Hi John,

I think I'm beginning to see your position. I have a very small drink  
problem.
No I'm not an alcoholic in denial, I seldom have more than two glasses  
of
wine in the evening and not infrequently none at all. And I gave up  
'benders'
  years ago. But I do like my glass of wine in the evening but it  
tends to interfere
with my sleep so I pay a little for it next day.

And I believe alcohol slowly whittles away one's brain cells and adds  
empty
calories to one's diet - not of no concern if one needs to watch one's  
weight.

Yet despite my rational take on drinking I am missing it tonight quite  
a lot -
evidence of a low level of addiction, I guess. But sufficient to take  
my rationality
on every evening with a high success rate going to the addiction. What  
chance
would I have if I smoked 20 cigarettes a day even though there are  
multiple
solid reasons for giving up?

So maybe 'your' theory should not be 'beliefs are close to being  
immaterial' but
'addictions' are so powerful they tend to rule the show. Addictions  
like eating
meat, or having an annual holiday in an exotic location, or keeping up  
with
the Joneses.

This latter is perhaps a sub-set of the biggest addiction of all - the  
pressure
to conform. So perhaps many feel they are not being true to their own  
beliefs
and values but their 'conformity addiction' over-rides that, and they  
resolve
the problem with just the right amount of self-deception to keep them  
feeling
comfortable.

I'll add Gardner and Stern's book to my reading list.

Regards,

Brian Orr

On 26 Jul 2009, at 15:59, John Scull wrote:

> Hi Brian,
>
> You wrote:
>> I don't believe what you say below really adds up.
>>
>> It seems to me that people actually 'swim in a sea
>> of beliefs',
>
> I agree with most everything you say about "beliefs," but that  
> wasn't really my point. What I said was,
>
>>> "belief" has a very weak influence people's behaviour, as does
>>> "information."
>
> In social psychological theory, experiences of various sorts give  
> rise to beliefs and values.  These interact to produce attitudes.   
> These then influence behaviour.  Reviews of the extensive research  
> literature indicate that differences in beliefs, values, and  
> attitudes typically account for less than 10% of the variance in  
> observed behaviour.
>
> When we look at the related literature on attempts to change or  
> influence habits, addictions, ealth-related, and environmental  
> behaviour, we find that these cognitive features (beliefs, values,  
> attitudes) are seldom a sufficient condition for behavioural change  
> to take place.  When they are effective, it is usually for small  
> and  insignificant changes; With climate change, we are looking at  
> very large behaviour changes, not small ones. Advertising (which  
> attempts to manipulate attitudes and feelings) may help a smoker  
> shift from Brand A to Brand B, but they are unlikely, on their own,  
> to lead to smoking cessation.
>
> Just as we both "believe" in the results of climate science, I  
> believe in the usefulness of social and behavioural science.  If the  
> goal is to change human behaviour, we might do well to look at this  
> literature for more effective methods.
>
>> Do you still think, John, that I should get hold of "The Power of  
>> Sustainable Thinking"?
>
> I think you might do better with the Nickerson book or the Gardner &  
> Stern text, which are more research review and less "how to do it."
>
> ===================================
> John Scull
> www.naturecowichan.net
> "We love the things we love for what they are"
>                                          --Robert Frost
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Orr"  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 3:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Why people don't act on climate change- New Scientist  
> Opinion Piece
>
>
>> John,
>>
>> I don't believe what you say below really adds up.
>>
>> It seems to me that people actually 'swim in a sea
>> of beliefs', an obvious one being that the sun will
>> rise tomorrow even though it might be shrouded
>> in dark grey clouds.
>>
>> I believe I will wake up tomorrow i.e. I have a very
>> high degree of certainty this will happen even though
>> I'm long in the tooth. I reckon the odds are at least
>> 1000 to 1 in my favour according to the actuarial
>> tables. (i.e. of every 1000 people of my age going
>> to bed tonight only one will not wake up in the morning.)
>>
>> I believe my partner is not cheating on me. This
>> influences my outlook on life pretty profoundly and
>> as a consequence influences my behaviour pretty
>> fundamentally. If I had strong doubts here I reckon
>> people would soon be asking "What's up, Brian?"
>>
>> I believe climate change is happening and will lead
>> to extremely damaging consequences in but a few
>> decades from now. This has influenced what I do
>> with my life to a noticeable degree, particularly in
>> terms of trying to edge people towards my belief system
>> - with disappointing results, in the main.
>>
>> I think the apparent gulf between us can be resolved
>> by recognising just how hopelessly the word 'belief'
>> has been overloaded. Do we believe what we read in
>> the papers? Do we believe that science is the only route
>> to material truth? Do I believe anybody will bother to read
>> this piece to the end? Do I believe the Sun will engulf the
>> Earth one day? Do I believe in a God?
>>
>> And even more importantly is the question of doubt or
>> conviction here? How strong are my beliefs? Some are
>> so strong my life is predicated on them - like I 'know' I'm
>> going to wake up tomorrow. Others - like there's got to
>> be 'something out there' that is totally beyond comprehension
>> - affects my life not one jot.
>>
>> If nearly everybody was as convinced as I am that climate
>> change is happening, is man-made and is very, very threatening
>> then I'm 'convinced' i.e. believe very, very strongly, that the   
>> resulting
>> universal shift in living patterns would plunge the world's economy
>> into a depression the like of which it has not seen before,  
>> resulting  in chaos,
>> death and human-caused destruction which climate change won't induce
>> for at least another 20 years.
>>
>> But I also firmly believe that this catharsis will be infinitely  
>> worth the price,
>> for there will be every chance homo sapiens will be able to save a  
>> civilisation
>> worth sustaining after the mayhem - in contrast to it 'probably'  
>> being
>> blown back at least a million years by climate change.
>>
>> Do you still think, John, that I should get hold of "The Power of  
>> Sustainable Thinking"?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Brian Orr
>>
>> On 24 Jul 2009, at 15:44, John Scull wrote:
>>
>>> Hi George and everyone,
>>>
>>> I agree with everything you say, but it doesn't go nearly far  
>>> enough  in
>>> exploring why people don't act.  Psychological research indicates  
>>> that
>>> "belief" has a very weak influence people's behaviour, as does
>>> "information."
>>>
>>> Climate change is quite distant and impersonal compared to our own  
>>> illness
>>> and death, yet smoking, drinking, unhealthy diets, sedentary   
>>> lifestyles, and
>>> other high risk behaviours are common.  Ask these people if they
>>> know/believe they are taking a risk.
>>>
>>> For a good recent book on how people can change their environmental
>>> behaviour, see Doppelt, B., "The Power of Sustainable Thinking"  
>>> Earthscan,
>>> 2008.  Changing habitual behaviours is a multi-stage, multi-  
>>> dimensional
>>> process.
>>>
>>> See also the work of Doug MacKenzie-Mohr and his colleagues.   
>>> They  have a
>>> useful website at http://www.toolsofchange.com/English/.
>>>
>>> There are broader overviews in two textbooks, Winter, D. and  
>>> Koger,  S. "The
>>> Psychology of Environmental Problems" and Gardner and Stern,  
>>> "Environmental
>>> Problems and Human Behavior" and a recent review of the academic  
>>> literature,
>>> Nickerson, R., "Psychology and Environmental Change."
>>>
>>> John
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> John Scull, Ph.D.
>>> http://members.shaw.ca/jscull
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Marshall" <[log in to unmask]
>>> >
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:07 AM
>>> Subject: Why people don't act on climate change- New Scientist   
>>> Opinion Piece
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why people don't act on climate change
>>>>
>>>>  * 23 July 2009 by *George Marshall*
>>>>    <http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=George+Marshall>
>>>>
>>>> AT A recent dinner at the University of Oxford, a senior  
>>>> researcher  in
>>>> atmospheric physics was telling me about his coming holiday in  
>>>> Thailand.
>>>> I asked him whether he was concerned that his trip would make a
>>>> contribution to climate change
>>>> <http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change> - we had,  
>>>> after  all,
>>>> just sat through a two-hour presentation on the topic. "Of  
>>>> course,"  he
>>>> said blithely. "And I'm sure the government will make long-haul   
>>>> flights
>>>> illegal at some point."
>>>>
>>>> I had deliberately steered our conversation this way as part of an
>>>> informal research project that I am conducting - one you are   
>>>> welcome to
>>>> join. My participants so far include a senior adviser to a  
>>>> leading UK
>>>> climate policy expert who flies regularly to South Africa ("my   
>>>> offsets
>>>> help set a price in the carbon market"), a member of the British
>>>> Antarctic Survey who makes several long-haul skiing trips a year  
>>>> ("my
>>>> job <http://www.newscientistjobs.com/> is stressful"), a  
>>>> national  media
>>>> environment correspondent who took his family to Sri Lanka ("I   
>>>> can't see
>>>> much hope") and a Greenpeace climate campaigner just back from  
>>>> scuba
>>>> diving in the Pacific ("it was a great trip!").
>>>>
>>>> Intriguing as their dissonance may be, what is especially  
>>>> revealing  is
>>>> that each has a career <http://www.newscientistjobs.com/>   
>>>> predicated on
>>>> the assumption that information is sufficient to generate  
>>>> change.  It is
>>>> an assumption that a moment's introspection would show them was   
>>>> deeply
>>>> flawed.
>>>>
>>>> It is now 44 years since US president Lyndon Johnson's scientific
>>>> advisory council warned that our greenhouse gas emissions could  
>>>> generate
>>>> "marked changes in climate". That's 44 years of research  
>>>> costing,  by one
>>>> estimate, $3 billion per year, symposia, conferences,  
>>>> documentaries,
>>>> articles and now 80 million references on the internet. Despite  
>>>> all this
>>>> information, opinion polls over the years have shown that 40 per   
>>>> cent of
>>>> people in the UK and over 50 per cent in the US resolutely refuse  
>>>> to
>>>> accept that our emissions are changing the climate. Scarcely 10  
>>>> per cent
>>>> of Britons regard climate change as a major problem.
>>>>
>>>> I do not accept that this continuing rejection of the science is a
>>>> reflection of media distortion or scientific illiteracy. Rather,  
>>>> I  see
>>>> it as proof of our society's failure to construct a shared belief  
>>>> in
>>>> climate change.
>>>>
>>>> I use the word "belief" in full knowledge that climate scientists
>>>> dislike it. Vicky Pope, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre for  
>>>> Climate
>>>> Change <http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/
>>>> >
>>>> in Exeter, UK, wrote in /The Guardian/
>>>> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-science-pope
>>>> >
>>>> earlier this year: "We are increasingly asked whether we 'believe  
>>>> in
>>>> climate change'. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our  
>>>> concerns
>>>> about climate change arise from the scientific evidence."
>>>>
>>>> I could not disagree more. People's attitudes towards climate  
>>>> change,
>>>> even Pope's, are belief systems constructed through social   
>>>> interactions
>>>> within peer groups. People then select the storylines that  
>>>> accord  best
>>>> with their personal world view. In Pope's case and in my own  
>>>> this  is a
>>>> world view that respects scientists and empirical evidence.
>>>>
>>>> But listen to what others say. Most regard climate change as an
>>>> unsettled technical issue still hotly debated by eggheads. Many   
>>>> reject
>>>> personal responsibility by shifting blame elsewhere - the rich, the
>>>> poor, the Americans, the Chinese - or they suspect the issue is a  
>>>> Trojan
>>>> horse built by hair-shirted environmentalists who want to spoil   
>>>> their fun.
>>>>
>>>> Many people regard climate change as a Trojan horse built by
>>>> hair-shirted environmentalists
>>>>
>>>> The climate specialists in my informal experiment are no less   
>>>> immune to
>>>> the power of their belief systems. They may be immersed in the
>>>> scientific evidence, yet they have nonetheless developed ingenious
>>>> storylines to justify their long-haul holidays.
>>>>
>>>> How, then, should we go about generating a shared belief in the   
>>>> reality
>>>> of climate change? What should change about the way we present the
>>>> evidence for climate change?
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, we should become far more concerned about the
>>>> communicators and how trustworthy they appear. Trustworthiness is a
>>>> complex bundle of qualities: authority and expertise are among   
>>>> them, but
>>>> so too are honesty, confidence, charm, humour and outspokenness.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the maverick, self-promoting climate sceptics play this  
>>>> game
>>>> well, which is one reason they exercise such disproportionate   
>>>> influence
>>>> over public opinion. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
>>>> (IPCC), on the other hand, plays it badly. Rather than let loose  
>>>> its
>>>> most presentable participants to tell the world how it achieves
>>>> consensus on an unprecedented scale, it fails even to provide a   
>>>> list of
>>>> the people involved in the process. It has no human face at all:  
>>>> the
>>>> only images on its website are the palace or beach resort where  
>>>> it  will
>>>> hold its next meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Since people tend to put most trust in those who appear to share   
>>>> their
>>>> values and understand their needs, it is crucial we widen the  
>>>> range  of
>>>> voices speaking on climate change - even if this means climate   
>>>> experts
>>>> relinquishing some control and encouraging others who are better
>>>> communicators to speak for them.
>>>>
>>>> Another key to achieving a widely held belief in climate change is
>>>> collective imagination. We will never fully appreciate the risks   
>>>> unless
>>>> we can project ourselves into the future - and that requires an   
>>>> appeal
>>>> to the collective emotional imagination. In the past years I  
>>>> have  been
>>>> delighted to observe a growing partnership between scientists and  
>>>> the
>>>> creative arts, such as retreats for scientists, artists and  
>>>> writers.
>>>>
>>>> It is clear that the cautious language of science is now  
>>>> inadequate  to
>>>> inspire concerted change, even among scientists. We need a  
>>>> fundamentally
>>>> different approach. Only then will scientists be in a position  
>>>> to  throw
>>>> down the ultimate challenge to the public: "We've done the work, we
>>>> believe the results, now when the hell will you wake up?"
>>>>
>>>> /George Marshall is founder of the Climate Outreach Information   
>>>> Network
>>>> <http://coinet.org.uk/> in Oxford, UK/
>>>>
>>>>