Over at Orcinus, guest blogger Sara Robinson has a series of posts (I, II, & III) about the psychology of the authoritarian mindset, and how this affects communication with many religious conservatives. The posts are definitely worth a read in and of themselves, but I want to throw open for discussion what these ideas mean (if anything) for the evolution political controversy.
Is there anything from these posts we can learn about how to communicate, about what should be and should not be communicated, and about who the best communicators would be?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
While the a number of my classmates spent their evening at the football stadium I hopped the train to New York to attend the "How various media outlets are used to popularize, communicate, and promote science" panel discussion, part of a series in the Science Communication Consortium. Even though…
In a pair of earlier posts, I looked at the ethical principles Matthew C. Nisbet says should be guiding the framing of science and at examples Nisbet discusses of ethical and unethical framing. Here, consider some lessons we might learn from the framing wars. I'm hopeful that we can gain insight…
There is quite a lot of chatter around the intertubes about changes in the communication environment that happened between the last and this election and how those changes may be affecting the way the new White House communicates to people as well as how the new White House will receive…
Presently there are few words as divisive among science bloggers as "framing," and at this point it appears that the concept of framing itself has been "mis-framed." The concept has always been a bit nebulous to me, but I'm definitely concerned by the recent formulation of framing being proposed by…
I think the primary thing I learned is that I'm kidding myself if I think I stand any chance of changing a fundie's mind by reasoned debate. That's a conclusion I'd been resisting for some time.
The other main thing was that psychology and sociology are a lot more practical than I took them for :)
Of course, the problem is that the authoritarian mindset afflicts the left as well, and especially atheists.
Bakunin (the real father of terrorism in the modern age) Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot;, all were committed...even fanatical...atheists who were first rate examples of authoritarians.
All hated religion, and were dedidcated to eliminating it, even when doing so adversely affected their other political programs.
Only Stalin let up when he found it expedient to do so during the war, and quckly put the clamps down again when he got what he wanted. (Nobel Prize winner Solzhenitsyn details this brilliantly in The Gulag Archipelageo.)
So to paraphrase Corkscrew, theists are of course kidding themselves if the think they can have ANY kind of discussion with fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins, Dennet, or even Sam Harris (who hates religion with a passion unequaled but ironically goes off on his own mystical tangent) that will not turn into an insult and riducule fest.
Whatever.
oh, the irony..