Home / Summaries / Evolutionary approach to political psychology / intentions-science-deontology

Explaining deep-seated fears

6 important questions on Explaining deep-seated fears

What is deontology and consequentialism? And what are the consequences of the latter on how to perceive science?

In moral philosophy there are two (really three) main theories:

Deontology
There are some forbidden actions and some obligatory actions
E.g. it is alway wrong to kill
Consequentialism
There are no absolute rules, everything depends on its consequences.

The logic today is that we should be as consequentialist as possible. To be pragmatic.
This also means that when science agrees largely on a topic, we should follow that as well, where in cases where there is more uncertainty, then our opinions can vary more.
But we are not rational animals, so we will think a lot of different things:

What are four examples of beneficial technologies that people tend to oppose?

GMO - can add more benefits to something
Golden rice - more vitamin A which helps eye sight
Nuclear power - good green energy source
Vaccines - best way to prevent spread of diseases

What is the illusion of understanding and how does it affect people's position on GMOs?

That people seem to think they know more than they do, and that the less you know the bigger this overestimation is.

However when you ask them to describe something in detail, they will reconsider and reevaluate their own level of knowledge. If you then provide them with more information they will reevaluate again.

Fernbach et al has shown that:

Strongly opposed to GMOs --> think they know the most
People with the least amount of information --> most opposed.

What does it mean that we are bad at counterfactual thinking? Use vaccines as an example.

We have the luxury of being able to focus on the small little consequences of a vaccine, because we no longer have people dying of these horrible diseases.
It is beause it works well that we forget about the benefits: because they work we do not see people dying if they had not gotten it.

We are bad at understanding how it would have been if it had not been like this.

What are three reasons that our brains are not fit for science?

We love anecdotes and cannot help to generalise from them.
Our brains do not comprehend that cumulative results of statistics is better information than one anecdote.
We do not grasp that there is an incentive to prove someone wrong.

What importance do people give to the intentions vs the efficiency of a policy? And how can natural selection explain this?

People prefer good intentions over the most beneficial outcome. That is good intentions and a little effect will be preferred over egotistic intentions and a big effect.

Marie, Trad, and Strickland: Across different setups, the altuistic option was never preferred under the selfish one.

Why?

We like people who have the right values, because we can work together with them: they wont stab us in the back or shit in the river.
Teaming up with the wrong person has bigger consequences than teaming up with someone who does not always succeed.