This article is a troubling expose of the way in which a specific industry (that makes chemicals designed to limit fires) has utilized unsubstantiated fear to influence regulations in a way that maintains a market for their product. Some might just call this a typical form of marketing, but there is much more at play here that makes this troubling. Part of that is the way in which they manipulate information to sound science-based when in fact no objective science has been conducted. On a more general level, though, I think these practices are so frustrating because they demonstrate how far we are from any real sense of corporate responsibility.
"Fear fans flames for chemical makers" by Patricia Callahan and Sam Roe
Published in the Chicago Tribune, May 6, 2012
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/flames/ct-met-flame-retardants-20120506,0,1627036.story
Eric
fear and mis information overcoming facts and common well being. love it. you may want to link the article
ReplyDeleteThanks, added the link. It's sad that instead of trying to come clean after their BS, this industry just kept shoveling it. A sad state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteit's the state of affairs everyone, follow the exact same protocol as "debates" about global warming, evolution or obama being a socialist nazi killer. just read a book "idiot america" that while a bit overboard makes some salient points about this type of rhetoric. how people say every debate has 2 sides that deserve merit. well that isn't true. just because one side says something over and over and really really loud that makes people believe (or give in) doesn't mean it is relevant or worthy of attention. Given that it was my arguing strategy for about 10 years I am well versed....
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting that you bring that up today as I was thinking about this issue this morning. Jonah Lehrer is a writer who I've cited on here a few times, and he's written some articles that talk about how even when confronted with uncontested facts that belie their political position, people on both the left and right will often only get MORE confident in their initial opinion. (Here's a link to one of those articles, though I imagine this was covered in the book: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/cognitive-dissonance/)
ReplyDeleteMy question this morning, though, was that we know that traditional debate-style persuasion doesn't actually work in these situations. So my question is, "what does work?" How can we change our persuasive tactics to win over people who seem to have their heads in the sand? We can yell and scream and cite facts until the cows come home, but if that isn't persuading people, then it's really just for self-gratification and isn't getting us anywhere.
Eric
The issue is a difference in fact and emotion. When people are arguing on emotion facts simply make them recoil and hold their position tighter because it becomes almost a sense of pride. It's why however ridiculous people say that "flip flopping" is the worst thing in the world. Is it really? I'd argue that the ability to see other sides of an argument and change your views over time are a virtue that shows awareness of the world. Unfortunately for many holding their ground and standing on "principle" is more important then resolution or intelligence.
ReplyDeleteThe way to work with those people is through their own emotion and that is done through story and experience. Getting them around the things they "hate." For example having a nut job christian see muslim culture firsthand and meet those people. When that isn't possible you use stories to start the process. Let people relate and try to make sure they can see themselves in the story. When Biden said Will and Grace did more for gay culture then anything else he wasn't wrong. It put "gay" in people's homes and helped them relate, understand that the myths about gays were simply that.