Marc's Lectures Flashcards
Two famous studies which show how psychology has tired to explain discrimination through ___.
Disrriminatinatory behaviour is the function of the situation.
(A) Milgram’s obedience study
(B) Asch’s social conformity
study.
The (4) usual suspects in psychology to explain negative interpersonal behaviour:
(A) The Authoritarian
Personality
(B) The Machiavellian
Personality
(C) The Social Dominant
(D) The PsychopathWhat is the Authoritarian Personality?
Facism scale-
Given the atrocities committed against Jewish, and other, groups the perpetrators must be dysfunctional in some way.
That perpetrators had a dysfunctional pathological personality which can be characterized into 9 traits:
(A) Conventionalism (child
should be seen and heard,
a woman belongs in the
kitchen I.e. strong
adherence to tradition and
resistance to change)
(B) Authoritarian Submission
(people should do as their
told by authority figures)
(C) Authoritarian aggression
(endorsement of people
who do not obey authority
figures deserve to be
punished).
(D) Anti-intraception
(disagreement with
interracial, cultural or
religious relationships or
marriage)
(E) Superstition and stereotypy
(excessive stereotyping,
and highly superstitious I.e.
Hitler had a wing of psychic
soldiers who were tasked to
find the spear that held
Jesus to the cross because
they believed if they could
harness its power, they
would be unstoppable).
(F) Endorsement of being
powerful and tough
(G) Being destructive and
cynical about the world
(H) Projecting your
weaknesses onto others
(I) A preoccupation of sex
How does someone develop an Authoritarian Personality:
Theorised that this dysfunctional personality pathology originates in childhood in response to excessively harsh and disciplinarian parenting intended to produce emotional dependence and obedience in the child.
Rooted in Freudian Psychoanalysis that it stems from a child’s childhoods experiences that leads to a ridged, rule bound submission towards authority.
(A) The child develops ambiguity (love hate) towards parents due to highly punitive parents who show little affection.
(B) Fear and guilt mean the child cannot act on this anger towards their parents
(C) Anger is displaced onto weaker others, while parents and power they represent are idealized (e.g. Germans directed their hate towards Jewish because Hilter sanctioned them).
*the broader context aspects are also important I.e. the fact that they were in the great economic recession
The Fascism-Scale: the original authoritarianism scale
This scale was used a lot for 20 years before we identified a fundamental flaw.
Higher scores on the F-scale did mean your behavior could be predicted to be significantly more likely to favor the ingroup and act prejudice towards the outgroup.
Flaws:
Poorly designed scale
Subject to acquiescence bias- the tendency to agree with items on the scale and this scale has items all worded in such a way that agreement correlates with higher authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is characterised by conforming to authority to this scale conflates the construct with the way it is assessed.
Fix this with reverse coded items (+ and -)
The (new) Authoritarian refers to…
RWA
The Authoritarian scale was revived by Altemeyer (1981)
He reduced the 9 characteristics of authoritarianism from the original scale down to three:
(A) Authoritarian submission
(submitting to authority)
(B) Authoritarianism aggression
(directing aggression to
sanctioned members of
society)
(C) Conventionalism
(adherence and
endorsement of tradition)
He has ten publications on this.
These (3) characteristics are measured using 36 items (I.e. it is vital that we have a strong leader who will crush evil and take us back to the path of righteousness- this is a poor item because it is double barrelled question).
Results on Fascism Scale and subsequent RWA-scores against American State Legislators (I.e. politicians)
(A) Republicans tended to
have higher RWA scores
than democrats
(B) Democrats have the lowest
RWA scores in Wisconsin
but also the highest RWA
score in Mississippi
(C) There is variation in scores
by party across states in
USA
*In NZ we would expect to see rural area’s more conservative (National) and Labor does well in urban areas (Liberal).
The Machiavellian Personality Scale (Christie & Gies, 1970)
Notoriously unsuccessful political personality scale I.e. lying is fine if you get your way the people who scored higher on this scale broke into his office to steal the answers for the upcoming test in his study.
The Social Dominant (Pratto, Sidanuis et al., 1994)
*people who score high on SDO see the world as a competitive jungle in which it is a dog eats dog world and they need to dominate the weak in order to stay powerful.
Author of the scale was African American.
He grew up in Chicago and new by age 10 that African Americans experienced differential treatment and overt prejudice behaviours. He was walking home with his white Jewish girlfriend when police spot him and tail him and ask him what he was doing, he was beaten and arrested the only reason he got let off was because there were witnesses and his girlfriend testified. The judge told him he would let him go this once and that he expected him to respect the law more.
This caused him to turn his back on America and traveled the world and finds himself in Sweden where there are not many African Americans. He found that there he was not discriminated against, but gypsy was discriminated against.
No matter where he went there was always a dominant and submissive group.
Conducted a study to see if higher SDO scores would predict participants responses to the Rodney King beating and Gulf War.
The SDO argues (4):
(A) The world is stratified into
groups based on fixed set
memberships
- Age
- Gender (the invariance
hypothesis- you will always
find that men endorse
hierarchy more than women,
no matter where you go)
- Arbitrary (other factors that
people are grouped by their
arbitrary set I.e. race
because it varies across
cultures on their hierarchy)
*things that you can look at an individual and tell if they fit into the binary group memberships dictated by societal norms.
(B) Hierarchy Enhancing
(endorse societal inequality
I.e. police, tax accountants,
commerce student,
prosecutor lawyers, and
military) vs. Hierarchy
Attenuating (job which serve
to reduce discrepancies
within society I.e. social
workers, teachers, public
defender lawyers, art
students).
(C) Legitimising Myths:
- Paternalistic: that the weak
are guided by the stronger
groups e.g. it’s a great idea
that women aspire to go to
university but is it really in
their best interest they're
such delicate and fragile
beings.
- Reciprocal: that there is a
reciprocal relationship where
the weak and the dominant
rely on this relationship e.g.
racism no longer exists, we
had a black president- that
stratification no longer exists.
- Sacred myths: the belief that
a higher being or deity
decides which group is on
top and who is on the bottom
of the social hierarchy e.g.
the belief that gaps in pay
are due to people being
rewarded for working harder
then other people.
(D) Behavioural Asymmetry:
- Out-group
Favouritism/deference e.g.
when given the option white
children prefer the white
barbie doll then the black and
with African American
children, they also favoured
the white doll due to
legitimising myths telling
children being white is
something to aspire to.
- Asymmetric in-group bias e.g.
the further up the pile you are
the more biased you are
towards the in-group.
- Self-Handicapping e.g. people
in the weaker group tend to
act in ways that keep them
subordinate to the dominant
group. Reflecting the
internalisation of the social
order.
- Ideological Asymmetry e.g. the
further up the pile you are the
more you legitimise these
myths.
Higher SDO scores are correlated with….
Higher SDO score is predicted by male (gender) and higher socio-economic status (rich) I.e. the invariance hypothesis.
Which directly predicted their attitudes towards the gulf war and Rodeny King video I.e. endorsed gulf war and accepted the Rodney King beating.
High SDO correlated with higher awareness of your racial superiority and endorse cast maintenance (people staying in their place within society).
Higher SDO predicts higher political conservatism which in turn predicted attitudes towards gulf war and King beating.
*Social dominance had a direct and indirect effect on political conservatism and the gulf war or king
Beating.
The Psychopath (Kraeplin, 1904)
Superficially charming, unemotional, not remorseful and unemphatic individuals.
Moral insanity, only insane in terms of an impairment to their moral capacity to determine right from wrong.
Clercky (1941) identified a primary (personality) and secondary (lifestyle) psychopath.
Levinson et al. 1995 introduced a psychopathy scale. It is highly correlated with Machiavellian and SDO scales.
Interpersonal psychopath: individual wants to dominate other individuals (Machiavellian).
SDO: psychopath wants group-based dominance.
RWA, SDO and Meat:
Higher scores in RWA and SDO is correlated with eating more meat. Hierarchies nature and animals are placed subservient to humans, thus high scores eat more meat.
RWA, SDO and Donald Trump:
How may we characterise Donald Trump?
In a study participant were asked to imagine you were Donald trump, Barack Obama or Adolf Hilter, John Key, John Campbell or Vladimir Puttin and then fill in the RWA scale and SDO scale.
People though Hitler scored higher on SDO and RWA
Trump was close second to Hitler on both RWA and SDO
Puttin was slightly more RWA than SDO
John key was equal on RWA and SDO
Obama was more RWA than SDO
Is scoring high on SDO common?
• Less than 5% of NZ’s will score over the theoretical midpoint score of 4 (i.e. NZ is low on SDO) • Few nations in the world would have 10-15% of the population will score high in SDO
*Therefore, when papers argue that people who score higher in SDO do this, it’s lying because high scores in SDO are not common.
Is the SDO scale unidimensional?
Is the SDO a unidimensional scale?
Method Factor Analysis:
Items are reverse coded: items 9-16 are reverse coded. A factor analysis suggests that the SDO scale has a two-factor structure (1-8, 9-6). Thus, SDO is a unidimensional construct which factors into two factors- pro-trait (worded in the direction of the construct) and con-trait items (worded in the reverse direction of the construct).
- In essence, these two factors represent method factors: something about the way items are
coded.
Content Factor Analysis:
The first, 8 items are about group-based dominance (the opposite of dominance is not necessarily equality) and the second set are about egalitarianism which has been reverse coded into anti-egalitarianism.
• They further argue that due to methodological flaw in the scale even
with factor analysis we are unable to disentangle the methodological factor (8 pro-trait and 8 con-trait items) from the content (group-based dominance vs. Anti-egalitarianism).
Thus, they argue that original SDO scale is actually a group-based dominance scale and anti-egalitarianism scale.
what evidence supports that the SDO scale measures two separate constructs?
e.g. racism will correlate more with group-based dominance rather than anti-egalitarianism.
• Because racism only correlate with one sub-factor and not the other. This highlight that the factors measure two separate things and not SDO like Pratto et al. (date) predicted. • Pratto et al. (date) refuted jost’s claim and argued they both measured SDO.
However, in 2015 Pratto published a revised SDO scale which disentangles the method form the content by having a dominance and anti-egalitarianism subfactor structure with reverse coded items.
They argue that SDO is not just old wine in a new bottle but showed that high SDO score correlates with: • Weakly with Interpersonal dominance (individual level dominance) • With policy attitudes such as Authoritarianism by RWA scores (Cronbach's alpha of .78 = acceptable) and bipolar scale (.53 Cronbach's alpha = not acceptable) which corelated with political- economic conservatism, .31 and .29 respectively. o Neither correlated significantly with SDO o Therefore, they argue that SDO is a unique construct which is not just a new name for authoritarianism.
In summary,
(A) Higher RWA score
predicts…..
(B) Higher SDO scores
predict…..
In summary,
(A) RWA scores predicts, political conservatism (preference for inequality and resistance to
change), attitudes towards groups, sexism, racism, homophobia are correlated with higher authoritarianism scores.
(B) Higher SDO scores predict racism, sexism (does not predict homophobia as well as
RWA).
McFarland and Adelson (1996)
“An omnibus study of personality, values and prejudice”
Participants completed SDO, RWA and many other scales to identify where SDO and RWA ends and what they can do in combination.
If you put in Machiavellianism, values, anything you can think of to predict prejudice SDO and RWA blow them out of the water. In combination SDO and RWA predict r=.70 with prejudice and can explain 50% of variance in prejudice with a R2 of .50. This is as close to a grand theory of prejudice as psychology has ever gotten. This means when Pratto showed that SDO and RWA were not correlated they did not push it far enough, they neglected that they explain different aspects of prejudice.
Altmeyer (1998)
“The ‘other’ Authoritarian Personality”
He replicates McFarland’s work and extends it by showing what aspects of prejudice the SDO and RWA scales predict.
He predicts that if people who are authoritarian and social dominants are prejudices, then people who score high on both SDO and RWA will be the most prejudiced.
Sibley, Robertson & Wilson (2006)
*tested Altemeyer’s prediction empirically.
Using a database of students’ scores on prejudice, racism and sexism scales etc.
Modern racism is a scale which is intended to measure racism without activating social desirability effect, in which people will not explicitly admit to being racist (especially, in today’s climate where overt racism is not tolerated it has become subtle).
Beta-weights reveal that SDO and RWA are stronger predictors for different aspects of prejudice.
(A) attitudes towards Pasific
Islanders, SDO .39 and
RWA .19 but both are
significant (independent)
(B) SDO x RWA = moderation
I.e. interaction variance on
top of independent effects
o Only 3 meet the criteria for
statistically significant
moderation
It's rare for SDO and RWA to
combine and explain more
variance in prejudice than
RWA and SDO
independently.
Tests double high hypothesis
being most prejudiced
• Yes, they are additive, but
people who score high on
both are not especially more
racist.
John Duckett's Dual Process Model of Prejudice: *builds on McFarland and Altemeyer's work by providing a theoretical explanation n how these two personality types develop. • SDO and RWA are two routes to prejudice • SDO and RWA correspond broadly to the two dimensions commonly identified as underlying attitudes.
Pathway 1: RWA
Putative parenting leads to the child developing a social conforming and ridged personality. They tend to see the world as a dangerous place and lean towards RWA (submitting to authority and advocating the punishment of individuals who do not obey authority and you should do as convention tells you to) which leads you do dislike out-groups (prefer people similar to you and dislike those who are different).
Pathway 2: SDO Unaffectionate socialization (parenting) the child develops a personality which is ruthless and tough. They tend to see the world as a competitive jungle where it is a dog eats dog world. Thus, they feel they need to dominate weak groups in order to stay on top and powerful (preference for social hierarchy and inequality). This leads to people to prefer the ingroup and dislike outgroup (subordinates).
Paradox where white individuals may be poor, but they still endorse group-based dominance and social hierarchy where another member of their ethnic group are on top. People do not realize there in chains and they are legitimizing myths within society.
Are RWA and SDO independent pathways to prejudice?
*they are not necessarily independent pathways, there are some people who are socially dominant and authoritarian.
Sibley, Roberston & Wilson (2006)
Ambivalence sexism and the dual pathway to prejudice model
The Duckett dual process model to prejudice maps nicely onto these two forms of sexism (only ¼ of variance explained though).
(A) RWA leads to benevolent
sexism (I.e. conventional
view of women belongs in
the home and in the
kitchen).
(B) SDO leads to a hostile
sexism, rooted in social
hierarchy where women
are subordinate to men
and cannot be trusted
around other men.
*Mike Pense, the USA vice president will not be in another room with another women unless his wife is with him I.e. benevolent sexist. Implies that women will try to seduce you and you will fall for her tricks.
• RWA and SDO share reciprocal relationships, if you score high on one the more you score in the other. • A competitive world view predicts that you will also see the world as a dangerous place. Mainly because threats to social hierarchy are also threats to safety.
Ambivalence sexism
Idea that sexism can be manifested into primarily two forms:
(A) Benevolent Sexism: belief
that women are beautiful
and fragile creatures who
are not suited for the
ruthless world around
them and should be
protected (even from
themselves). It appears to
stem from a positive view
on women, but it is a very
paternalistic and
condescending view.
(C) Hostile sexism: all women
are promiscuous. They use
their feminine wiles to get
what they want from men.
Is a more overt form of
sexism.
*you can be one or you can be both
Judge & Wilson (2019)
Dual Process Model and veganism and vegetarianism
Intergroup behaviors, in SDO race is an arbitrary social category, whether ethnic groups are the target of interpersonal conflict is context dependent a differs country to country. The two consistent categories are young vs. old and men vs. women.
Some categories are not as easy to spot with a look I.e. vegetarianism or veganism.
• They found that seeing the world as a dangerous place predicted RWA which in turn predicted negative attitudes towards vegans and vegetarians. • Seeing the world as a competitive jungle predicted SDO which in turn predicted vegetarianism and veganism.
Why? 86% people eat meat. 5.5% are vegetarian and 1.5% are vegan. • Therefore, eating meat is normative and thereby being vegan or vegetarian is not liked by authoritarians because they are not doing what they’re told. NZ is the 3rd highest meat-eating countries. • SDO, animals are below people. Therefore, animals are not important and eating meat is an act of dominance.
Dual Process Model and Conspiracy Theories:
Wilson & Rose (2016)
SDO and RWA predict the extent to which you believe in conspiracy theories. • RWA and SDO are based on conforming and endorsing legitimate authority, whatever, the person believes to be the true authority. • Conspiracy theorists have in common rejection of the illegitimate authority and the dominant story “false story”. • In NZ, negative vaccinations attitudes are correlated with extreme right or left political views. • Openness to experience predicts less vaccination intentions but people who are high on RWA are low on openness. • Paranoid beliefs: is a weak and indirect predicts conspiracy beliefs through competitive world belief and SDO.
Dual Process Model and peoples belief in evolution:
People’s Belief in Evolution:
o In turkey 25% of people believe in evolution. o In USA only 40% of people believe in evolution. o In Scandinavia 80% of people believe in evolution. o Countries with a secular (non- religious) society believe in evolution. o People who are religious do not believe in evolution. o In NZ, there are 79% believe in evolution.
• The more you see the world as a dangerous place, the more RWA, the less you believe in evolution. • The more you see the world as a competitive jungle to more SDO the more you believe in evolution.
*unusual that SDO and RWA
predict opposite outcomes.
Why? Because evolution is a legitimizing myth, and characterize race based social hierarchy.
RARE that SDO (+) and RWA (-) predicted beliefs in an opposite direction.
Jost’s Social-Cognitive-Motivation model of political conservatism and the dual process model of prejudice
Jost argues: that the way we feel about political issues (social and economic) are a product of response to uncertainty and fear/threat in our environment.
This overlaps well with the dual-process model:
(A) Uncertainty (RWA)
(B) Fear/Threat (SDO)
(3) Motives we have to adopting certain political beliefs:
- Epistemic Motives:
*about the way we think
a. Dogmatism/intolerance of
ambiguity
b. Uncertainty avoidance
c. need for order, structure,
closure - Existential Motives
*things to do with our
existence
a. Self-esteem (poor self-esteem
leads to more RWA)
b. Loss Prevention
c. Terror Management (mortality
saliency, anxiety alleviated by
RWA political beliefs reduces
fear and uncertainty) - Ideological Motives
*things to do with what we
believe
a. rationalisation of self-interest
b. group-based dominance
(SDO)
c. Systems Justification
The operationalise political conservatism:
(A) Resistance to change (RWA-
authoritarianism)
(B) Endorsement of Inequality
(SDO- group based
dominance)
* In Jost’s article they also use SDO and RWA as proxy measures of political conservatism. However, Marc argues that they are not the same thing,as depicted by the dual-process Model.
Political conservatism is the product these 2 orientations SDO and RWA, they are not the same thing, SDO and RWA can predict political conservatism.
o Thus, Hypothetically if you were to change in scores for RWA and/or SDO than your placement on the political conservatism spectrum will change as a result. o A reverse hypothesis, if your political conservatism belief change than your RWA and SDO will change as a result.
**would be difficult to prove and
would require longitudinal
data.
If you conduct a factor analysis on political issues they factor into…
> corresponds with SDO and
RWA how?
If you conduct a factor analysis on political issues they factor into…
(A) Social Issues (RWA)
(B) Economic Issues (SDO)
*After analysis, this is how social and economic issues best fit into the dual-process model.
SDO and RWA fit into their respective pathways better than if they were the other way
around or in combination.
Wilson & Sibley (2015)
*found that double high in SDO and RWA didn’t produce more prejudiced people.
They then speculated that..
(A) If you are SDO and RWA
you are more politically
conservative
(B) Maybe it’s important about
either having a double high
or double low set of scores
(RWA and SDO).
*it worked, just not as they
expected!
The more authoritarian you are the more politically conservative you are.
High SDO leads to people being more politically conservative than Low SDO
The fact that high and low SDO lines are not parallel or overlapping, indicates the possibility of a statistical interaction (albeit weak).
e.g. double low leads to lowest political conservatism
e.g. Low RWA and High SDO leads to less political conservatism relative to those High RWA who are almost anyway going to be politically conservative.
**double high scores ONLY
applies to political
conservatism because there
are two factors:
(A) High SDO economic
conservative
(B) High RWA social
conservative
(C) Double high or low
conservative on both social
and economic political
issues.
Halberstad, Ruffman, Murrary, Taumocpcau & Ryan (2011)
Why are olser generations more politcally conservative?
Social Faux Pas and Theory of Mind-
Social faux pas: social missteps i.e. talking about your promotion after you just told people they will lose their job (office UK scene).
theory of mind: It’s an individual difference in people ability to predicts the thoughts going on in other people’s heads, to anticipate what is the right answer to the questions (if you do not have this you are likely to make social faux pas’s).
They used similar office clips and showed them to old vs young participants compared to amount of social faux pas and emotion regulation models.
(A) Appropriate vs.
Inappropriate to say (FP)
(B) Ability to respond to our
emotional response in an
adaptive way (ER)
• Control Group: older < younger • Faux Pas: younger < older • Emotion Regulation: younger > older.
They argue that as people get older the part of your brain which is responsible for providing appropriate responses to emotional responses degrades a bit (i.e. older people don’t spot social cues as well and more likely to social faux pas).
Age correlated with emotional regulation (frontal cortex with executive functioning).
In summary, older people have poorer emotional regulation skills than younger participants and were less likely to spot a social faux pas.
Ruffman, Wilson, Henry, Dawspn, Chen, Kladniski, Miftari, Murrary, Halberstadt & Hunter (2016)
*social identity theory: we shackle our self-esteem to our group and social identities.
• Extended the above study by looking at age differences in RWA, emotion regulation. • Older people have higher RWA scores. Why? Their emotional regulation impairment may mean that making overtly racist statements do not appear to be socially unacceptable for older people (younger people see it as negative and inappropriate).
Is this evidence of differences in emotion regulation across age groups or does this merely reflect older and younger people growing up in different generation where the social norms and experiences were different?
This is hard to disentangle without longitudinal data.
There is a correlation between ageing and becoming more politically conservative.
However, we know that the ages of 0-10 are crucial in developing people’s political beliefs. For example, having a defining event occur during this time (which makes mortality salient) will lead to you being more conservative later on.
And what do old people not believe in?
Segue’ to climate change
*Older people are disbelieving about climate change.
• The higher SDO and RWA
the less likely you are likely
to believe in climate change.
Why? Would authoritarians who are scared about the world being a threat not worried about climate change. If high RWA are invested in things staying the same they would not want to change their behaviour on an individual or society level.
Miflont’s theory on individual differences in people’s ability to position themselves in the future or in the past can be a factor on whether or not people believe in climate change.
(A) Future thinkers are more
concerned about climate
change
(B) Past thinkers are less
concerned about climate
change
*Politically conservative
people have a backwards
position in time (i.e. make
America great again).
Is climate change a political issue?
Graph highlights that the more politically conservative you are the less likely you are to believe in climate change.
~-.50 correlation.
How does beliefs about climate change link to interpersonal issues?
*the point of this was to highlight that both sceptics of climate change and firm believers in climate change can take strong negative interpersonal attitudes about the other group.
Dual Process Model and Green Party Affiliation
*negative correlation with green party who are liberal (reduce social inequality and
advocate for social change). In contrast, with National it’s + correlated!
what is the consensus gap?
The gap between lay audience and scientific consensus about climate change crisis.
• 97% of climate change scientist’s agree that climate change is occurring. • However, the public’s perception perceive there to be little agreement among scientists.
what are the flaw’s with the lay person gateway model?
(A) one flaw is that its
measuring consensus
estimates it doesn’t show if
people are changing their
beliefs about climate
change.
(B) that as a mediation model
the effect of climate change
consesnsus on the
relationship between 97%
scientific consensus and
climate change belief is
weak and minuscule.Kerr & Wilson (2018a)
Kerr & Wilson (2018a)
• Shows that peoples beliefs in climate change at trimester 1 predicted climate change beliefs at time 2. • Perceived consensus among scientists at trimester 1 predict perceived consensus among scientists at time 2. • However, we rationalize our perceptions on the consensus among scientists to match what we believe and not the other way around.
Kerr & Wilson (2018b)
Large survey study of 9000 participants, SDO, RWA, conservatism, political conservatism, objective feelings on science and scientists and beliefs about GMT in food, fluoride in drinking water, vaccines and climate change.
SEM Model:
• High SDO and RWA scores negatively predict trust in scientists. • The only variable which predicts beliefs about climate change or other science issues is peoples perceptions about scientists credibility!
In summary, the influence of scientific consensus on beliefs about climate change is determined by people’s perceptions on the credibility of scientists and science, which, in turn, is founded on RWA and SDO personality traits (much like political conservatism is).
A lot of the issues within society are founded on SDO and RWA personalities. So how do we make the world a better place? When these personalities are not easily changed.
• They argued not to tell people about climate change and expect them to change their behaviour because this is incredibly threatening. Therefore, they suggest to focus on the positives i.e. focus on the world you want to live in in 50 years. Then ask them to what extent do they think recycling, cutting down consumption of animals, moving to renewable energy, will damage this future you desire? Many so no and might even help us. • To not focus on debating whether or not climate change is a real issues but to focus on a collective societal goal about the future we want (for disbelievers).
