But isn't the appeal to emotion the tactic that has been used this whole time (at least in regards to climate change)? It does not seem to be working. When I think about the major documentaries discussing climate change, they mostly appeal to fear. Yes, they do give you some data, but mostly it is fear. This makes sense, if you think that something catastrophic is about to happen, so I don't blame them for the approach, but the issue with this approach is with people like me.
A few months ago, I heard a talk from a "climate change" denier, and he was all about the data. That caught my attention, and I started to watch as many debates on the topic as I could find. In most, if not all, of them, the "climate change" denier's side always seemed better informed, more rational, and scientific. This very scientific approach to denial is not unique to climate change. If you watch any talks from the "intelligent design" (evolution denial) crowd, you will find that they seem very well informed. The difference is that in the realm of "intelligent design" you will find plenty of smart people offering counter arguments. This is not the case with climate change.
So, I would say that we should drop the emotional appeal, and encourage all of the many, very smart, climate scientist, and other well informed individuals to start fighting misinformation, so others like me that are interested in the truth can find better tools to make sound and rational decisions.
That's precisely what I thought after watching the above Adam Ruins Everything. That's what got me thinking: is there not a better way?
Maybe there is, but I can't think of one. The fact is "People Like You" are probably more intelligent than the average population. A cause doesn't need the top 10% to get done. It needs the average 51% of which many care more about what they feel than objective facts.
Yes, some climate change and evolution deniers have what seems like a very scientific approach, but that's because they're playing both sides. They want to appeal to you AND the people who react more to emotional appeal. If they have a method to convince someone more intelectual, why wouldn't they?
This is ultimately what I feel needs to happen too. Of course the hard facts need to be shown, but that doesn't negate the need for mass appeal. While my intelligent friends support climate change on the merits of the evidence, most of the people I know tend to repeat talking points about what we leave to our children. They only speak and listen to the level of their understanding, just as you do when you find a more fact-based argument.
That all said, I absolutely think we need to all fight the spread of misinformation. I don't condone lying, but I think this method of framing things more emotionally is the only way to get through to the majority of the population.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit