Greta Thunberg

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

there were emotions when D.T. withdraw US from Paris agreement

Did you miss the bit about "science based expert advice"?

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

emotion is bad advisor

Using emotion to engage people is NOT the same thing as using emotion as an advisor.

 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

absolutely everything is wrong if you use emotions instead of logical thinking

Then you will lose your argument. However rational and fact based it is.

28 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Opposite side can use emotions more efficiently than you can

Then the answer is to learn from them and use emotion effectively; not just give up and mumble "but facts" in the background with no one listening..

30 minutes ago, Sensei said:

"masses" should be intelligence

Maybe they should be. But back in the real world ...

[Sensei]

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

Did you miss the bit about "science based expert advice"?

Did you miss the bit about that they made their own home-made experts in fields, and promoted them by booking them in their TV channels, over and over again... ?

You can ask physics Nobel prize winner to explain things in CNN, but only CNN audience etc will watch it, so no Fox News audience etc will learn anything new from it..

Fox News will ask their "expert" to explain their audience the same thing using their own "science"..

Get the picture now?

 

You believe in that our global climate change made by human issue is reaching the right audience, because it is supported by scientists etc. No, it is not. They have their own brain-washing home-made experts who are telling them crap on TV, Internet, radio, etc etc.

 

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then you will lose your argument. However rational and fact based it is.

I'm not a politician, so I don't have to cuddle (ingratiate) with anyone...

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

37 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Did you miss the bit about that they made their own home-made experts in fields, and promoted them by booking them in their TV channels, over and over again... ?

And what do you propose to do about that? Read scientific papers at them, instead?

37 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You can ask physics Nobel prize winner to explain things in CNN, but only CNN audience etc will watch it, so no Fox News audience etc will learn anything new from it..

I doubt many CNN viewers would watch it either.

So you are highlighting the point being made: to engage people you need more than just dry facts and evidence, you need to engage them emotionally.

38 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You believe in that our global climate change made by human issue is reaching the right audience, because it is supported by scientists etc. No, it is not.

That is what we are trying to tell you. 

You want get millions on the streets campaigning, writing to the politicians, changing their lifestyle, voting differently just by getting scientists to talk. You need people who can challenge them emotionally.

We have had decades of scientific reports and it has made little difference. Now there is someone who can make people feel it is important and things may be changing.

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

You were saying that having a speech written for you or rehearsing your speeches is a sign of being used by others. It is a ridiculous assertion.

Everyone uses others, there's nothing wrong with that. Some people are using her to get their message across, and she is using others to get HER message across. I think you are confusing being used, with being cynically exploited, which is totally different, and which I certainly didn't say.

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

And of course, whatever help she gets, she and her helpers have every right to make their case. 

The only observation I would make is that her delivery and passion comes across as rehearsed, but trying to sound spontaneous, which is inevitable given the circumstances. You couldn't shove her in front of the world's cameras with no preparation. But in the end, that makes her a politician, like the people she's having a go at. A fifteen year old one, but using the same methods as her elders. 

I am a bit worried for her though. Older people tend to have the experience to not get carried away with it all. She's bound to be more vulnerable, psychologically. 

[koti]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

...Now there is someone who can make people feel it is important and things may be changing.

I'm afraid Greta could actually cause the opposite in many peoples minds:
https://thepeoplesledger.com/renowned-australian-psychologist-is-concerned-for-the-mental-wellness-of-teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg/

I am reading through various opinions on her speech and people are divided into ones who took it as an emotionally fueled scream for help and ones who saw it as staged emotions with anger rooted in her by adults surrounding her. I'm not convinced what this child is doing will be beneficial to targeting climate change and climate science overall.


 

[geordief]

1 minute ago, koti said:

I'm afraid Greta could actually cause the opposite in many peoples minds:
https://thepeoplesledger.com/renowned-australian-psychologist-is-concerned-for-the-mental-wellness-of-teen-climate-activist-greta-thunberg/

I am reading through various opinions on her speech and people are divided into ones who took it as an emotionally fueled scream for help and ones who saw it as staged emotions with anger rooted in her by adults surrounding her. I'm not convinced what this child is doing will be beneficial to targeting climate change and climate science overall.


 

People's reactions may be coloured by their expectations (confirmation bias).

One person's delivery cannot be expected to change people's minds - it is like the oil tanker changing course at sea.

This is not the GT Show and I have no doubt she will have the nous to understand when her effectiveness may be in doubt

But those in the front line  of man made climate changr deserve to have their voice (we deserve the chance to hear it too)

.

 

[Strange]

Just now, koti said:

I'm afraid Greta could actually cause the opposite in many peoples minds:

Climate change deniers and others will obviously not be converted. And (as the opening post showed) will probably have their attitudes hardened by their own emotional reaction to the messenger.

1 hour ago, koti said:

I'm not convinced what this child is doing will be beneficial to targeting climate change and climate science overall.

Seems effective so far.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I am a bit worried for her though. Older people tend to have the experience to not get carried away with it all. She's bound to be more vulnerable, psychologically. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49855980

Quote

 

Others have been more offensive, claiming she's being manipulated by sinister forces.

The UK newspaper The Sun has suggested these include "energy giants and pushy celebrity parents - including a fame-hungry mum who once appeared on Eurovision".

Or how about this: Thunberg is "the deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement", according to one Australian newspaper.

"I have never seen a girl so young and with so many mental disorders treated by so many adults as a guru," wrote the columnist Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun.

 

Quote

 

So, is Greta Thunberg the dour, vulnerable child with mental health issues that her critics present her as?

She was certainly not dour when I met her in Plymouth Sound aboard the racing yacht on which she was about to sail to America. She'd just got back from a trip out in the high winds beyond the breakwater and was clearly thrilled by the experience.

And, having met her, the idea that she was somehow persuaded by someone to take up the climate issue is fanciful.

 

 

[koti]

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

Seems effective so far.

I sincerely hope youre right.

[MigL]

I see some others have recognized the 'problem' that I mentioned earlier.

Thousands of scientists and other informed people have been presenting factual evidence and advising Governments for years about GW, but Governments tend to think 4 yrs at a time, instead of long term ( but that's another 'problem' for another thread ) and have been mostly ignored. Yet a young person makes a plea for action on GW that tugs at emotion, and she becomes the 'face' of GW activism.

Emotion is a bad precursor to Government policy because it is usually countered by emotion from the opposing side ( as Daniel, Sensei and others have mentioned ). We strive to be scientists on this Forum, and should rely on facts and evidence, not emotion.

And so should Governments.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

I see some others have recognized the 'problem' that I mentioned earlier.

Thousands of scientists and other informed people have been presenting factual evidence and advising Governments for years about GW, but Governments tend to think 4 yrs at a time, instead of long term ( but that's another 'problem' for another thread ) and have been mostly ignored. Yet a young person makes a plea for action on GW that tugs at emotion, and she becomes the 'face' of GW activism.

Emotion is a bad precursor to Government policy because it is usually countered by emotion from the opposing side ( as Daniel, Sensei and others have mentioned ). We strive to be scientists on this Forum, and should rely on facts and evidence, not emotion.

You (and Sensei) are ignoring the fact that most people are moved by emotion but left cold by facts.

Quote

And so should Governments.

Indeed. Unfortunately, being human, they are just as likely to be swayed by emotion. Of course, they have behind them a civil service and various agencies whose job is to look at the science and provide evidence-based advice. Unfortunately, they are free to ignore that.

But, with people being stirred into action, even if by an emotional appeal, they might not get away with ignoring the evidence for long.

[iNow]

We can discuss “oughts” all we want, but reality demands we focus on what is 

[MigL]

"You (and Sensei) are ignoring the fact that most people are moved by emotion but left cold by facts."

Isn't that what got you guys in the Brexit mess ?
( wrong thread, but seems quite appropriate )

 

 

"We can discuss “oughts” all we want, but reality demands we focus on what is "

And gave you D Trump for President ?
( again wrong thread, but also appropriate )
 

Edited September 29, 2019 by MigL

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

"You (and Sensei) are ignoring the fact that most people are moved by emotion but left cold by facts."

Isn't that what got you guys in the Brexit mess ?
( wrong thread, but seems quite appropriate )

It certainly works both ways. But you can't fight the emotional appeals against climate change by refusing to engage emotionally.

[Sensei]

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

¹⁾ Using emotion to engage people is NOT the same thing as using ²⁾ emotion as an advisor.

BTW, you missed the point. ¹⁾ Politician is using emotion as a tool to persuade usually less knowledgeable peoples to his or her vision. Emotions, made by enthusiastic speech of leader, are appearing in heads of people listening it, they start e.g. identifying as victims and/or targets, and they start agreeing with it ²⁾....

If I tell miners that they will have to change their, quite well paid job, in coalmine to something else, they obviously will be upset, angry, reluctant to accept it..

Either leader accepting man-made global climate change, and leader rejecting man-mane global climate change, would have to tell this to coal miners! But denier of climate change will do it in such a way that miners will be all against switch to renewable energy sources. Emotional speech will be tool to convert them to his or her side, regardless of what happens with the Earth. People usually bothers only about their own and their family fate. Especially non-intellectuals..

When I said "emotion is bad advisor", I was thinking about people listening to politicians leader speech.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

But you can't fight the emotional appeals against climate change by refusing to engage emotionally.

..therefore people should be intellectuals in the first place, so they will use less emotions, and rely more on their own brain and intellect..

They will be less susceptible to manipulation and less selfish (I hope naively)..

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Sensei said:

.therefore people should be intellectuals in the first place, so they will use less emotions, and rely more on their own brain and intellect..

They will be less susceptible to manipulation and less selfish (I hope naively)..

That is not naive at all. It is completely divorced from reality.

You can't work for climate change based on how you think people ought to be, you have to work with people as they are. (But someone has already said that.)

[zapatos]

I'm surprised by how many people here are making this about the messenger, rather than about the message. Typically we strive to ensure the former is not the focus.

Discussing the hype that is surrounding her makes for interesting conversation. Discussing whether her delivery seems rehearsed, or her credibility due to her youth, is missing the point by a mile.

The problem is not that she is 15, or of voting age, or a girl, or being used, or being made the face of a movement.

The problem is that people have such a hard time focusing on the message rather than the messenger.

If she is right, we should be behind her. If she is not, then we shouldn't.

[Strange]

Just now, zapatos said:

I'm surprised by how many people here are making this about the messenger, rather than about the message.

Because that (and reactions to her) is the topic of the thread.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Because that (and reactions to her) is the topic of the thread.

The topic of the thread is how the public is making this about Greta. That is, a discussion about how others are using aspects of Greta to hype her message or destroy her message. This thread was not an invitation to jump on the deify/demonize bandwagons.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This thread was not an invitation to jump on the deify/demonize bandwagons.

Good point. I'm not really aware of that happening. But if you think people are, and consider it getting off-topic or turning it into a personal attack, then please report those posts.

[MigL]

Actually Dimreepr's OP was exactly about G Thunberg and the way she's been treated on social media, with some examples linked by Dimreepr.
We have proceeded to go off topic and have discussed aspects of the message which are intended to appeal to our emotions rather than presenting evidence/information.
No-one on this forum has attacked G Thunberg, and very few have even mentioned her; just aspects of her message.

We are a science site, and aspects of her message are open for discussion.
Let's not shut down debate because we confuse the message with the messenger.

[iNow]

My problem is with the attacks we keep seeing on said messenger across social media by supposedly grown ass men and quote unquote leaders. 

Agree? Disagree? I have a hard time caring anymore, but we obviously need far fewer assholes in the world. 

Its long passed time on this issue to either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. 

[moth]

I think It's bad rhetoric. blame the messenger and control the narrative so it's about a young woman, not climate. 

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

No-one on this forum has attacked G Thunberg, and very few have even mentioned her; just aspects of her message.

 

Perhaps I just misunderstood you. If you were not discrediting Greta due to her age, what was the intent of the following statement?

Quote

It is not the fact that she is a girl, or supports a righteous cause that is problematic.
It is the fact that she is 15 yrs old and not even of voting age, and she is telling democratically elected world leaders what to do.

 

[John Cuthber]

Just a quick reminder to those quoting psychologists saying that Greta's got mental health issues.

 

There were plenty of them saying (with clear evidence) that Trump is mad- specifically that he's a psychopath among other things.

To my mind, the significant difference is that one wants to save the world, and the other wants to own it.

 

I know which one I trust.