About the SA Blog Network

The Curious Wavefunction

The Curious Wavefunction

Musings on chemistry and the history and philosophy of science
The Curious Wavefunction Home

Lindau 2013: All our hopes and fears: Why we need psychologists at Lindau

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Kahneman, Slovic and Shermer; three experts in the psychology of belief and risk perception who would be valuable additions to the Lindau Meeting (Images: Wikipedia Commons)

When I visited Lindau this year I experienced a mix of hopes and fears. The hopes came from the Nobel Prize winners and the young students and researchers gathered there. As a supposedly unbiased observer it was my job to provide skepticism and express fears.

What was the source of the fears? The problem was that I could not help but feel that I had heard it all before. When the laureates were talking about improving science funding, about inspiring young people to go into science, about strategies to combat climate change and solve the energy crisis, I could not help but feel a pronounced wave of deja vu wash over me. I had heard much of this in 2009. And I had heard it being expressed in the interim in news sources, on blogs and in interviews with experts across the spectrum of science and technology.

I heard Steven Chu, Mario Molina and Richard Schrock talk about how important solar power, next-generation nuclear power, energy efficiency and better mileage standards are. I heard Brian Kobilka, Harry Kroto and others talk about the increasing lack of focus on basic research, about basic science education and the march of irrationality. I heard them and nodded my head, as I had nodded my head back in 2009.

My feeling was that we have reached, in terms of technical solutions, if not a plateau, at least a point of diminishing marginal returns. The technology for cutting carbon emissions, for storing nuclear waste, for supporting forays into Alzheimer’s disease research and for taking science education to students in the developing world already exists. Although technological innovations can still have a tremendous impact on the energy crisis or the problem of curiosity-driven research, the major problems that we face do not lie at the technical level. They lie at the political, social and psychological level. The cardinal issue confronting us is not how to deploy this or that technical fix but how to change people’s minds. And when I realized this I could not help but feel despondent. Because while technological solutions can be challenging enough, changing people’s minds is a truly herculean task, often spread over several generations and entire social movements. On some level everything that the technical experts at Lindau were saying did not matter, because all those solutions would not make an iota of difference if we were unable to convince the politicians and the general public about their value.

Concomitant with this realization was a more practical one. In the cast of outstanding thinkers and doers at Lindau one category was conspicuously missing. The august group of experts this year included physicists, chemists, biologists, doctors, mathematicians, computer scientists, neuroscientists, a bishop, a president and a secretary of energy. Not one psychologist or sociologist. I realized that what we really need at Lindau is a group of crack psychologists to tell us how we can actually convince people to adopt the solutions that the physicists, chemists, doctors and energy experts are proposing. Without psychologists’ recommendations it is likely that all the technological recommendations offered by the experts will hit a roadblock.

What kind of psychologists would the Lindau meeting benefit from? What we need most of all are experts on the psychology of belief. Three names immediately come to my mind. One is a Nobel Prize winner so it should not be difficult for the organizers of the meeting to include him in their ranks. Daniel Kahneman has spent his whole career demonstrating why people react in certain ways to stimuli, fears and incentives, and why they keep on making decisions based on gut feelings that inadvertently turn out to be flawed. Kahneman would be a very valuable addition at Lindau because he can teach us how people react to signals about sources of energy and policy decisions. Kahneman has also investigated how the more rational side of the brain can often circumvent its primitive, knee-jerk counterpart and how we can channel this side to make sure that we suppress decisions based on gut reactions. We need Kahneman’s advice to understand how we can appeal to people’s rational side in convincing them about energy or climate change.

Another valuable expert to have at Lindau would be Paul Slovic who is internationally renowned for his work on the psychology of risk. Almost every new technology or scientific solution proposed by the experts carries with it an element of risk, and people are going to perceive this risk in their own way. The public’s perceptions of risk to things like climate change or nuclear power are often flawed since they arise from emotional and preconceived beliefs rather than from rational analysis. Whether it is fear of nuclear power, “chemicals” or government control of our lives, our world is filled with risk perception that is disproportionate to reality. The Precautionary Principle, reaction mechanisms in the primitive brain and a heightened perception of sensationalized events at the expense of far more prevalent but low-grade events are all constant features of the general public’s assessment of risk, and this assessment often leads us to make wrong choices. Whether it’s the introduction of solar power, the expansion of fracking or the widespread deployment of nuclear power, it is imperative to appreciate how people will react to the perceived risk from these technologies. The wrong perception of risk can lead them to squelch promising technical solutions through political maneuvering. Experts like Paul Slovic can teach us to present risk in an honest and sensible way so that people have an accurate idea of the reality which it represents.

Finally, the basic source of all our fears and reactions is the belief system that evolution has engineered in our brains. That belief system served us well when we were hunter gatherers eking out a living on the savannah, but it often does more harm than good in our modern, complex human world. Michael Shermer has not only spent years investigating the psychology of belief but he has also managed to present his findings and thoughts to the public in the form of informative and entertaining books. Much of Shermer’s writing has focused on exploring the primitive pattern-seeking mechanisms in our brain that make us see conspiracy theories and mistake noise for signal in general. Ultimately, whatever technology we are trying to sell people will be limited by how people perceive its risks and benefits based on their preconceived beliefs. If their beliefs tell them that the technology cannot be trusted, then they won’t embrace its benefits no matter how sensible or unambiguous they are. Shermer can tell us why people believe certain things, and especially strange things, and perhaps by knowing this we can pitch the technological solutions to them in such a way that they appeal to the rational beliefs in their heads.

Science and technology can only take us so far. Ultimately nothing changes until people and politicians’ thought processes change, and no number of sound technical fixes will work if people refuse to believe in their benefits and change their behavior. And for doing this we need not chemists and physicists but psychologists and sociologists. I humbly suggest that the Lindau meeting should henceforth make sessions with psychologists an integral part of its agenda.

Ashutosh Jogalekar About the Author: Ashutosh (Ash) Jogalekar is a chemist interested in the history and philosophy of science. He considers science to be a seamless and all-encompassing part of the human experience. Follow on Twitter @curiouswavefn.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 2 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. tamatiesous 2:33 pm 07/9/2013

    The addition of psychologists to future Lindau’s will undoubtedly bring more input on how to “sell” new tech advances to the politician and the general public. Unfortunately, most politicians and members of the public are generally not “up” on scientific matters, too involved in $$, making a living, making their point and/or far too sparse education and interest in the planet’s future. The one leads to the next, humanity’s eventual downfall.
    There is still one field of knowledge and expertise missing from the list. i.e. Religion. But to have one Bishop present is like trying to evaluate the whole ocean from one drop. Religious thought and philosophy can be and generally is more divisive amongst religionists than some scientific mathematical formulae is to the physicists.
    Yet there is truth somewhere in both religion and science. for e.g. the Bishop who was at Lindau this year has probably not heard this “..worlds without number have I created and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them……….for behold there are many worlds that have passed away,by the word of my power and there are many that now stand and innumerable are they to man, but all things are numbered unto me, for I know them, and they are mine and as one earth shall pass away and the heavens thereof, even so shall another come and there is no end to my works neither to my words. For behold, this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man……” Pearl of Great Price a revelation given to Joseph Smith June 1830. In another revelation in 1832, Joseph Smith received the following about the Lord : ….he that ascended up on high,as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth. Which truth shineth, this is the Light of Christ….and the light which shineth, which giveth you light,is through him that enlighteneth your eyes, that quickeneth your understandings, which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God, to fill the IMMENSITY OF SPACE, which is in all things, giveth life to all things,the law by which all things are governed, even the POWER of God, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things….” Doctrine and Covenants ch 88….selected verses….
    Science is now grappling with amazing discoveries such as Dark Matter (to give it a name), scientists are coming to acknowledge that there are forces and influences which cannot now be explained, the Boson particle etc. and massive amounts of $$$ are being invested in research, to the end that the eternal roots of the universe(s)might be postulated. Religion through revelation has already made this knowledge known and yet religionists generally refuse to accept modern revelation,and to follow mankind will not accept it either.
    What I am saying is that this is tremendously interesting. I am following the science of discovery and equating it to what my faith tells me. Please do NOT bring psychologists in to Lindau as this will confuse the issues even more.
    Regards, keep up the research and thought, the mind boggling discoveries which confirm my faith.
    Rex Lowe. A member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

    Link to this
  2. 2. Sangual 3:07 pm 07/9/2013

    @tamatiesous, ‘There is still one field of knowledge and expertise missing from the list. i.e. Religion”.
    What??!! Oh, that is just amazing how you try to hide behind Science to preach your religious ideology and ignorance. No, they don’t need Religious groups or figures of “churches” either.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article