Greenies are really just lying, cheating, selfish, holier-than-thou bastards.

bmulligan

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
No, really, they're probably worse that the rest of us capitalistas.

...Experiment 1 confirmed that people attach higher social and moral values to green than to conventional consumerism. This finding leads to two markedly different predictions: On the basis of research on behavioral priming, we predicted that mere exposure to green products would increase subsequent altruistic conduct; however, on the basis of recent theories on moral regulation, we predicted that purchasing green products would reduce subsequent altruism because it establishes moral credentials. Experiment 2 tested these predictions using a one-shot anonymous dictator game...


http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/01/0956797610363538.full


Now if they would only do this experiment on some God-fearing types, it might be even more interesting...
 
Well it's the same effect as you'd expect. When you do something you think is good then you feel like you've done your "good deed" so to speak, so you're done for now.

Doesn't have anything to do with the people in particular since, of course, they were randomly assigned.

It's kind of sad, but it makes sense.

EDIT: And I wouldn't think you'd like the experiment very much bmull, since it's a priming experiment.
 
"Altogether, participants in the green-store condition left the experiment with on average $0.83 (SD = $0.23) more in their pockets than did participants in the conventional-store condition, t(70) = 3.55, p < .001, prep > .986."

83¢ more? Ok, well, in research, you have statistical significance and practical (i.e., real-world) significance.

Extrapolating this to suggest "greenies" are big cheating liars and lying cheaters is quite and overzealous embellishment of what the research shows. Just like how the news media embellishes Craig Anderson's research on aggression and video games, claiming "VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES MAKE KIDS INTO KILLERS!!!" - when his research really just shows that kids who play "violent" games (presuming he's good at making that theoretical delineation, which he is not) have a *slightly* higher average heart rate (i.e., statistically significant yet practically meaningless) for about 15 minutes after playing a violent vs nonviolent game.

Slight uptic in heart rate ≠ killers, and mild differences in the degree of deception don't malign entire groups of people on the whole.

...and that doesn't get into the weird theoretical argument the authors make, that green buyers would be more altruistic - without having much knowledge on the subject, I would imagine that the very purchase of green products is itself the altruism (people want accolades for buying "Seventh Generation," after all - I wouldn't argue that).

An interesting bit of research, but certainly not as damning as you would suggest, bmulligan. I applaud you digging up research and not worldnetdaily, but let's talk about what the research does say, and not extrapolate it far beyond the realm of hyperbole.

This topic made me think of this video - while the whole thing is outstanding, the relevant part starts about 1:50 in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f6N0ypfJoU
 
Well the biggest extrapolation is that the people are selfish, etc. That research wasn't about the people. The findings are that certain behaviors affect later behaviors. The person in particular isn't important (hence the random assignment finding an effect).

Like the article mentions, there are similar effects in other areas - like the gender ones where people who do something egalitarian are more sexist afterward. It's not necessarily a long-term effect of course, but if you extrapolated the way bmull did in the OP you'd essentially be saying that everyone who does something they think is good is a horrible person (since the effect seems to work in multiple areas).

It's just that after someone does something good they feel like they've been moral and so they're better able to justify being a little less moral right after that.
 
Doesn't really matter either way - the small amount of individual consumers who have gone green can't change much even if they uphold the highest ethical standards, and corporations only 'go green' when they can use it as an excuse for slashing benefits and job perks. The only green they really care about is the stuff in the CEO's wallet.

"We can't give you free coffee any more because paper cups are bad for the environment and we're going green"

"No more water coolers because plastic bottles are bad for the environment and we're going green"

"Use tree leaves in the restroom because we're going green"
 
Similar to the "green" label perhaps, but that's a different thing. The people signing it A) Trusted that the it was legitimate because of the situation they were in B) Were under pressure to make a decision C) Were misled and D) Probably just sign a lot of petitions. Their assuming it was legitimate and the chemical name is probably what led some to think they'd heard of it before and it was bad (carbon monoxide of course is known to be bad).

In short, they weren't primed to be skeptical of the petition, and people are generally trusting and want to help others out (especially when helping is as simple as signing a piece of paper). Penn and Teller's conclusion wasn't that accurate, though to say that they weren't being very critical of the petition would be correct.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
In short, they weren't primed to be skeptical of the petition, and people are generally trusting and want to help others out (especially when helping is as simple as signing a piece of paper). [/QUOTE]

Cool. I couldn't have described how we get so many bad politicians and bad/expensive legislation much better.
 
Hay look, let's bitch about greenies, because it's super edgy!

Let's cry about expanding new technologies to power our civilization, but continue to drill for oil!

Let's pretend Al Gore invented the whole thing, when he's just a scary commie nazi man!

Let's call it scam, and then grumble about high gas prices!

Let's say it's a waste of time building structures to support new energy collection, and then whine when unemployment is high!

Let's not research it, when our cars get shitty gas mileage!

Let's X, and then be a fuckin' hypocrite!
 
[quote name='depascal22']Bmull's not going to read any of this anyway. He lobbed a grenade in just to see who got hit by the splash.[/QUOTE]

The shame is he posted something significant in the "Way to go, Kansas" thread.

So, he can never reap praise because he is afraid of scorn.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Bmull's not going to read any of this anyway. He lobbed a grenade in just to see who got hit by the splash.[/QUOTE]

Who cares. He's a predictable hack and his posts are best viewed as a foil for the well-constructed counter-arguements.
 
It's a bloody shame he has so little to offer. Well, it's worse that he knows he has so little to offer that he's typically afraid to come in and combat his points empirically. A thread like this - with *science!* - is lightyears beyond his typical posts, which often don't even get to the point of things that occur in the real world, let alone studies.

Because I came across this interesting release yesterday: http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2010/UR_CONTENT_180666.html

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (03/15/2010) —Environmentally friendly products are everywhere one looks. Energy efficient dishwashers, bamboo towels, the paperless Kindle and, of course, the ubiquitous Prius are all around. But why do people buy these “green” products? Do they care about the environment or is there something else at play? “Green purchases are often motivated by status,” says Vladas Griskevicius, assistant professor of marketing at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management. “People want to be seen as being altruistic. Nothing communicates that better than by buying green products that often cost more and are of lower quality but benefit the environment for everyone.”

In the recently published paper “Going Green to Be Seen: Status, Reputation, and Conspicuous Conservation,” Griskevicius and co-authors find that people will forgo luxury and comfort for a green item. The catch? People will forgo indulging for themselves only when others can see it. “Many green purchases are rooted in the evolutionary idea of competitive altruism, the notion that people compete for status by trying to appear more altruistic,” says Griskevicius. His research finds that when people shop alone online, they choose products that are luxurious and enhance comfort. But when in public, people’s preferences for green products increases because most people want to be seen as caring altruists.

Nowhere is this clearer than the highly visible and easily identifiable Toyota Prius, which essentially functions as a mobile, self-promoting billboard for pro-environmentalism. “A reputation for being a caring individual gives you status and prestige. When you publicly display your environmentally friendly nature, you send the signal that you care,” states Griskevicius.

Interestingly, the study also shows that status motives increased desirability of green products especially when such products cost more—but not less—relative to non-green products. This explains why the Prius price tag and why old-fashioned items like hand operated reel lawn mowers are holding their price. “When you are motivated by status, you will forgo luxury features to obtain an inferior green product that tells others that you care,” Griskevicius says.

For entrepreneurs and companies looking to capture the green market, the key may be getting the product to be purchased and used in public. When others can see you do good, both you and the environment benefit. But in the privacy of ones home, luxury and comfort is still the winner.

The corollary of this press release, and a point made in the second experiment in this study, is that people are more likely to choose "luxury" over "green" when shopping privately, and the opposite is true when shopping in public places.
 
Hey, if people are being green to earn status, respect and other self serving reasons then the green movement is succeeding.

We were never going to see mass numbers of people going green for purely altruistic reasons. If society is getting to a point that many people do it to fit in with their peers etc.

Now it's less than ideal if people are only doing it publicly and are still being wasteful in private as the article Myke posted suggests, as they're thus not maximizing their efforts. But hell, I don't maximize mine and I do stuff outside the public eye like recycle everything at home, switched to CFL light bulbs, set the thermostat more conservatively than I'd like etc.

But still, the person buying a Prius or other high MPG car for status reasons is still using less gas and having a smaller carbon footprint compared to other cars. So I don't really give a crap about why they bought the car.
 
A fair point to be sure - plenty of people "reason" virtually all of their purchases.

What's disappointing is that they support the branding of green rather than, say, informed rational purchasing - why I'm surprised that this is the case is beyond me. I shouldn't be.

A few years ago Home Depot had a "green section" in their stores (may still have one), where they sold more environmentally friendly versions of items. You could buy, say, a rake with a wooden handle, which they labeled green b/c it did not waste petroleum resources by being made of plastic; you could also, in the same green section, buy a rake with a plastic handle, labeled green because (you guessed it), it didn't destroy forest resources to be made.

So it's about the marketing and publicity, ultimately. If we can convince the public that, say, "Chicken McNuggets" are eco-friendly (and lamentably, we could probably do that, given the disparity b/w the reality of 'organic' items and farms and people's perceptions of organic items and farms), then we're in trouble.
 
People are hedonistic, consumerist sheep.

If we want to save the environment, it will be through marketing and making being green "hip."

Less than ideal as you get stupid shit like your rake example. But better than nothing. :D
 
No doubt.

Making green hip is fine by me - increasing consumer demand for locally made, eco-friendly consumer goods made by people in save, humane working environments is what will spurn the US economy into the next great growth cycle.

Buying spatulas made by 10 year olds in China and sold in Wal-Mart won't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A fair point to be sure - plenty of people "reason" virtually all of their purchases.

What's disappointing is that they support the branding of green rather than, say, informed rational purchasing - why I'm surprised that this is the case is beyond me. I shouldn't be.

A few years ago Home Depot had a "green section" in their stores (may still have one), where they sold more environmentally friendly versions of items. You could buy, say, a rake with a wooden handle, which they labeled green b/c it did not waste petroleum resources by being made of plastic; you could also, in the same green section, buy a rake with a plastic handle, labeled green because (you guessed it), it didn't destroy forest resources to be made.

So it's about the marketing and publicity, ultimately. If we can convince the public that, say, "Chicken McNuggets" are eco-friendly (and lamentably, we could probably do that, given the disparity b/w the reality of 'organic' items and farms and people's perceptions of organic items and farms), then we're in trouble.[/QUOTE]

Interesting point - I remember Elp was patting himself on the back for purchasing factory farmed meat because he reasoned that the big meat corporations produce more meat for less land and resource. He figured he was being an environmental hero, more people were being fed for less cost. Sadly the real cost is shuffled around - the cost of cleaning up excess animal waste, the decreasing efficiency of antibiotics, treating the illnesses suffered from eating an excess of cheap poor quality meat. It's a great example of simplistic thinking and capitalistic idealism trumping real-world facts.

IMO being the nearest thing to laissez-faire capitalism, American society has a tendency to be educated by advertisements, commercialized media, and lobbyist-influenced politicians (and it does seem like China and India are rapidly going this direction). I think this is why many Americans have such a binary view of issues, when they really should be analyzed along several factors. It may be hard to pin down responsibility and put a specific pricetag on corporate enviornmental destruction, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Similar to the "green" label perhaps, but that's a different thing. The people signing it A) Trusted that the it was legitimate because of the situation they were in B) Were under pressure to make a decision C) Were misled and D) Probably just sign a lot of petitions. Their assuming it was legitimate and the chemical name is probably what led some to think they'd heard of it before and it was bad (carbon monoxide of course is known to be bad).[/QUOTE]

Sounds like mostly you are agreeing with Penn & Teller. People are too trusting and ignorant to even realize what they were doing. I don't see how they were misled at all, so maybe you could expound upon that a bit further; everything I heard was true about water, just gussied up with alarmist rhetoric.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sounds like mostly you are agreeing with Penn & Teller. People are too trusting and ignorant to even realize what they were doing. I don't see how they were misled at all, so maybe you could expound upon that a bit further; everything I heard was true about water, just gussied up with alarmist rhetoric.[/QUOTE]

As far as misleading - describing what water does in alarmist rhetoric is misleading them. They say that "nobody asked what it was" well they were telling them what it was! They go off immediately telling people what it is and does, of course they're not going to ask after they've already been told. People drown every year, you could say that it kills X people every year, you think that wouldn't get people to oppose something? Is it not misleading because it's literally true?

I agree they were trusting and didn't know the chemical name for water. Penn and Teller's conclusions weren't right though - that they were "joiners" or whatever, and that they'd join anything. You could do the same thing with any group of anything by misleading them to believe that whatever you were doing was in line with that group.

Yet, if you took these environmentalist people and they were at the RNC or something and had a person come around with a petition they would be very skeptical of it and probably less likely to even pay attention to what the person was saying. Penn and Teller tried to make it look like a personality trait, it's not, it has very little to do with the particular individual and pretty much everything to do with the environment.

If their point was just that people can be misled...well duh. But if your wife came in and said something would you be immediately skeptical of it? And if you weren't would that mean you're an idiot or a "joiner" of whatever your wife says?
 
A corollary of the Penn and Teller sketch is that people start off trusting their fellow man. That's not really a disappointing discovery, IMO.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A corollary of the Penn and Teller sketch is that people start off trusting their fellow man. That's not really a disappointing discovery, IMO.[/QUOTE]
It was plenty disappointing for the residence of jonestown.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']People are hedonistic, consumerist sheep. :D[/QUOTE]

and CAG is where we assemble.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']It was plenty disappointing for the residence of jonestown.[/QUOTE]

I said "start off trusting" - come on, now, you know I don't mean "capitulate your worldly earnings and possessions to an Indiana hillbilly for 9 years and then be killed via cyanide or gunshot."

start off.
 
I said "start off trusting" - come on, now, you know I don't mean "capitulate your worldly earnings and possessions to an Indiana hillbilly for 9 years and then be killed via cyanide or gunshot."

start off.

yknow, Hitler told the Jews they should 'start off trusting' the Nazis...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I said "start off trusting" - come on, now, you know I don't mean "capitulate your worldly earnings and possessions to an Indiana hillbilly for 9 years and then be killed via cyanide or gunshot."

start off.[/QUOTE]

I know thats not what you meant. I've read enough of your postings to know that you think things through. Truthfully it was nice to see something positive posted about humanity. I wasn't prepared for the optimism. I would like to believe that men at their Qore (see what I did there?) are good people.

The reality though is that we are corruptible as hell.

I don't follow the whole Global Warming debate to closely because its not as high on my priority list as it is for others. Do I believe that we should take care of the planet? Absolutely, thats why I built my home to be energy star rated. I use mass transit and I recycle so on and so on. I do all of these things for personal reasons, not because anyone told me to do it.

You mentioned that you thought increasing demand for green products was they key to saving the economy. Convince me of this and I get on board. Two birds, one stone. It seems to me that the upfront cost of green initiatives would further collapse our economy. When our economy fails, none of this even matters.

Admittedly, I haven't scoured the boards looking for proof but I have never heard anyone here express any reservation about the millions that AL Gore (and others) have made and stand to make from investing in green companies and whatever else having to do with climate change. Not to mention the lifestyle choices he continues to make show him to be a hypocrite IMO. This along with recent revelations makes me cynical of the green movement, and its probably unfair. Just like I think its unfair to to point to the "evil corporations" (and I do believe some are evil) as proof that a free economy (with reasonable regulation) can't and wont work.

In America you are either a Neo-con or a socialists. Wheres the intellectual honesty?

So are people gullible? Absolutely, but the door swings both ways.
 
Doyle, your assumptions are more or less your own business but when myke and others start talking about going green and it being an economic boon they are talking about massive investments in new/renovated infrastructure and creating an industry that would hopefully be cutting edge for decades.

You might think it means all of us going to communes and learning how to handle a plow and grow tofu but that isn't the case.
 
[quote name='SpazX']As far as misleading - describing what water does in alarmist rhetoric is misleading them. They say that "nobody asked what it was" well they were telling them what it was! They go off immediately telling people what it is and does, of course they're not going to ask after they've already been told. People drown every year, you could say that it kills X people every year, you think that wouldn't get people to oppose something? Is it not misleading because it's literally true?

I agree they were trusting and didn't know the chemical name for water. Penn and Teller's conclusions weren't right though - that they were "joiners" or whatever, and that they'd join anything. You could do the same thing with any group of anything by misleading them to believe that whatever you were doing was in line with that group.

Yet, if you took these environmentalist people and they were at the RNC or something and had a person come around with a petition they would be very skeptical of it and probably less likely to even pay attention to what the person was saying. Penn and Teller tried to make it look like a personality trait, it's not, it has very little to do with the particular individual and pretty much everything to do with the environment.

If their point was just that people can be misled...well duh. But if your wife came in and said something would you be immediately skeptical of it? And if you weren't would that mean you're an idiot or a "joiner" of whatever your wife says?[/QUOTE]

A random person shoving a petition in their face is hardly the same as your wife telling you something. We are talking about complete strangers here. Yes, they are "joiners" and "sheep" because they don't think for themselves. The rhetoric used was almost word-for-word identical to what environmentalist groups use every day to decry all sorts of things. I thought it an interesting look at the susceptibility of these sorts of people to rhetoric.

I can see the same effect in play in the tea party movement. You probably will agree on that score.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']A random person shoving a petition in their face is hardly the same as your wife telling you something. We are talking about complete strangers here.[/quote]

They're strangers, but they're strangers that you ostensibly agree with (they're at your rally with a petition to protect the environment) and all they're asking you to do is sign a piece of paper. The level of trust required just isn't that high.

[quote name='elprincipe']Yes, they are "joiners" and "sheep" because they don't think for themselves. The rhetoric used was almost word-for-word identical to what environmentalist groups use every day to decry all sorts of things. I thought it an interesting look at the susceptibility of these sorts of people to rhetoric.[/quote]

How do they not think for themselves at all or at a level that's different from you or I? That would be hard to tell from that clip. They're given a petition to sign to ban a chemical that the people are telling them is in all this shit while implying that it's bad for people. Of course the rhetoric is the same, it's saying that X is bad for Y reasons, it's not going to be any different if it's true or not.

[quote name='elprincipe']I can see the same effect in play in the tea party movement. You probably will agree on that score.[/QUOTE]

No. I would say that I disagree with them, and of course I think I'm right so I think that if they consider all the facts then they'll agree with me. But I disagree that they're "joiners" or "sheep". I don't think that I'm better than them, that I can reason or think for myself better than them. I think they have incomplete information and misdirected anger.

That's the problem I have with the clip, not the suggestion that they were fooled or are able to be fooled - but that those people are different somehow. It doesn't help anything but to serve your own ego and fall into similar traps by thinking that you're better at thinking.

For the most part, the level of skepticism that anybody is going to have about something is dependent on familiarity/likelihood of dishonesty, and what is asked of them. Like if I see some homeless dude on the street I'm not going to get him to prove to me that he's homeless before I give him some change. I imagine he could be faking it, but the chances of that are low first of all, there are plenty of homeless people (if I was in Richmond anyway), and the amount of change I'm giving means almost nothing to me, so it's not asking much of me. He's a stranger, I have no reason to believe that he truly needs change, but I trust that he's being honest.

Most people are trusting because people are generally trustworthy.

Now of course there are people at these rallies who don't fully understand the issues they're protesting or whatnot. But again they're not there because they're particularly unthinking, but probably for some other reason - somebody they know is there, they agree with the general idea, something like that. They might not be thinking about that particular issue as much as you would expect or want (to be taking the energy and time to protest or something), but it's not because they're particularly stupid. I just think that conclusion isn't a good one, it's not a personal issue.
 
[quote name='SpazX']They're strangers, but they're strangers that you ostensibly agree with (they're at your rally with a petition to protect the environment) and all they're asking you to do is sign a piece of paper. The level of trust required just isn't that high.[/quote]

Hmm, I think you're right. There just is no other explanation for the wealth Al Gore has been able to amass since leaving office. Similarly, the crowd dynamic at work helps to explain our current political clusterfuck.

How do they not think for themselves at all or at a level that's different from you or I? That would be hard to tell from that clip. They're given a petition to sign to ban a chemical that the people are telling them is in all this shit while implying that it's bad for people. Of course the rhetoric is the same, it's saying that X is bad for Y reasons, it's not going to be any different if it's true or not.

I think we agree on this more than disagree, except for the part where you say I also would think the same way. I don't. I've seen far too much of this sort of thing to be anything other than naturally skeptical of claims like the ones being made in the video. I think you're smarter than that too just based on what you've posted in this forum.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']There just is no other explanation for the wealth Al Gore has been able to amass since leaving office. [/QUOTE]

But had he done this with oil ventures, no one would be giving him this hard of a time. Gotcha.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think we agree on this more than disagree, except for the part where you say I also would think the same way. I don't. I've seen far too much of this sort of thing to be anything other than naturally skeptical of claims like the ones being made in the video. I think you're smarter than that too just based on what you've posted in this forum.[/QUOTE]

In that situation perhaps you wouldn't fall for it (as for myself I do know the chemical name for water, so I don't think I would have).

Signing a petition (in person) is a limited information task though. All you've got is what's in your brain at the time and what that person is telling you. So what do you do? If presented with a petition on a subject that you're not too familiar with, but which sounds plausible and aligns with your personal beliefs, do you sign it? What are the dire consequences if it turns out they're bullshitting you? Some legislator proposes a law or some shit? Something goes to a vote?

(It may be a little different now though with better internet-enabled cellphones - "Really? That sounds terrible, let me google that.")

The more consequential it is the more you should be skeptical of course. If you're paying somebody some significant amount of money, if your livelihood is at stake, the life of your family, etc. But so what if you go to a tea party protest without knowing the intricacies of the health care bill? Who knows that shit anyway?! The tea party is against big government and government spending right? Who doesn't agree with that? What's the worst that can happen if I spend a day holding up a sign?

Misinformed, misdirected anger perhaps. Just not mindless unthinking sheep. I think they have their reasons, and I think they can be manipulated, but so can everybody else.
 
[quote name='Strell']But had he done this with oil ventures, no one would be giving him this hard of a time. Gotcha.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you're right. It's less the making money part that people get annoyed with than the blatant hypocrisy (and the holier-than-thou attitude).
 
Not sure this is the best thread for this, but didn't feel like it warranted a new thread either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?scp=1&sq=green economy krugman&st=cse

Really good read on the green economy (or issues around it) by Paul Krugman. Lot of it is making a case for cap and trade etc.

Be forewarned that it's a quite a long article. I read it on my girlfriend's iPad the otherday after stumbling across it in the NY Times Editor's Choice App.
 
bread's done
Back
Top