Chris Mooney (1) (1977–)

This is a nice companion work to The Authoritarians. Employing meta-analysis of studies classifiable as "neurological political science", the admittedly liberal author finds conservative Republicans to be adverse to nuance and science, with liberals often being "right" while lacking in leadership, decisiveness, and cohesion. The studies referenced support an idea of the amygdala, a critical brain region for emotional fear, and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) contributing to the show more differences in world views. Echoing Thinking, Fast and Slow, the book explores a politically relevant dichotomy between two modes of thought: "System 1" is the fast, instinctive and emotional (Republican); "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical (Liberal).

The author bends over backwards trying to strategically praise conservatives and criticize liberals while not able to obscure the book's deconstruction of the worse elements of the "The Republican Brain". show less

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 show more 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. show less

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 show more 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). show less

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 show more 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. show less