Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Fixing The Communications Failure Response Post
- Cultural Cognition is the development that a person makes to one group adopting their preferences and ideas, that can be political or scientific. For example if you are a firm believer in God you will probably not accept many scientific theories of how the Earth was created even with sound evidence because you want to stick with the ideas of your own cultural group.
- Protective Cognition, which is about holding onto ones own values by finding professional evidence to reinforce their ideas, is very common in climate change, because we often hear the earths climate is changing and when we all want the same goal, some agree for drastic change and others think simpler solutions are the answer.
- One way he recommends to improve communication is to present scientific evidence in a way that does not threaten ones own values, and instead put it in a way they agree with to keep them open minded. The other option is to make sure that scientific data is agreed with by a diverse group of scientists and there is not as much combating ideas which often split people who show preference toward certain evidence, because of the person.
- The issue that most scientific data is that we are given so much information about the topic and assumed that we will interpret the data in a well thought out manner, but the truth is that other factors affect our opinions and some people being less open minded may jump to the first conclusion they see even with all this information. Others who already have an opinion might see much dissenting opinions and be so resistant and lean even more toward their opinion, because they disagree with the total opinion not simply the facts.
- Protective Cognition, which is about holding onto ones own values by finding professional evidence to reinforce their ideas, is very common in climate change, because we often hear the earths climate is changing and when we all want the same goal, some agree for drastic change and others think simpler solutions are the answer.
- One way he recommends to improve communication is to present scientific evidence in a way that does not threaten ones own values, and instead put it in a way they agree with to keep them open minded. The other option is to make sure that scientific data is agreed with by a diverse group of scientists and there is not as much combating ideas which often split people who show preference toward certain evidence, because of the person.
- The issue that most scientific data is that we are given so much information about the topic and assumed that we will interpret the data in a well thought out manner, but the truth is that other factors affect our opinions and some people being less open minded may jump to the first conclusion they see even with all this information. Others who already have an opinion might see much dissenting opinions and be so resistant and lean even more toward their opinion, because they disagree with the total opinion not simply the facts.
Decision Grid (with Photo)
My Decision Grid for Nuclear Power
My thinking process was very simple, if we did build it those who wanted a plant would be saying it gives us this good alternative that does not hurt our environment. On the other hand those proposed to the idea would be quick to point out any accidents with waste or explosions or whatever it may be. Then if we did not build it we can make guesses, but will truly have never known.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)