Chris Mooney (1)Recensioni

Considering the title of this book, you can't help but consider this to be an anti-Republican, anti-Conservative and pro-Democratic, pro-Progressive book. Mooney claims that not to be the case. Rather, he writes that his point is simply to point out that people on the left and people on the right are simply two very different types of people, with two differing types of brains and personalities.

The book offers a different way of looking at people on the right and on the left. Through various studies of how the mind works and psychological studies, Mooney tries to demonstrate that underlying personal traits are often keys to one's political outlook.

Mooney characterizes those more authoritarian as tending to the right, and those being more egalitarian as tending to the left. That alone may not be much of a revelation, but other personality traits also are keys to understanding political leanings. Mooney characterizes those who have a low tolerance of uncertainty, who have more need for closure, for rules, for strong sense of group and belonging, as the type of person who will favor conservative / Republican philosophy. Those individual, he states, are much more resistant to change, desire to manage uncertainty and fear, and can accept or rationalize inequality. The need for something stable, something unchanging to believe in, who like order in their lives (e.g., military and corporate America), will favor conservative ways of thinking. A strong sense of belonging to a group, of order, accounts for a much more unified philosophy by Conservatives. As an example, he contrasts the orderly and consistent dogma of the Tea Party as contrasted to a political opposite movement such as the Occupy Wall Street movement. Other positive characteristics Mooney finds more dominant in conservatives include decisiveness, patriotism, loyalty to friends and allies. On the other hand, they may have more of a tendency toward "group think", and be much quicker to dismiss scientific information which contrasts with their deeply held beliefs. He supports this, of course, with a variety of studies which he shares with the readers.

On the other hand, the more "open" a person is, the more willing to bend or compromise, someone who sees shades of gray in things, who is tolerant of various perspectives and values, will be someone who will drift toward Democratic philosophy. Liberals as a group tend to be more nuanced, more empathetic, open to travel and new ideas, etc. This makes them more likely the agents of change (and accepting and interested in new science), vs. the conservative trait of holding onto existing ideas and ways of life (and more dismissive of new science).

Family members often can have very different make-up, personalities, intuitions and responses, and those traits can often account for differences in political philosophy. But while Mooney states that these two groups exhibit complimentary strengths and weaknesses, and they're simply two different types of people, he clearly does favor the type of person most like himself, i.e., a liberal, open to science type of individual. Interestingly, he concludes by stating that he believes he's correct in his conclusions, but is open to change if further studies demonstrate otherwise.

One good point which he makes is he discussion of confirmation bias in our reading and sources of information, as well as other tendencies which can make us more like our group. If you're unwilling to challenge yourself, and seek contrary information in your beliefs (things he feels the more "open" type of person will do but a more "conservative" may not tend to do), you'll only become more close minded and set in your ways.

At any rate, Mooney offers new ways of looking at differences between those on the right and the left, and has a wealth of data and studies which he offers to make his point(s). It's a little different look at things, and he points out that it's not necessarily the facts of an argument which sways people to one belief system or the other, but more just part of their make-up, and facts can simply just get in the way (for some).

Partially read. To hyped and didn't seem to be more than what was in the papers

From my CBR5 Review...

I should know better than to ever go into Powell’s without a firm agreement with myself that I will NOT buy any books that aren’t already on my Goodreads list. I mean, I’ve got 138 waiting for me – do I REALLY need to walk up and down the aisles of this massive indie bookstore, pulling off books that catch my eye?

Yes, yes I do. Unfortunately, I wish I hadn’t picked up this one.

Subtitled “How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future,” Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s book purports to explore why the lack of interest in or understanding of science is a threat to the U.S. While I appreciate the sentiment, there were a few negative things that really stood out to me as I read this book, resulting in a pretty low rating.

First, this book was published in 2009, and spends a good part discussing how scientists need to be better versed in how to discuss their findings and research with the media. Better communications training for all scientists is one of their main solutions to the problem referenced in the title, and overall it’s a good one. They point to Carl Sagan as a great scientist who the average person trusted and was interested in learning from; they also point out that he was essentially shunned by “serious” scientists. That’s a problem and needs to be fixed. However, one of the author’s biggest concerns is that we don’t have anyone like that these days.

Say what? Has he never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson? That man is amazing. He got The Daily Show to (for the day at least) fix their opening credits so the world spins the right way. He got James Cameron to FIX THE SKY when he released the anniversary print of Titanic. This is a man people know, a man who is trying to bridge the unnecessary gap between science and policy, and he’s not even mentioned in the book. That alone gives me pause.

Second, the book has a disturbing chapter called “The New Atheists” that seeks to vilify PZ Meyers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Now, I don’t know much about Meyers, and I know that Sam Harris seems to be EXTREMELY islamophobic, and Richard Dawkins seems to be quite misogynistic. However, those were the issues these authors had. They attempt to make the case that atheists like them, who suggest that religion today is incompatible with reason, are making the situation worse. I actually get the argument they are trying to make, but they make it so poorly that it’s a bit challenging to get on their side.

Additionally, while I see they have a larger goal in mind, they also seem to be doing the ‘give both sides equal time” thing they eviscerate just a few chapters earlier when discussing climate change. As an atheist (of the ‘there’s no evidence for a diving being now but if you gave me some obviously I’d change my mind’ variety) I am clearly more prone to sensitivity around discussions of this nature, so it is possible that I am either misreading that section or just disagree, but either way it left me with a pretty bad taste in my mouth.

Finally, while the title was clear enough to me that this was about the specific problem of science literacy in America, the nationalist undertones were ever-present and unsettling. I’d like to see the discussion about why it’s important for people to understand science and find it interesting from a policy perspective without ending the chapter with “BECAUSE AMERICA MUST BE NUMBER ONE!!!!1!1!!” I take issue with the U.S. not fostering financial support around issues like climate change, but not because we are the best yay U.S.A.! There seem to be constant appeals to that competitive, egotistical spirit in a lot of the promotion of the STEM areas (science, technology, engineering and math), often to the detriment of the humanities, which ironically these authors correctly point out are a necessary part of even science education. A focus on why this is a problem in our country without the ‘because WIN’ argument would be refreshing.

I appreciate (to a degree) what these authors were going for, but I think they missed the mark. The book was certainly an easy read (and very short, and only 130 pages of text with an additional 100 or so pages of references), and well written, but the arguments left me wanting something better.

Interesting and very well sourced, although a little drawn out. It could easily be two-thirds of the length just by providing all the example themes once, instead of repeating them every chapter.

An excellent book that deserves more comments (to come later). I took off a half star for the maddening end notes - you discover them after you've read the chapter... I don't know what style that is, but if there are notes, I like to know about them when I am reading...not after I move on...Page number, sentence fragment to indicate the reference tie...I guess you have to flp back after the fact. Irritating.

Still, I gave back that half star because the book was so well sourced.

Another book that wont be read by those who need to (and Mooney explains why.)

In this book Chris Mooney backs up his assertion that Republicans/conservatives think differently than Democrats/liberals with a deluge of data from scientific tests and psychological studies. At times it was very slow going for me, not that I'm a fast reader to begin with, which is a telling indicator of my political leanings.

Two things I wish there'd been more about - or that I hope Chris will cover in a future book: the undecided voter (in this political climate how does anyone remain undecided?), and how can you be sure that Republicans/conservatives are not simply faster readers?

This book was part of a little trend -- maybe past tense isn't appropriate; the trend may still be happening -- of looking at political choices and beliefs through the lens of psychology. While interesting, I'm not yet persuaded of the utility of this approach -- maybe because it all just seems so circular. "A has this political idea, because A is authoritarian and this political idea is authoritarian." Sure, but what does it add?

It certainly helps with identity-building -- a book talking about "The Republican Brain" is going to make non-Republicans (Democrats and others) feel good about themselves, and vice versa. I'm not sure it will help build dialog, or help people work together.

Within that genre, Mooney's book is a reasonable summary, but it doesn't break particular new ground. His writing is appealing and readable enough, but sometimes feels ... young, or self-important to me -- as if he thinks he has made a really novel discovery.

For this reason, I read what he writes, but get frustrated and find myself skimming parts.

Anyway, recommended as an introduction to the topic.

I expected a lot of this book. One cannot follow the news these days without instantly realizing how rich an area this is. The near dismissal of science and scientific evidence by the right is both bizarre and rife. But I guess I hoped for a writer who was more of a scientist himself, a cold assassin who simply allowed the accumulated evidence damn those who seek to damn us all. I wanted a book I could hand to my Republicans friends and relatives with confidence. But the assassin gets emotional (and political) and dulls his own blade opening himself to charges of ideological malice. Where was his editor? Derelict I think. Urging Mooney to play to his audience? With not much effort, one could still turn this into a good book aimed at a broad (not a partisan) audience.½

The subtitle of this book is something of a misnomer: the authors (rightly, in my opinion) take it for granted that the high (and, arguably, rising) rate of scientific illiteracy -- among the public in general but most importantly among politicians -- is damaging our society and, through the corresponding muddled thinking about such matters as AGW, threatening our future. Really, the subject of their book is what can be done to cure, or at least ameliorate the effects of, this dire situation.

While they point at some of the usual culprits as having brought us to where we are, over and over again they hammer home their point that really the fault is of scientists themselves, who have failed to take seriously the importance of communicating scientific discovery, and its importance, to politicians and the public. If only scientists would make a bit more effort in this regard, Mooney and Kirshenbaum appear to be saying, our problems would be solved.

I don't buy all of this. Yes, there are plenty of cases of specialists being tone deaf to the public -- a recent case involved the CRU's head Phil Jones saying in a BBC interview that the rise in global temperatures during the 1990s was "statistically insignificant" (he meant that, though the figures showed a rise, the time period was simply too short to draw firm conclusions; add in the 2000s, thereby doubling the time period, and the trend was undeniable), blithely unaware that this expression was opaque to the scientifically illiterate and would thus be reported as CLIMATE CHIEF SAYS WARMING HAS STOPPED. But for every top-notch frontline scientist who just happens to be a blithering idiot when it comes to communicating with the public, there are plenty who're only too eager to make the effort, and many of these are actually good at it. My house is packed with first-rate popularizations of science done by scientists (for all I know, some may use ghostwriters, but this doesn't affect the overall case). And those are only the lucky few whose works make it into print. Anyone who works in publishing will tell you world is full of good scientists who want to write books for the popular market. We have to remember that, leaving aside the specialist and semi-specialist presses, most proposed book projects will be judged not by folk with a science background but by folk whose qualifications are likely to be in the arts/humanities or in business. This means that, however worthy a science popularization might be (and, in fact, however big the potential public demand for it might be), it has a steeper mountain to climb than, say, a new Hollywood bio. In other words, to belabour scientists for a perceived lack of effort is to ignore the fact that others have vital and often determining roles in the result of any effort the scientists make.

Mooney's solo The Republican War on Science was a salutary work, one that every responsible citizen should read, and I was expecting something similarly forceful here. In the event, I kept wondering if someone had told the authors they should maintain that kind of journalistic "balance" which is so bedeviling our public discourse at the moment. There's lots of good stuff in this short book, but overall I was disappointed.

Unfortunate title for a book which actually explores decision bias for both Republicans and Democrats.

The book is basically a review of the scientific research concerning the relationship between personality and political beliefs ( and somewhat tangentially, religious belief ). There are various traits evaluated that correlate strongly with political beliefs. For example, being open to new experiences and intellectual curiosity correlates with being a liberal. If you are not, you tend to be conservative. There are a whole cluster of such traits.
The title implies that the book will come down hard on conservatives, but the author tries his best not to do this and points to the valuable traits conservatives have ( loyalty seems to be one ) that would be beneficial for liberals to have and vice versa. Overall, though, liberals come out looking better than conservatives especially since liberals are more open to revising their beliefs and opinions if scientific findings contradict them. This is a trait most people value and conservatives claim to value but rarely practice.

The book is an easy read and may perhaps personally challenge your self image.

If you liked this, you may want to also investigate The Authoritarians available for free as a pdf at the authors website.

Very American and, hence, somewhat irrelevant to me (I'm Canadian). But it's the first fusion of psychology and politics I've seen, and it's very readable, and informative.

Funny, I didn't remember that I'd read this book until I went back through my common place book. I have read a number of articles by Mooney, but have been struck by the lack of in-depth thought he puts into his analyses; if this was the same way, perhaps that's why it didnt' stick with me.½

Essentially an essay on how/why America is not scientifically literate. By science literacy, the authors don't mean able to recall various facts, explain various theories, or get caught up with pseudoscience and skepticism of well-established paradigms (think evolution, climate change). The authors are really focused on the more important issue of "citizens' awareness of the importance of science to politics, policy, and our collective future." Yes, the book describes the failings of education, politics/policies, science institutions, etc, and how science reasoning is in many ways a separate culture from politics, religion, Hollywood, and mainstreamism. But really, the heart and soul of this book is a cry out to American scientists to come down out of the ivory tower, learn to engage, communicate, and relate to their fellow Americans to bridge these divides, re-energize and re-focus the country to support today's demands for innovation and global competition.

However, one of my problems with the authors' argument is that they point to efforts like ScienceDebate2008 as a way forward. But if you can't recall ScienceDebate2008 from the presidential election, there's a reason for it, and it doesn't bode well if that's the future.

So maybe motivational/ inspirational. Maybe junk. But:

Recommended. For thinking people of all professions ;-P 4 stars.

A well-written, readable treatise on the lack of science interest in American politics and education.

Mooney sets out to prove the Bush administration's ignorance and manipulation of science for the sake of policies. His point is clear, and clearly made. The book could have been shorter; once his point was made.½

How the Bush administration has subordinated truth to its political ends.

A straightforward description of the (largely successful) attempts of the Republican Party to suppress, manipulate, and deny scientific theories and facts in favor of opinions that satisfy or advance the interests of either or both of their primary constituent groups—right-wing fundamentalist christians or business.

Clear and depressing.½

Essential reading for scientists and progressives. See his weblog, The Intersection, for updates on the ongoing battle.

7/9/22

I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14417488