Why Your Neighbor Acts Like an Idiot

This article is about how we people are really good at ignoring scientific evidence and acting against our best interests. It also addresses what the scientific institution can do better so that more of us take science seriously and begin to trust its good advice.

Let's start with a little history lesson. Back in 1984, people were not bucking their seat belts. No matter how much contrary evidence they were presented with, only 1 in 7 people in America was wearing a seat belt. It didn't seem to matter that auto crash fatalities would be reduced by half if people buckled up. It didn't seem to matter if people were presented with information about seat belt statistics in a course followed by a test where they proved that they did understand the risks associated with seat belt safety. They would drive away seat beltless from the seat belt safety test that they passed with flying colors.

How frustrating it is to present logic in clear form and still have it be ignored? The Americans who didn't buckle up back then are the same Americans who believe in ghosts (A Harris pole in in 2013 put that figure at 42% of adults), while about the same percentage (38%) own at least one firearm. Based on statistics it is obvious that fire arms have killed far more more innocent people than ghosts have lately. Long story short, we people will chain smoke, yet rail on and on about the health risks of GM crops or continue to be afraid of death by ghost at night. It seems that it does not matter what the statistics and studies say, we marry our opinions for a reason, and I would like to argue that these reasons have far more to do with our values, than they have to do with our intellectual capacities or abilities to reason.

The following questions are of interest to the topic:

Why does the public not necessarily heed sound science and thus make poor risk assessment? For example, why do many of us fear planes more than we fear cars, when cars are far more likely to kill us?

Why do people heed pseudoscience and superstition when it is not backed by sound research or logic? For example, why do many people believe that autism is a result of a vaccination, when science has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is not true?

What creates this mistrust in science, and how can we possibly communicate sound science and risk assessment to the public in a way in which the public will actually listen?

I think that people did not buckle up back then because they did not care about it. When one does not care about a thing, one does not place a value on that thing. Of course, people DO care if they die in an accident or if a child is wounded in an accident. We are faced with facts and statistics all the time, and we often believe that these facts and statistics are simply not about “us”. Especially in a situation that we have control over, like driving. Even though automobile accidents are a leading cause of death, we are not necessarily faced with automobile death in our daily lives. The statistics may ring true but, for most of us, the information does not actually register in our own experience. The only real understanding is experience. If people feel removed from the experience that statistics and studies report, then they will simply not care and they will feel personally unaffected by the information. The information holds no value.

We value what we care about. So, maybe the public WOULD have buckled up, if the message they heard was not so much one of statistics (a pretentious and far removed language of experts?) but in the language of their VALUES. Today, it has become more ingrained into our values that seat belts save lives and that by not wearing them, we are endangering ourselves, other drivers and passengers, and our family. Maybe the scientific institution needs to be more open to learning from what advertising has known for a long time: effective PR. How could value be ingrained in a message that is backed by science?

Much more effective than a statistic on a highway billboard that says, 'Seat belts will reduce auto crash fatalities by 50% this year.' would be a billboard with a picture of a saddened father, leaning on the floor holding his children's hands and saying, 'Mommy is not coming home anymore. She's gone to heaven.' and then at the bottom in bold you see 'BUCKLE UP'.

“You are endangering your family and will leave your children alone and sad in the world if you don't wear your seat belt.” is a much more heart wrenching message than any statistic ever will be. In Germany where I live, they actually have billboards like this on the highway. They are admittedly creepy and morbid, but they definitely drive the message home. Like it or not, this is how PR works. All sorts of bad messages and pseudoscience is spread by great PR, and great PR is all about human psychology. So why doesn't science start spreading its well researched messages with good PR as well?

One reason that people do not necessarily follow the logical and well proven advice of experts, is because those experts and the scientific community fail to speak to the values of those people. Science effects every aspect of our daily lives (think medicine to architecture to technology). Since it is involved in every aspect of our lives, it is also intrinsically linked to our values. If science wants to communicate to people and to have them understand the implications of sound science, then sound science must find a way to use the language that people use in their daily lives: value.

Why might people believe pseudoscience more than sound science when the facts that support the sound science and debunk the pseudoscience are often easy to find if one only has the interest to look? After all, we live in the age of information. Often times, pseudoscience has gotten great PR, and great PR knows exactly how to reach people: through their values. Obviously, if something is indeed pseudoscience with transparent research behind it, then that pseudoscience will need an extra bag of tricks to speak to the public. There is nothing as powerful as hysteria and the idea that our values are being infringed upon in order to get people to believe a message. Hitler blamed the Jews for the problems of Germany. He was armed with all sorts of crooked scientific and sociological “evidence” which would never stand up under real examination, but he knew exactly how to feed it to people so that they would be hypnotized and allegiant to his message. On that note, genetic modification is causing your cancer and vaccines give your baby autism; these are terrifying messages that inspire us to action and give us something to blame. Unfortunately, history proves that humans LOVE a scapegoat; who cares if it is the right one?

So, if pseudoscience does speak to the public's values via effective PR and sound science speaks to people with solid studies and statistics, then it is not surprising that the public is less likely to listen to the institution that does not speak to their values.

This may be one reason why people believe what they believe, even when our beliefs are contrary to a wealth of existing scientific evidence..

Let's look further into the case of 'autism is caused by vaccines.' This study has been proven over and over again to be fallacious, poorly conducted, in violation of numerous research standards, and based upon false evidence and financial interest. For all of these grievous scientific sins, it has been retracted. But people still believe it. Jenny Mcarthy is literally destroying small clusters of a generation with her heartfelt plea about her autistic son; victim of the MMR vaccine. It may not be backed by sound evidence, but it is sensational. In truth, children are falling sick and dying due to their parents allegiance to this dangerous pseudoscience, but the antivac movement speaks to people's hearts. People are concerned about Jenny Mcarthy's son when she speaks of him with the kind of love and protection that only a mother could have in her tone. People are touched by this story, and people are touched by the stories of people everywhere who have autistic children. People want to protect babies, that is a deeply ingrained value for most of humanity. With that kind of thinking, if vaccines hurt babies then vaccines = BAD. That is not the logic of the mind, that is the 'logic' of value and this is something that all humans are privy to. We do not have to be low IQ to think with our heart at times. To over simplify, we are creatures driven by a million chemical reactions (hormones), and deep social conditioning which leads to a wide array of emotional responses. People are not emotional at the expense of logic because they are stupid, people often use emotion (value) over logic and this just is how we process and filter information in the world. How can science work with, as opposed to against, our biological makeup?

The scientific community will not counteract the argument nearly as easily with statistics about the safety of vaccines as it will with a picture of a dead baby in the arms of a weeping mother on the cover of LIFE magazine that says something like “The tragedy of an vaccinated generation and how we can save our babies before it is too late.” The minute that we start speaking to people's values, they will begin to listen.

We cannot completely blame science for being removed from people's value systems throughout the ages and for repeatedly failing to communicate effectively to the public. After all, science and policy only began to intermingle on a regular basis during the world wars of the last century. In a sense, this idea of science and the public and policy is a somewhat new one that still needs much reform and new thinking. Also, for the longest time, it was accepted that science should be removed from values and also autonomous in order to be honest and accurate. This old view ultimately led to much of the public's historical and current concern that science was (and is) a threatening, calculating and cold institution; not to be trusted. After all, for the longest time science presided over everyone's life as it does today, while claiming that it was 100% objective and devoid of value. No wonder people are weary.

Why does the public not necessarily trust sound science? First, we have a scientific institution that has been historically autonomous and removed from value. Naturally this will alienate and frighten people. It makes science seem non-human. Also, there is this idea that science is always showing us the ultimate truth. However, the real purpose of science is to always search for answers and solutions through methodical and repeatable methods, while acknowledging that there is no absolute truth. We know what we know today and we are open to the fact that it could change tomorrow if sound new information repeatedly presents itself. The institution that has brought us the most advancements and staggering progress throughout our human history is also the only institution that admits uncertainty. Religion, while its prophesies rarely come true with literal accuracy or without a whole lot of interpretational help, does claim to have ultimate authority. This absolute assurance is comforting to people, and we are historically spiritual and religious. Simply put, we turn to religion for answers and this soothes us. Even if science has brought us far more proof and improvements, and it has pulled through on promises and showed successful results in the physical world way beyond what we ever literally received from religion, we still might have an inkling to doubt science because science, unlike religion, can fail us by its definition. It has failed us before and it will fail us again. Interestingly, when God brings a hurricane to a village or puts a plague of AIDS onto people or kills a mother in childbirth, the religious person can claim that, “God works in mysterious ways.” or that "When the lord closes one door, he opens another." In religion, mystery is allowed, and when terrible things happen to good people we can say, “He is trying to teach us a lesson.” However, when science fails us and a generation of babies is born deformed because their mothers took a morning sickness pill that scientists had claimed was safe, the average victim of the tragedy will not sit in quiet forgiving reflection and say, “Science works in mysterious ways.” all the while praying to science and asking for its protection and guidance. When science harms our family or community we feel like science is evil and lies to us. Science is supposed to know everything and enable human progress, but on the other hand it has also introduced nuclear bombs and crippled our babies.

How can we communicate to the public that science is indeed the most effective problem solver we have had in human history? It has been remarkably successful in showing us how the natural world works and has brought us staggering improvements in our health and life possibilities; more so than any other institution. But at the same time, science does not, unlike religion, put any claim on the absolute truth. Because of this, science will inevitably be wrong or fail us at times. This does not demean the institution, rather it makes it stronger because it is not simply subject to change, it is able to change, and that (to assign a value judgement) is a beautiful thing. How can we help people to understand that this is what science really is about?

What is the solution to bridging the gap between experts and the public? How do we help the public to understand what is really a risk and what is not? How do we help them begin to be able to differentiate the difference between what is sound science and what is not?

I can think of two main things that we can do to help us communicate more effectively with the public. First, on a practical level, we need to be able to communicate the nature of science as a powerful and effective method that has proven to be extremely helpful to us, while understanding that it is subject to change without undermining itself. I propose that there needs to be a change in standard curriculum. People need to have a better understanding of what science is and how it works. Courses about science and scientific thinking need to be taught to children in schools. Children should be taking critical thinking courses throughout elementary and high school; not just learning about basic chemistry and biology which for many of us is irrelevant and forgettable. They should learn about the history, philosophy and ethical implications of science. They should learn how the method works and where its short comings lie. They should know how to read a study and how to spot pseudo science. This may sound like an awful lot, but considering that science literally holds our life and death in its hands, the public needs to be more aware of the role that it plays in our lives and we must be able to think scientifically as well, so that we can be informed members of future debates which will create the policy and the world that we live in.

Also, it is important that science is not divorced from the language of value. The scientific institution needs to speak the common language of people in order to communicate with the public, and the institution has to to this with integrity and honesty. We can no longer be frustrated when our statistics do not have impact, because most people are concerned with the things that they care about more than they are concerned about the statistics that some lab generates.

To sum it up, if we want the public to trust in science and for people to listen to the advice of experts, we need to educate children from the ground up, not on what to think but HOW to think. We also need to remember that while the universe might work on a math equation, the international human language is one of value and not numbers. Science is ultimately about families, individuals, life, death, health, safety, education, family dinner, cars, clothes and all of that other stuff that makes up the daily lives of mortals. It is time for the institution to embrace this, so that the public can embrace the institution in return.