Comment: You're at the Wrong Place, Friend (Score 1) 387
Your hierarchical individualist, however, might sneer cynically – first at the prospect of a shower of trick-cyclists managing to change his or her mind on climate change by means of spin rather than hard numbers. The hierarchical individualist might also view the "science of communicating science" push as a rather ignoble attempt by the soft-studies profs to get a share of the climate change research funding bonanza that has poured into the hard science and biology faculties in recent decades. And anyone at all might be rather alarmed, perhaps, at the prospect of actual success in the matter of developing a working discipline of Psychohistory – which could and would surely be used in other areas than climate change policy, and would surely be a threat to democracy if it worked as advertised.
And you're complaining about "culturally congruent risk perception"? This isn't news. This isn't factual reporting. This is someone framing their interpretation of a scientific letter to try to get you on board with him. I think he's ripping on the academics by way of Asimov's Foundation trilogy.
And here's a news-flash for whoever wrote that summary: Terms like "Culturally congruent risk perception" have no obvious meaning for the general reader.
That's because nearly the entire summary comes directly from a peer reviewed journal made for people who understand that sort of dense speak.
And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
Behold, one of the problems with trying to relay science to the common person.
