Often activists trying to do something, or stop something, will focus on the worst-case scenario. Gun control opponents invite us to think of all of the countries where guns have been confiscated and fascism followed. If we don't give up fossil fuels, we will kill the environment.
Hyperbole and exaggeration belong in advertisements for cologne and used cars. In discussing serious issues and what to do about them, you should be wary of those things. Let me explain why, in three short paragraphs.
1. You are being led to a radical view of a problem that is poorly supported by evidence. Eating less meat might be good for you and for the planet, but is eating meat really going to "kill the planet"?
2. You are being led to oppose a good idea by an appeal to fear. Sure, you could be a victim of a violent home invasion. Sure, having a gun nearby could help. How do you know? What are the odds?
3. You are being distracted from things that have a higher chance of happening.
I may return to these topics in future posts, if anyone is interested.
This blog is about using social science methods, concepts, and data to promote social change. I'll post ideas, reviews, and some social criticism here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Featured Post
Notes on Blending Social Science and Activism
Activism is demanding enough, so a big social science project is probably the last thing on your mind. This blog won't make anyone into ...
-
Most of the issues we face today have come up before, and maybe never went away. Gun violence is hardly a recent thing. Bullying and teen pr...
-
Well, no, That is just paranoid nonsense. Comet ISON is too small and won't hit the earth this time. Nibiru doesn't exist or has not...
-
This post might, or might not, be the first of a series on economic development in Afghanistan seen as an education challenge and a source o...
No comments:
Post a Comment