= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lessdazed comments on [link] I Was Wrong, and So Are You - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (96)
I don't remember where I saw it, but after the Gulf of Mexico spill last year there was a poll about offshore drilling asking if the spill had changed opinions on offshore drilling in general. People were asked if the incident made them less likely to support further drilling, more likely to support further drilling, or neither. A significant percentage selected the second, presumably responding as if the question asked if they favored offshore drilling in general.
It's logically possible the spill could have made someone more supportive of drilling. This would be reasonable to the extent they would expect a random disaster to have a higher loss of life and cause more damage, and now thought any disaster likely to be less catastrophic. This would have to outweigh the event's indicating disasters are more likely than they had thought.
Why do you presume that?
Certainly, it's not particularly probable that most people would rationally update in favor of drilling, but it's perfectly possible that significant numbers of people acting irrationally would respond to attacks on drilling by becoming more strongly in favor of drilling than before the attacks. Increasing fanaticism when under siege is not an unprecedented reaction in human psychology.
In studies I've seen showing this effect, people deny it in themselves. It is an embarrassing thing if true, I think that's obvious. I expect people to misunderstand or mis-think the question rather than answer honestly after accurate introspection.
I think it was an accident.
"I didn't care about X until it came under attack" is not considered a damaging admission in most political discussions I've seen. While the usual meaning of that declaration is that the person has merely rallied around his political tribe's position, the person involved doesn't characterize it that way. What he knows is he didn't have a strong opinion, and now he does, and he assumes that he has good reason for it. He'll acknowledge that it's new while resenting any implication that the new opinion is irrationally-acquired. If you try to break down the why, he might notice that he's being irrational, but then you can flip a coin as to whether he'll be embarrassed and update rationally or be embarrassed and double-down.
The blowout was an accident, yes. Things like people calling for a moratorium on drilling afterward were not, they were, in political parlance, "attacks". People of the tribe that pre-accident included drilling-is-bad among their beliefs used the accident as ammunition to attack their enemies, and people of the enemy tribe, many of whom had not actually thought about drilling in the Gulf before, rallied to defend when bombarded.
A trick coin.
Oops, I get it now.