools.” You have to keep in mind that surveys have shown that the average climate-change denier is more science-literate than the average American. (Although if you are a typical reader of this blog, they are not more science-literate than you.)
In addition to deniers being in general more science-literate than the average American—they are in general quite capable of twisting or selecting facts to fit their bias, and this is an intellectual skill. To lift an axiom from Discover magazine, “the business of deception is hard work” requiring more brainpower than truth telling. http://discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/08-true-lies
To lie consistently you have to keep track of more things than you do in telling the truth—and I believe this is the case with self-deception as well as with deceiving others. Deniers may appear to be crazy, but when it comes to arguing their case, they are crazy like foxes. To underestimate their smarts is as foolish as. . . climate change denial.