Education does not help
How to convince the adherents of anti-science
RIA Novosti, Nikolai Guryanov. A new study confirms: the less a person knows, the more confident he is that he understands the problem well. This explains the dissatisfaction with vaccines, GMOs, nuclear energy and other things. How to convince supporters of anti- and pseudoscientific theories, and whether it is possible — in the RIA Novosti material.
The less you know, the more confident you are
The very design of science does not imply a definitive answer to any questions. However, there is unanimity among experts on many problems, which, however, has many ardent opponents among the townsfolk. Their delusions, even harmless ones, often pose a threat to public well-being. The most striking example is antivaxers.
At the University of Oregon in Portland, they decided to find out what the beliefs of such people are based on. Article by Light et al. Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues published in the journal Science Advances.
Scientists investigated attitudes to eight issues on which there is consensus: climate change, nuclear energy, genetically modified foods, the Big Bang, evolution, vaccination, homeopathic medicine and COVID-19.
It turned out that as people's attitude to the problem moves away from the point of view accepted by the scientific community, the subjective assessment of their own knowledge grows, and the actual baggage of information decreases. For example, the less a person agrees with the need for vaccination against COVID-19, the higher his confidence that he is well versed in this. But the real knowledge of the subject is low.
The study actually confirms the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect, in which incompetent people have an overestimated idea of their capabilities, and vice versa. Moreover, this does not characterize a person as a whole: being well versed in one area, he may be tragically mistaken about his own competencies in another.
Like everyone, so am I.
The team of scientists also noticed that a person's view of a controversial issue is sometimes associated with a political or other identity. For example, a liberal is likely to support the mainstream view on climate change, and a conservative is the opposite. At the same time, the attitude towards GMOs can be different regardless of political preferences. As the authors of the study suggest, an individual participant may not think that he personally knows about a particular issue if the community to which he belongs has a clearly expressed opinion on this topic.
In another recent article, experts from Brown University (Rhode Island) analyzed opinion polls in the United States on the topic of vaccinations. First, the research "zoom" was brought closer to the level of an individual and his inner circle, and then more and more "general plans" were taken. It turned out that a person's decision to vaccinate against COVID-19 is influenced primarily by family and close friends. As the reference group expanded to the level of a district, city or state, the impact of public opinion weakened. The more heterogeneous the groups, the lower the power of communication within them.
The authors of the study conclude that the promotion of vaccination at the level of an entire state or city is likely to be ineffective. And how to make it work at the level of friends and family is unclear.
"This puts public health authorities in a hopeless position," the scientists conclude.
How to convince the "anti-scientists"
It is believed that agreement with the expert consensus in society can be achieved through education — that is, to convey objective information to people. However, in practice, this method does not work very well, experts from Portland admit. In their opinion, the motivation to learn is reduced among ordinary people due to excessive self-confidence.
"People with radical anti—scientific views may first have to understand that they are incompetent, and then join the real knowledge," says the study's lead author, associate professor of marketing at Penn State University Nick Light.
Domestic experts distinguish two types of people with "anti-consensual" views: convinced and hesitant. If the former usually cannot be persuaded, then a simple explanation is enough for the latter.
Founder of the portal "Anthropogenesis.ru", popularizer of science Alexander Sokolov emphasizes that patience is necessary in such discussions.
"It is necessary to explain without aggression, without arrogance, which, unfortunately, specialists often sin," he says. — No wonder, because they are faced with absolutely monstrous, from their point of view, illiteracy. Therefore, they can flare up, put the ignoramus in his place. But then, in the eyes of ordinary citizens, the image of a scientist acquires even more qualities of a member of an elite club who "usurped the right to knowledge."
Sokolov notes that during such disputes, it is also impossible to discuss a person's identity.
Mass effect
The opinion of individual distributors of anti-scientific ideas cannot be changed, but there are ways to reduce their impact on society.
"The only thing that probably works in this case is declaring this point of view unpopular, marginal, socially reprehensible. In the coordinate system, when two camps collide, the mass effect is triggered — the winner is the one whose position sounds louder and the support looks more solid. That is why any propaganda excludes semitones, obliging to adopt one of two possible paradigms," explains Olga Peskova, professor at the Higher School of Economics, CEO of PR Inc.
It is characteristic that scientists themselves will never call for blind acceptance of a point of view — science by definition is not dogmatic. Nevertheless, if an anti-consensual attitude creates dangerous situations, the community is obliged to try to change it. Even using methods uncharacteristic of the scientific environment. Such, for example, as influencing a wide audience with the help of opinion leaders, says Nick Light from the University of Oregon.
The expert notes that people tend to do what they think the community expects from them, and this can be used. Residents Japan, for example, wore masks not so much for their own protection, as to comply with the norm. It seems that for the same reason in some other countries people refused to wear them.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru