New Evidence That "Scared Straight" Doesn't Work
David Berreby is the author of "Us and Them: The Science of Identity." He has written about human behavior and other science topics for The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Slate, Smithsonian, The New Republic, Nature, Discover, Vogue and many other publications. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the University of Paris, a Science Writing Fellow at the Marine Biological Laboratory, a resident at Yaddo, and in 2006 was awarded the Erving Goffman Award for Outstanding Scholarship for the first edition of "Us and Them." David can be found on Twitter at @davidberreby and reached by email at david [at] davidberreby [dot] com.
Fear, guilt and shame often push people into coping behaviors, which ease the momentary pain, even as they hurt long-term. Smoking, for instance. Or binge-drinking. And one path to fear, guilt and shame is to hear that your smoking and drinking will make you ugly, sick and dead. Hence the surprising results of recent studies on ad campaigns aimed at scaring teen-agers away from binge drinking.
All of which is on my mind because I'm attending a conference on the links between our little everyday behaviors and climate change here at the Garrison Institute. "Scared straight," as a strategy for getting Americans to reduce their carbon "footprint," has been a failure. When people hear the planet's doomed, they don't go start compost heaps; instead, they jump at invitations to avoid the whole subject.
And there's evidence that gloom-and-doom hasn't even worked to motivate the faithful—post-Copenhagen, many dedicated environmentalists are discouraged and perplexed.
Hence, I was deeply impressed last night when I heard the ecological entrepreneur Paul Hawken say a couple of things I never hear at meetings about global warming.
First, he said, Copenhagen was a great success. It brought 50,000 people, including most of the world's heads of state, into talks about addressing the climate crisis. If people didn't keep hearing about what wasn't achieved there, they'd realize how much was.
Hawken's other point made me feel as if a millstone had been removed from around my neck: No one knows how the future will turn out. We have no crystal balls. Instead, we have models and projections, which are tools that help estimate the probabilities of future events. By describing the uncertainties we face today, these models are supposed to help inform decisions that have to be made now, with incomplete information. They aren't predictions; they aren't sure to come to pass.
Forgetting this leads to scientific infantilism: The belief that science can be more sure than reality permits. And in a public arena full of claims that climate change is a hoax, scientists and their allies are under enormous pressure to pander. They don't give themselves permission to say "we don't know." They really should.
The controversy around the Torah codes gets a new life.
- Mathematicians claim to see a predictive pattern in the ancient Torah texts.
- The code is revealed by a method found with special computer software.
- Some events described by reading the code took place after the code was written.
The controversy over whether Jesus had any siblings is reignited after an amazing new discovery of an ancient text.
Orangutans join humans and bees in a very exclusive club
- Orangutan mothers wait to sound a danger alarm to avoid tipping off predators to their location
- It took a couple of researchers crawling around the Sumatran jungle to discover the phenomenon
- This ability may come from a common ancestor
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.