I believe it's possible and desirable to design science communication strategies that help to counteract the contribution that
cultural cognition makes to such disputes.
Not exact matches
Yale Law study, entitled «Identity - protective
Cognition Thesis» (ICT),» treats
cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to
make sense of decision relevant science.
The research of Paul Slovic and Baruch Fischhoff and others has identified several psychological characteristics that
make risks feel more or less scary, several of which explain, more than
cultural cognition, why people can believe this immense threat looms, yet still not be all that concerned.
I was interested in the climate wars prior to that — but hearing what she had to say piqued my interest because for quite a while I have been interested in what sorts of things bias how people reason I have been particularly interested in how people use pattern - finding to
make sense of the world, and how people's
cultural / social / ideological / experiential / psychological identifications affect their
cognition and reasoning.
Konrad has
made reasonable arguments in support of a single, consistent claim: that non-truth-seeking reasoning is not needed to explain the effects of
cultural cognition, or at least that you haven't demonstrated such a need here.
The basic message I tried to impart was that
cultural cognition is something that has to be understood by those who manage any process of fact - finding, particularly one involving laypeople (or experts, for that matter,
making decisions outside of their own domains of expertise).
Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural ide
Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control
makes society more safe or less) to values that define their
cultural ide
cultural identities.
In your paradigm, our
cultural cognition reduces this and
makes such communication by humans more time and use effective than if we used the computer communication model.
The dynamics of
cultural cognition are most convincingly explained, I believe, as specific manifestations of the general contribution that
cultural affinity
makes to the reliable, every - day exercise of the ability of individuals to discern what is collectively known.
Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural ide
Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control
makes society more safe or less) to values that define their
cultural ide
cultural identities.