 People tend to believe some pretty weird things from NASA faking the moon landing to Pharmaceutical companies conspiring with government departments to keep people sick And climate change obviously. I mean, why does that happen? Why do people believe strange things like that? Well, there's a number of factors I think one of the most important ones is that people try to preserve their World view their personal deeply held beliefs about how the world should be structured how society should be functioning and Anything that they perceive as a threat to those world views they tend to reject So for example in the case of climate change, we know from a lot of research that The factor that is driving Whether or not somebody accepts the scientific evidence of climate change is not the evidence But it is their own personal beliefs about how society should function and in particular people who think that Society should be structured hierarchically based on merit Based on free market principles. They will feel Frightened by climate change not because the climate is changing but because Doing something about it would require to some interference with free market mechanisms some Sort of taxation some sort of price on carbon and all those things are inherently Frightening to those people and it's it's nothing you can trivialize because they're they're deeply held fundamental convictions and any threat to them is met with oh my god and a defensive reaction and That is when people just Don't look at the evidence. They look at You know preserving their worldview and being defensive about that So that is one of the major factors so People obviously have a difficult time Reconciling formal data evidence with their their personal experiences. I mean that that seems tricky to me And it also seems very counter-intuitive how they can look around and and and see things that are staring them blankly in the face I mean particularly with more trivial sorts of examples like the moon landing or vaccinations or something like that but How do they how does that happen? How is it that people can? Maintain these types of Very counter-intuitive or superstitious beliefs in some cases in the face of really Stark facts that suggest otherwise. Well Again what happens is that people tend to focus selectively on what they consider to be the evidence So they may focus on One data point in the case of climate change one thermometer somewhere that has been showing cooling for the last 10 years Let's say that's certainly true But it is only one of about a billion different measurements that tell us that the climate is changing and yet by focusing on just this one convenient piece of evidence That is protecting people's world view they can be absolutely convinced that they're right look here There is this one thermometer is cooling and they're ignoring absolutely everything else And it is extremely difficult to get people to go beyond that one piece of evidence because doing so Would imply that they have to perhaps change their opinion and that's a very difficult thing for people to do right So it on opinion change. I mean It is a very difficult thing particularly when As you said some things that people believe are so entrenched and they do hold very dear What's what's the most? I mean, I would imagine the data alone don't change people's minds Data you need a good story. You need something where they can hang on to their personal opinion while also accepting the new data Exactly. So the key thing We know how how we can reframe Problems so that they become easier to accept For people so for example in the case of climate change We can reframe it as a business opportunity for the nuclear industry for example Rather than as a need to cut emissions or impose attacks So and then the very same people who will oppose Mitigation efforts vociferously if it involves emission cuts They will say yeah, actually, you know, why not go nuclear for example So that is a reframing that tends to work. You can also Convince people that climate change is a national security risk Which it is according to the Pentagon. I mean the Pentagon is completely Accepting of the science. They know the climate is changing and why it is changing and they are Developing contingency plans for that because the security risks arising from that are very significant And so people who might otherwise reject the science become more susceptible more receptive to it if they recognize Ah, hang on. That's a threat to national security. So by focusing on different aspects of the problem Sometimes you can reframe it so that people are more receptive to the evidence Are there any things other things that you could do to kind of help Reframing things. I've I read your debunking handbook, which is quite good in terms of Kind of vivid information that the use of infographics. The other thing that seems to be effective is In order to bridge action intention and action making things that are clear With a very specific goal and so on absolutely. I mean you got to give people a specific goal You've got to give them what we call a sticky message that is easy to remember And not terribly complicated. So it's it's something like Climate change is a health risk and we can all be healthier by reducing pollution. For example, that is one Successful reframing that has been applied to climate change and it's perfectly true. I mean in fact We know that owing to pollution regulations dating back to the 1970s Life expectancy of people in industrialized parts of the United States has actually gone up by a year Entirely due to a reduction of pollution. Oh, that's kind of cool to live longer. Most people are Happy at that idea and so, you know by by having a simple message like that and hammering at home repeating it Giving people specific things they can do like, you know, take the street car or the bus rather than your car Install solar panels, you know turn the whole thing Into a sequence of very easy behaviors That is how you can move people along and one of the interesting things is that once people change their behavior their attitudes follow suit, right so And changing people's behavior is far easier than changing their attitude Yep interesting One of the major drivers I think in in the maintenance of people's beliefs and the formation of their beliefs is The role of the media now the media Clearly plays a large role. You've encountered that yourself. Absolutely. Yes. Could you tell us a bit about that? Well? that's a very mixed bag and not always a nice story because They are There's an abundance of evidence to suggest that Certain segments of the media have done a very poor job informing the public about a number of You know different Issues from the mythical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to climate change so the media are Culpable to some extent in providing an information landscape that isn't always reliable to put it mildly And and that that is a serious problem especially now that we have the ability for people to choose their own Media in a sense by focusing on certain sources on the internet Information has become far more fragmented people have become more immersed in their own sort of bubble of information they like and that is what they're consuming to the exclusion of everything else and There's a lot of research done on that that people have become more Encapsulated more polarized in general For that reason because people Follow their own instincts and they want to hear things that they like and so they're Drifting further apart depending on their initial preferences. That's a serious problem so Climate change deniers probably don't read left green left weekly or Very few people do but you know they they they wouldn't read the scientific literature and the scientific literature isn't being reported Accurately by certain media organs. I mean, unfortunately, we do have a lot of evidence about that that there is just a complete disjoint between the scientific literature and the media coverage Yeah, and Yeah, and that is a serious problem. It's a serious political problem. So this this is related to false consensus. That is people falsely assuming that other people hold the same beliefs By selectively focusing them selectively focusing are only reading certain types of literatures and so absolutely and there's again There's evidence of that for that. I'm thinking of one study that was done in Australia Just recently involving a representative sample of 5,000 people and again, they looked at climate change attitudes and they found That only about six percent of the population is denying that the climate is changing However, those six percent Think that their opinion is shared by 50% of the people so even though they're a small minority they think that their opinion is shared by half the people when in fact it isn't and what's particularly concerning about this is that The extent to which people overestimate the prevalence of their own opinion that makes them more resistant to opinion change Because one of the things that we know is that people do not want to be Outsiders they do not want to be seen as extreme They do not want to hold opinions that are considered extreme. So Their perceptions about what everybody else is thinking is actually extremely important Because if they falsely believe that everybody else is sharing their opinion Well, then they will cling to a very extreme position more easily. So And again, that is due to selective media exposure people choosing their own media to listen to and I think the Solution to this ultimately has to be that people are somehow nudged towards Opening up to take in other information as well to break down these epistemological little bubbles Where people are sitting in their own little camps consuming their own knowledge completely separate from from the rest of society. So I suspect that false consensus and Looking at evidence and not exactly Reading all the literatures and so on isn't just a matter for Climate change deniers. I would imagine that scientists are probably guilty of the same thing Well, I don't know that I can't tell you what scientists are guilty of because I haven't studied them much as much But I can certainly tell you that these are general principles that apply to to everybody people are social animals People generally are driven by the opinion of others So there is research to suggest that people's Purchasing decision on Amazon are driven by Reviews by complete strangers by members of the public who have you know, who say oh, yeah That's a four star five star or whatever. That's boosting sales and it's really kind of you think about it. It's Strange isn't it because these are complete strangers You have no idea what these people who they are why they feel that way about the book and yet it affects our decisions And and this is just an inherent tendency of people to look to others to to search information We're driven as Much or more by informants as we are by information. So as social animals, we look to others and So all these principles of Consensus being important perceived consensus of others. They apply across the board Totally. Yeah. Now the topic of the course Think 101 is the science of everyday thinking and our goal in the course is to try to give people the tools The sort of methods that might help them improve their everyday thinking had a long career of of Looking at the tools of thinking of cognition and memory and learning What would you recommend in terms of ways of improving people's everyday thinking? Well, I think break out of Whatever makes you happy do not just read things that make you happy because people agree with you Challenge yourself by stepping outside that the internet is out there You can go out there and you can go if you're conservative you can go to a liberal magazine or vice versa just make a point of Breaking out of the tendency to satisfy your own needs that sounds Funny because of course, we all want to be happy. We all want to read things that make us happy but in the long run, we would all be better off if we breached out a bit more into you know Challenging territory challenge yourself to listen to what other people have to say So that is one thing as a as a citizen that you can do I think the other thing that's Important is for people to Remember what they've been told in the past and to kind of keep track of whether that's actually panned out, you know, so Again to use one example that I've studied extensively the Iraq war where people Thought you know vast majority of people in America thought that they were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Then after the country was invaded none of them turned up Now you would think that that should change people's Opinions, but as it turns out for years and years after that until I think it's recently the most recent data I know from about 2008 or 2010 so five or seven years after the war commenced Large proportion of people still think that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq when in fact That's not the case So that's again, you know think about what you were told think about what you used to think And entertain the possibility that actually hang on this didn't quite turn out that way and then analyze the implications of that Now we know from a lot of research that for people to let go of information. They've initially encoded The best way to achieve that is to provide them with an alternative Explanation for the same situation. Okay, so rather than just saying Um Well, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Maybe explain to people why it was that there weren't any or why it was that they thought there might be some in the first place Try to explain What happened people are very good at? Replacing one explanation with another for the world, but they're not good at letting go of an explanation without having an alternative So you got to provide an alternative scenario. It's very important to have an alternative script For things that have happened and then you can change it in so people seem to have a I think we've called it an anti establishment bias in that sense that the government the Scientists people are trying to conspire more Are trying to further their own interests and the expense of the general public You've encountered that before I assume. Well, that's a common element of conspiracy theories is that you know, it's the official version is always wrong Whether the official version is something that a government is putting out or a scientific body Or or you know in the case of vaccinations the pharmaceutical industry Conspiracy theories always involve a rejection of an official account and they always presume nefarious intent behind The the official position, you know the government or the pharmaceutical industry were scientists They're out to screw you. Yeah, basically that that is always the case And so it's just one way for people to Reject a fact is by making up a conspiracy surrounding it because that's one way out if if you cannot Believe or do not want to believe that tobacco is bad for you because you're a chain-spoker Well, then what are you gonna do? How are you gonna justify that? Well, one answer is to say that all the medical scientists are conspiring Because they want to deny you this fund so they're making up all this stuff So that is the purpose of conspiracy theories that is why people believe in conspiracies and getting back to your previous point citing Their grandfather who smoked it every day of his life exactly a hundred precisely They're they're cherry-picking one piece of supporting evidence while they're ignoring absolutely everything else That's also characteristic of conspiratorial thinking My name is Steven. I think about misinformation