The Uneasy Relationship Between Explaining Science to Conservatives...and Explaining Conservatives Scientifically

Fri, 2012-01-27 08:23Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Uneasy Relationship Between Explaining Science to Conservatives...and Explaining Conservatives Scientifically

Over the past year or more, I’ve profited from a series of conversations and exchanges with Yale’s Dan Kahan, the NSF supported researcher who has made great waves studying how our cultural values predispose us to discount certain risks (like, say, climate change). Kahan’s schematic for approaching this question—dividing us up into hierarchs versus egalitarians, and individualists versus communitarians—is a very helpful one that gets to the root of all manner of dysfunctions and misadventures in the relationship between politics, the U.S. public, and science.

Kahan says that his goal is to create a “science of science communication”: In other words, understanding enough about what really makes people tick (including in politicized areas) so that we know how to present them with science in a way that does not lead to knee-jerk rejections of it. Thus, for instance, presenting conservatives with factual information about global warming packaged as evidence in favor of expanding nuclear power actually makes them less defensive, and more willing to accept what the science says—because now it has been framed in a way that fits their value systems.

This is a very worthy project—but it doesn’t only tell us how to communicate science to conservatives. It tells us something scientific about who conservatives are. They are people who are often motivated—instinctively, at a gut level–to support, default to, or justify hierarchical systems for organizing society: Systems in which people aren’t equal, whether along class, gender, or racial lines. And they are motivated to support or default to individualistic systems for organizing (or not organizing) society: People don’t get help from government. They’re on their own, to succeed or fail as they choose.

It is one thing to accurately and scientifically explain how these values motivate conservatives. And it is another to reflect on whether one considers these values to be the ones upon which a virtuous and just society really ought to be built.

Kahan’s way of explaining conservatives, based on their moral values, is closely related to other approaches, like the well known one of University of Virginia social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Haidt does it a little differently, talking about the different “moral foundations” of liberals and conservatives. But there’s a heck of a lot of overlap. For Haidt, liberals care about fairness or equality, and they care about protecting people from harm. This is roughly analogous to egalitarianism and communitarianism. Conservatives, however, have other “moral foundations”: They care about respect for authority (e.g., hierarchy). They care about loyalty to the group (or to put a more negative spin on it, tribalism). And they care about purity or sanctity and whether someone does something perceived to be, you know, disgusting (especially sexually).

 Again, when one reflects on whether these values are actually, you know, good ones, I would have to answer “no.” I don’t think respecting authority is so great—authorities are too often naked emperors—and this is of course why I am an anti-authoritarian liberal. I definitely don’t like tribalism, though I do appreciate the power of loyalty in a foxhole or on a football team. And I don’t think the “yuck factor,” or someone’s personal sense of what is disgusting, is a good basis (standing on its own, anyway) for deciding how we ought to be governed.

The point is that it is one thing to understand how to reach conservatives—e.g., frame information in the context of these sorts of values—and it is another thing to understand conservatives, and to really think about what it means that human beings divide up, politically, based upon these kinds of differences.

And of course, Kahan’s and Haidt’s approaches are just two out of many scientific approaches for understanding the differences between what makes liberals, versus conservatives, tick. Other approaches have focused on left-right personality differences, on different physiological responses to stimuli and patterns of attention, on some differences in brain structure and function, and even, believe it or not, on genes.

This stuff is, if anything, even more wildly controversial than Kahan’s or Haidt’s work. But it, too, is good science: peer reviewed, insightful, important.

I bring all of this up, by the way, because Kahan has just written me a “Hey, Chris Mooney” open letter. He knows I have a book coming out on the science of liberals and conservatives, a science to which he himself has contributed, even if this is not his primary goal. He says he welcomes my project, but asks me to imagine a different one—he calls it the “Liberal Republic of Science” project–and whether it is worthy:

Imagine someone (someone very different from you; very different from me)– a conservative Republican, as it turns out–who says: “Science is so cool – it shows us the amazing things God has constructed in his cosmic workshop!”

Forget what percentage of the people with his or her cultural outlooks (or ideology) feel the way that this particular individual does about science (likely it is not large; but likely the percentage of those with a very different outlook – more secular, egalitarian, liberal – who have this passionate curiosity to know how nature works is small too. Most of my friends don't–hey, to each his own, we Liberals say!).

My question is do you (& not just you, Chris Mooney; we–people who share our cultural outlooks, worldview, “ideology”) know how to talk to this person? Talk to him or her about climate change, or about whether his daughter should get the HPV vaccine? Or even about, say, how chlorophyll makes use of quantum mechanical dynamics to convert sunlight into energy? I think what “God did in his/her workshop” there would blow this person's mind (blows mine).

I actually do know how to talk to this person about climate change—though I wouldn’t be the best person to do it, since I can’t walk the walk and wouldn’t sound at all authentic. But the answer is to talk about the biblical mandate to serve as stewards of the creation. And research like Kahan’s has been critical in helping us generally understand how to frame science for different audiences—for people like this hypothetical conservative.

Kahan goes on to ask:

I look forward to reading The Republican Brain.

But there's another project out there – let's call it the Liberal Republic of Science Project – that is concerned to figure out how to make both the wisdom and the wonder of science as available, understandable, and simply enjoyable to citizens of all cultural outlooks (or ideological “brain types”) as possible.

The project isn't doing so well. It desperately needs the assistance of people who are really talented in communicating science to the public.

I think it deserves that assistance.  

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree very strongly, though I don’t think the project is ailing as badly as Kahan suggests. If  you look at now, versus five years ago, there is much more openness to the project than there was before. Approaches that I got virulently attacked for advocating in 2007 and 2009—like “framing” scientific information and pushing scientists to engage in outreach, as I did in the book Unscientific America—now scarcely meet with a peep of protest within the scientific community.

So I actually think that ball—call it the “science communication” ball–has left the pitcher’s hand. People are out there trying to communicate science in all manner of sophisticated and increasingly audience sensitive ways (including conservative audience-sensitive ways). Kahan’s research is, I’d wager, having a profound influence on that enterprise.

I’m part of that enterprise, I devote myself to it every month, and I believe in it deeply.

But here’s the thing: I’ve also read my history of science. And it tells me that sometimes, when science comes along, it is fundamentally challenging to the most firmly held worldviews, and meets with adamant rejection—because people just can’t face the music.

This certainly describes global warming science today. It describes the science of evolution. And although we don’t really know yet, it may well describe the science of liberals and conservatives.

In other words, while you may well be able to use research like Kahan’s to make conservatives receptive to certain types of science, there may also be some aspects science that they are just bound to reject. And ultimately, there may be only so much you can do to blunt the force of such science through some type of frame game.

Science is, let us remember, one of the most destabilizing forces on the planet. It is relentless in its constant driving of change—change not only in how we live, but how we think. In this, it is a liberal force—always searching after the new and different. So sometimes, it can’t help but clash with conservative forces—striving to preserve and avert change.

So Hey Dan Kahan, here’s what I’ll say: Without your project we’d be much, much poorer.

But the fact is that when it comes to understanding our politics, and our politics of science, and our science of politics, we live in really….interesting times. Too interesting, I predict, for some people to handle—and too interesting for other people, including scientists, to resist.

Previous Comments

Chris, there’s good news! You can stop worrying about convincing conservatives about the ‘science’ of Climate disruption. In case you haven’t heard, ‘Sustainable Developement’ is the new Global Warming. This according to a big player in this year’s Rio +20;

“The ‘sustainable’ branding for this year’s summit, rather than climate, is by design, said Ambassador Andre Correa do Lago, who headed Brazil’s delegation to the U.N. climate talks in Durban and will be a chief negotiator for Brazil in Rio. Sustainable development is an easier sell globally than climate change…..”

Maybe you should put the new book ‘on ice’ for a while, just sayin’……

Well, maybe they’ve re-branded global warming but it’s still going to be a tough sell. This sounds more like the Green Climate Fund they tried to push through in Durban. I just don’t think it will work as it requires developed countries to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into developing countires while the UN holds the purse strings.

Contradictions Don’t Deter Conspiracy Theorists

Wanted: Dead and Alive!

If the God story of Dan Kahan has to be believed, then you have a much more complicated problem than just the framing thing. When you say: 

Thus, for instance, presenting conservatives with factual information about global warming packaged as evidence in favor of expanding nuclear power actually makes them less defensive, and more willing to accept what the science says—because now it has been framed in a way that fits their value systems.

It means, in my experience, that you don’t even want to be perceived as being in instance of talking about global warming. You want to be understood as talking about nuclear power, and for economic reason only (if this is the value of the moment). The moment they even think you are talking about global warming, you are done. 

I assume you know about the Kansas story: where environmentalists have been able to “sell” energy efficiency policies and investments in wind turbines, even if their audience does not believe in global warming. 

Really excellent post.

I actually do know how to talk to this person about climate change—though I wouldn’t be the best person to do it, since I can’t walk the walk and wouldn’t sound at all authentic. But the answer is to talk about the biblical mandate to serve as stewards of the creation. 

Until recently I would have thought that we simply need spokespeople within the target group as the messengers ( but your recent writing on the backlash experienced by Kerry Emanual and recently reported attacks on climate scientist and evangelical christian Katherine Hayhoe ( descrbe a powerful reaction against these individuals by their in-groups, and I suspect this is some kind of shunning or ostracism dynamic. The case of Dr. Hayhoe is particularly striking; by all appearances she seems to be smack in the middle of the republican demographic group. (And I believe she more-or-less is conveying your framed message above)

Maybe the problem is just lack of numbers, maybe some critical mass of these individuals needs to build up.


are not actually conservatives.  Stupid, yes.  Ignorant, yes.  Stubbon, yes.  But there have been some fine politicians of the conservative sort; was not Winnie one of those?

Although, the regulars here are.

I think that many just don’t care, or are happy to just go along. (Sheep… and they are on both sides of the fence.)

I wound up have a heated discussion with my brother inlaw (a True Blue Conservative).  He was completely shocked that he could not find a single fact or figure supporting any of the conservative claims about climate change.  He also could tell the difference between a blogger, a letter and a peer reviewed paper.  (Now here’s the scary part… he’s a senior educator in a local college.)

I think the issue is of who is leading them.

By the way.. we have similar issues in Canada.  Liberals sat on their duffs regarding climate change.  And really only the socialists (NDP) are picking up the ball.  (I just don’t know if I could vote socialist….)

Hey Chris et al,

As a skeptic, for me to begin to take these scientists seriously (listen to what they have to say), they’d have to open up ALL of their work, ALL of their emails (including Mann’s UVA emails), ALL of their internal reports, ALL of their codes, and provide ALL of the original unadjusted raw data along with ALL of the codes and reasons why they adjusted some of the raw data and put it in a place where us skeptics get it and go over all of it.

Do this and I’ll listen. Why? Because it’s your side that’s saying the science is unequivocal and that there is a 97% consensus that man is the cause of global warming. Ok, then ALL of the work and communications on this issue, if made public, should show that the science can stand on it’s own and that there has been no wrongdoing or faked science (like the 80% of ozone measurements that were either “faked or incompletly done”), right?

It’s simple. Put up … or shut up.

And of course, if this were to be done, and the science was able to stand on its own, you’re sides next task would be explaining to us why the solutions are very leftist (i.e., a North to South redistribution of wealth, global management of natural resources, etc.). 



First… The science is up for review.  It always has been.  You can read it.  (How about you just download the data like everyone else, and stop pretending that its somehow hidden.)

Second.. A simpleton such as yourself probably can’t figure out what you’re looking at.  Its too hard to understand the real stuff without a lot of work.  There is a reason PHds write this stuff, and not PR flap cakes like Not Lord Monckton.

Third… REAL scientists read this stuff and reproduce the same results.  That fact that you don’t understand such a simple fact means, you don’t know what science is.  Check out all the corrections done to Craig Loehle’s skeptic work;

That’s not a dig on the guy.  Scientists read it and corrected it.   (The hard part is explaining to my brother in law exactly why he’s looking at tree ring data. “Well, that’s a long story…”)

Fourth… Models are no longer the driver for climate science.  Real measurements are.  That article must very very very old, or the writter very very stupid.  BEST is the latest SKEPTIC FUNDED review of temperatures. The results are clear and obvious.  Get the iPhone App Now!  (Several gigbytes of data are available for you to see, and code to compile.) 

To imply that all governments on earth are colluding to falsify data and fake results requires a real tin hat.  Given that most of the ocean data comes from our navies, its also treason.   I mean seriously… thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists some how inventing science AND falsifying billions of measurements?  You must be mad.

Just curious, but if the standard you require for trusting a source is… a Blogger.  Oh my gosh 80% of Ozone Science is faked?!?  Can that witless wonder name his source?  Fox Mulder Perhaps?  (You want to believe, right?)

Aim higher bud try this;

models came after the basics were essentially complete.

Also, models suggested that some of the data was erroneous; indeed that was the case.

To anoilman,

First, if ALL the data is available, then expalin the following:

I hope this gives you a few things to get started upon. As you might have guessed this is probably not something I want to waste much time on.Almost all the funding for the work on developing these datasets has come from the US Dept of Energy. They are happy with me not passing on the station data, as we make the gridded products, which are much easier to use. Also the raw station data have been modified by use, and we don’t still have the original data (as received, or as digitized by us in the 1980s).

Climategate 2.0 email 1432

Here’s another:

Second, the IPCC member states have ruled on freedom of information legislation. Specifically, it has been decided that FoI does not apply to IPCC material. This is false. FoI is national legislation.

Second, the ‘simpleton’ personal attack is funny coming from a useful idiot…  

And you’re comment about the “thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists some how inventing science AND falsifying billions of measurements” is misleading becasue those thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists are all using temperature data from the few organizations (I think there are 3 or 4) of which the work close together. 

By the way, the comment that 80% of the ozone measurments were either faked or incompletly done was from James Lovelock who has stated that he worked on that issue back in the day. And it was from the Guardian (if I’m remembering correclty) not some blog. Nor was it an opinon piece.


Cosmic Ray — The book by that title is freely available online; it is written by physicist Spencer Weart.  Highly recommended reading.


Every good magician knows that the key to success is misdirecting the audience. You have to draw everyone’s attention away from your ultimate goal in order to perform the trick. Politics is no different, and one of the greatest misdirections in recent memory has been pulled off by the fossil fuel industry.

While most of the environmental movement was (rightfully) focusing attention on stopping the Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline from crossing over one of the most vital aquifers in the U.S., the dirty energy industry was quietly building a network of...

read more