scientificamerican--2020-11-24--The Scientific Benefits of Social Distancing

Personally , I practiced social distancing long before the term became a household phrase during the COVID-19 pandemic—not because I am germophobic , but because the only way to remain creative within the turbulence of mediocrity is to float like a boat above its crashing waves .
When seashells and pebbles are dragged by back and forth by ocean waves and rub against each other , they erode and eventually become indistinguishable .
The final product is sand .
We do not want our scientists to be like sand .
“ The surest way to corrupt a youth is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who think alike than those who think differently.
” wrote the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his book The Dawn of Day , published in 1881 .
When there is no threat from a pandemic , there is no need for physical distancing , but some form of social distancing can still be useful for maintaining a scientist ’ s intellectual independence—either by developing a thick skin , or by avoiding the risk of bruises in the first place by avoiding social friction .
Take scientific conferences as an example .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to numerous talks over a single week .
We can ’ t delete uninteresting talks , or fast-forward through them as we could if we were watching prerecorded presentations online .
The time sink also includes travel to distant locations—and after getting there , the exposure to a large crowd triggers the “ drop in the ocean ” feeling regarding your tiny contribution relative to the entire field—which encourages groupthink .
Decades ago , I regarded a scientific conference as worthy of the time spent if it inspired me to write one or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however I am inspired much more by reading new preprints on the arXiv every day .
This online reservoir of thought exposes me to research done everywhere around the globe on a scale that is far more comprehensive than what could possibly be featured at a specialized conference with a limited number of presentation slots and a fraction of one ’ s colleagues in attendance .
The combination of reading the arXiv and visiting research centers is the optimal strategy to keep up with the latest developments in an active research frontier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this form of social distancing .
Children bully those who look different .
Adults do much the same , albeit in subtler ways , when confronted with a challenging point of view that poses a threat to their ego .
In particular , scientists who lack fresh insights and continue to work on a single research project throughout their entire career tend to dismiss the diversity of ideas in their discipline .
Social media amplify this bullying of our most creative colleagues by appealing to the lowest common denominator in their audiences .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which innovation blossoms in the face of mediocrity .
Public attention to new scientific findings often triggers jealousy by mainstream scientists who are not associated with the discovery team .
Take the reaction of some vocal astronomers to the public announcement of the team led by Jane Greaves on September 14 , 2020 , concerning the detection of phosphine ( PH ) in the cloud decks of Venus—which , to be clear , which was never presented as undisputable evidence for extraterrestrial life .
First , there was a ( subsequently retracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ F3 on Astrobiology of the International Astronomical Union ( IAU ) , which noted on October 5 , 2020 : “ … the Commission is concerned with the way the potential detection of phosphine has been covered for the broad audience .
It is an ethical duty for any scientist to communicate with the media and the public with great scientific rigor and to be careful not to overstate any interpretation which will be irretrievably picked up by the press and generate great public attention in the case of life beyond Earth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead some news organizations to report that evidence for life in Venus was found .
The Commission understands that such a reaction by the press would reflect high interest in astrobiology research by the public .
Such a report , however , misleads the public , and might be harmful to the advancement of astrobiology research.
” Within a few weeks of this warning , a number of arXiv preprints dismissed the Greaves et al .
result , with one stating in the initial version of its abstract ( which was later revised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this detection of PH in the atmosphere of Venus is incorrect and invite the Greaves et al .
team to revise their work and consider a correction or retraction of their original report.
” A balanced response to the Greaves et al .
report , by contrast , should also have included a comparable number of follow-up papers highlighting the study ’ s great significance and implications .
But there were only two papers posted in this supportive mold , both of them from my research group .
The astrobiology community is supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraterrestrial life .
While constructive criticism of new results is always helpful , it should have been communicated in a more collegial and collaborative tone .
But there is a broader point as well .
If we dismiss phosphine as a biosignature on the nearest planet to Earth so forcefully , can we expect the claim for extraterrestrial life to be convincing following a future detection of molecules like oxygen ( O ) and methane ( CH ) in exoplanet atmospheres , which could also be produced by nonbiotic chemistry ?
Given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only indisputable biosignature in the atmosphere of a planet would involve complex molecules like chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs ) from industrial pollution by a civilization , as considered in a 2014 paper from my group .
Even though the mainstream was quick to dismiss the phosphine report , it is very slow in endorsing a search for industrial pollution in planetary atmospheres .
My interest in searching for intelligence in outer space is partly because I gave up on finding it on Earth .
Of course , complete social isolation is also not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be some level of constructive social interaction to stimulate creative ideas .
Comments from colleagues often induce breakthroughs .
For example , many of the celebrated innovations at Bell Labs , including the inventions of the transistor , the laser , the photovoltaic cell and the charge-coupled device ( CCD ) , were fostered by conversations between theoretical physicists and engineers who were concerned with practical applications .
And a conversation between Bell Labs scientists and a group at Princeton led to the Nobel Prize–winning discovery in 1964 of the cosmic microwave background @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emitted by the infant universe ( relatively ) shortly after the big bang—thus lending powerful support to what is now the prevailing model of the cosmos .
Finally , it should be noted that some scientific projects are best pursued in large groups , where individualism must surrender to a master plan .
Just as in an orchestra , it is essential for members of these groups to adhere to the roles assigned to them for the symphony to sound right .
Distancing does not bode well for this mode of operation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these tight collaborations communicate online .
Such “ seashells ” and “ pebbles ” move together in a cluster and hence do not break into indistinguishable pieces over time .

Personally, I practiced social distancing long before the term became a household phrase during the COVID-19 pandemic—not because I am germophobic, but because the only way to remain creative within the turbulence of mediocrity is to float like a boat above its crashing waves. When seashells and pebbles are dragged by back and forth by ocean waves and rub against each other, they erode and eventually become indistinguishable. The final product is sand.
We do not want our scientists to be like sand. “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” wrote the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his book The Dawn of Day, published in 1881.
When there is no threat from a pandemic, there is no need for physical distancing, but some form of social distancing can still be useful for maintaining a scientist’s intellectual independence—either by developing a thick skin, or by avoiding the risk of bruises in the first place by avoiding social friction.
Take scientific conferences as an example. There is a lot of wasted time in listening to numerous talks over a single week. We can’t delete uninteresting talks, or fast-forward through them as we could if we were watching prerecorded presentations online. The time sink also includes travel to distant locations—and after getting there, the exposure to a large crowd triggers the “drop in the ocean” feeling regarding your tiny contribution relative to the entire field—which encourages groupthink. Decades ago, I regarded a scientific conference as worthy of the time spent if it inspired me to write one or two papers on new ideas.
Today, however I am inspired much more by reading new preprints on the arXiv every day. This online reservoir of thought exposes me to research done everywhere around the globe on a scale that is far more comprehensive than what could possibly be featured at a specialized conference with a limited number of presentation slots and a fraction of one’s colleagues in attendance. The combination of reading the arXiv and visiting research centers is the optimal strategy to keep up with the latest developments in an active research frontier.
But there are additional benefits to this form of social distancing. Children bully those who look different. Adults do much the same, albeit in subtler ways, when confronted with a challenging point of view that poses a threat to their ego. In particular, scientists who lack fresh insights and continue to work on a single research project throughout their entire career tend to dismiss the diversity of ideas in their discipline. Social media amplify this bullying of our most creative colleagues by appealing to the lowest common denominator in their audiences. We must create an alternative intellectual atmosphere in which innovation blossoms in the face of mediocrity.
Let me elaborate.
Public attention to new scientific findings often triggers jealousy by mainstream scientists who are not associated with the discovery team. Take the reaction of some vocal astronomers to the public announcement of the team led by Jane Greaves on September 14, 2020, concerning the detection of phosphine (PH 3 ) in the cloud decks of Venus—which, to be clear, which was never presented as undisputable evidence for extraterrestrial life. First, there was a (subsequently retracted) statement by some members from Commission F3 on Astrobiology of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), which noted on October 5, 2020:
“… the Commission is concerned with the way the potential detection of phosphine has been covered for the broad audience. It is an ethical duty for any scientist to communicate with the media and the public with great scientific rigor and to be careful not to overstate any interpretation which will be irretrievably picked up by the press and generate great public attention in the case of life beyond Earth. The way results about phosphine were reported lead some news organizations to report that evidence for life in Venus was found. The Commission understands that such a reaction by the press would reflect high interest in astrobiology research by the public. Such a report, however, misleads the public, and might be harmful to the advancement of astrobiology research.”
Within a few weeks of this warning, a number of arXiv preprints dismissed the Greaves et al. result, with one stating in the initial version of its abstract (which was later revised): “We ultimately conclude that this detection of PH 3 in the atmosphere of Venus is incorrect and invite the Greaves et al. team to revise their work and consider a correction or retraction of their original report.”
A balanced response to the Greaves et al. report, by contrast, should also have included a comparable number of follow-up papers highlighting the study’s great significance and implications. But there were only two papers posted in this supportive mold, both of them from my research group. The astrobiology community is supposed to nurture and encourage the search for extraterrestrial life. While constructive criticism of new results is always helpful, it should have been communicated in a more collegial and collaborative tone.
But there is a broader point as well. If we dismiss phosphine as a biosignature on the nearest planet to Earth so forcefully, can we expect the claim for extraterrestrial life to be convincing following a future detection of molecules like oxygen (O 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ) in exoplanet atmospheres, which could also be produced by nonbiotic chemistry? Given the skepticism expressed in the phosphine case, the only indisputable biosignature in the atmosphere of a planet would involve complex molecules like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from industrial pollution by a civilization, as considered in a 2014 paper from my group. Even though the mainstream was quick to dismiss the phosphine report, it is very slow in endorsing a search for industrial pollution in planetary atmospheres. My interest in searching for intelligence in outer space is partly because I gave up on finding it on Earth.
Of course, complete social isolation is also not a good practice. There needs to be some level of constructive social interaction to stimulate creative ideas. Comments from colleagues often induce breakthroughs. For example, many of the celebrated innovations at Bell Labs, including the inventions of the transistor, the laser, the photovoltaic cell and the charge-coupled device (CCD), were fostered by conversations between theoretical physicists and engineers who were concerned with practical applications. And a conversation between Bell Labs scientists and a group at Princeton led to the Nobel Prize–winning discovery in 1964 of the cosmic microwave background that represents the faint echo of light emitted by the infant universe (relatively) shortly after the big bang—thus lending powerful support to what is now the prevailing model of the cosmos.
Finally, it should be noted that some scientific projects are best pursued in large groups, where individualism must surrender to a master plan. Just as in an orchestra, it is essential for members of these groups to adhere to the roles assigned to them for the symphony to sound right. Distancing does not bode well for this mode of operation. During the COVID-19 era, members of these tight collaborations communicate online. Such “seashells” and “pebbles” move together in a cluster and hence do not break into indistinguishable pieces over time.


scientificamerican--2020-11-24--Severe Wildfires Raise the Chance for Future Monstrous Blazes

To lessen the risk of catastrophic wildfires , California ’ s forests need more routine burns .
This message has been echoed for years .
Relentlessly putting out even small wildfires in the Golden State and other parts of the western U.S. has long deprived the regions of beneficial flames , resulting in the buildup of dense vegetation and dry leaf litter .
The accumulation of this fuel , experts say , is creating a dramatic rise in megafires .
More ironic is new research that shows that massive fires do not necessarily reduce the incidence of big future blazes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone , recent large fires have burned within the footprint of previous ones , including the 2012 Chips Fire , the 2013 Rim Fire and parts of the 2018 Camp Fire .
In less than a decade , some of the burned expanses from this year ’ s megafires could burst into intense flames again .
In some ecosystems , high-severity fire can beget more high-severity fire , furthering the loss of forest .
A typical wildfire is a patchy mix of low-severity areas—where flames cruise close to the ground , eating up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas of high severity , where embers climb into the canopy , torching entire trees .
Some islands of land are usually left unburned , too .
But the megafires of late have a larger proportion of high-severity areas .
Susie Kocher , a forester at the University of California Cooperative Extension , says researchers estimate that prior to the advent of official policies going back 100 years , which dictate that all wildfires should be put out , only 5 to 10 percent of a typical blaze in California ’ s Sierra @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , as forests have become dense with trees and fuels , that proportion is between 40 and 60 percent for fires that break out after initial containment efforts .
In 2014 about half of the King Fire burned at high severity and killed all the conifers across a 40,000-acre area in the central Sierras east of Sacramento .
“ That ’ s way outside of what we think would have been natural , ” Kocher says .
The extent of high-severity burn has important consequences .
For one , because conifer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short distance from their mother trees , it may take a long time , or even be impossible , for ponderosa pines and other evergreens to move back in .
The majority of a large burned landscape could remain devoid of conifers for decades .
The mixed-severity fires that burned for thousands of years spared more mothers , allowing the high-severity patches to reseed .
A high-severity fire also does not preclude big subsequent blazes .
Ecologists who monitor field plots in the Sierra Nevada have observed that high-severity fires tend to produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blaze rips through most of the trees , it leaves behind a scorched and shadeless area .
Shrubs easily sprout in the resulting surplus of sunlight .
Remaining dead trees fall over .
In the first few years , the shrubby expanse is not particularly flammable because young plants contain a lot of water .
Over time , the bushes accumulate dead twigs and leaves , and desiccated branches fall from the scorched trees .
If there is a spark around eight or more years later—lightning , a downed electrical wire , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustain another large fire , providing a continuous blanket that can easily spread flames .
“ Shrubs naturally burn at higher severity , ” says Michelle Coppoletta , a Forest Service ecologist who has documented this phenomenon .
“ You ’ re getting this perfect storm of fuel that can carry high-intensity fire.
” This process may have partly driven the 2018 Camp Fire , the disastrous conflagration that destroyed the town of Paradise , Calif. , and killed dozens of people .
The landscape where the fire started had also burned in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a pyrogeographer at California State University , Chico , and a Plains Miwok cultural practitioner .
“ That ’ s partly why the Camp Fire spread so quickly .
It was moving through areas that had a lot of regrowth of shrubs and grass.
” Back-to-back fires can completely convert a landscape .
The large , high-severity regions “ often reset to chaparral [ shrubland ] or sometimes grassland , ” says Wolfy Rougle , forest health watershed coordinator at the Butte County Resource Conservation District in Northern California .
“ So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patch that continues to burn that way.
” The recurring fires eat away at neighboring forests , too .
A large-scale conversion also has implications for carbon storage and biodiversity .
As Coppoletta puts it , the result is a homogenization of the landscape .
What was at one time a mosaic of conifers , shrubs and meadows is comprised of just a few shrub species .
Much of the biodiversity associated with the prior mosaic can be lost .
Furthermore , “ that chaparral or brush-field vegetation is not going to really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way the forest would because it tends to burn all at once , ” Rougle says .
Fire-driven conversion is not unique to forests .
Hankins points out that fire in California chaparral and oak woodlands can give invasive annual grasses a chance to move in .
Nonnative annual grasses spring up quickly with winter rains but dry out by June .
If there is a spark , “ it ’ s always going to be ready to burn , ” Hankins says .
Meanwhile , although the oaks can tolerate some fire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t necessarily evolved to survive these [ severe ] fires and this frequency of fires .
So we ’ re losing oak forest at the same time.
” Land managers have two primary tools to try to stop severe forest fires from recurring : thinning and prescribed fire .
Thinning some dead and smaller live trees and other vegetation can reduce fuel loads .
Carefully managed burns can prevent the growth of dense canopy and fuel buildup .
But there is still debate about where intervention is feasible and which strategies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can reverse the trend to severe fires in different ways .
At the Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve , Hankins has researched the effect of Indigenous prescribed burning practices on an area that was dominated by star thistle and other invasive plants .
By timing fires early in the season , when the thistle was just popping up , burn crews were able to allow native bunchgrasses to return .
Those grasses are perennial and deep-rooted .
They stay green for longer and are thus less susceptible to carrying a fire .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system to be relatively free of some of these species that we don ’ t want in the landscape , ” Hankins says .
“ That ’ s all through very carefully timed fires.
” Rougle is part of an effort to reduce the potential for future intense reburns within the Camp Fire footprint .
“ We ’ ve only got maybe three years to reburn this chaparral and brush that ’ s sprouting up to try and keep it from becoming 10-foot-tall brush , ” she says .
The researchers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that stood before .
Instead they want to bring back patchiness to the landscape , breaking up vegetation both for fire safety and biodiversity .
“ We want fire to give us a healthy mosaic of habitat types , with a lot of edges .
We want it to look very messy—high-severity [ fire ] over here , low-severity [ fire ] over there , ” Rougle says .
This “ pyrodiversity , ” she says , helped create California ’ s tremendous biodiversity .
Officials are still mapping how much of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year succumbed to severe fire .
It looks like the August Complex Fire mostly burned at low severity , removing dry fuels but leaving trees intact .
Others , such as the Creek Fire on the Sierras ’ western slope , burned hot , fed by standing trees already dead from drought and insects .
“ Ultimately , all of these lands are going to need management within anywhere from two to 10 years —and probably closer to two to five years after a fire—to maintain that reduction in fuel , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at San José State University .
As climate change makes California hotter and drier , increasing the propensity for monstrous fires , this need will only grow .

To lessen the risk of catastrophic wildfires, California’s forests need more routine burns. This message has been echoed for years. Relentlessly putting out even small wildfires in the Golden State and other parts of the western U.S. has long deprived the regions of beneficial flames, resulting in the buildup of dense vegetation and dry leaf litter. The accumulation of this fuel, experts say, is creating a dramatic rise in megafires.
More ironic is new research that shows that massive fires do not necessarily reduce the incidence of big future blazes in the same places. In California alone, recent large fires have burned within the footprint of previous ones, including the 2012 Chips Fire, the 2013 Rim Fire and parts of the 2018 Camp Fire. In less than a decade, some of the burned expanses from this year’s megafires could burst into intense flames again. In some ecosystems, high-severity fire can beget more high-severity fire, furthering the loss of forest.
A typical wildfire is a patchy mix of low-severity areas—where flames cruise close to the ground, eating up pine needles, debris and smaller plants—and areas of high severity, where embers climb into the canopy, torching entire trees. Some islands of land are usually left unburned, too.
But the megafires of late have a larger proportion of high-severity areas. Susie Kocher, a forester at the University of California Cooperative Extension, says researchers estimate that prior to the advent of official policies going back 100 years, which dictate that all wildfires should be put out, only 5 to 10 percent of a typical blaze in California’s Sierra Nevada range would burn at high severity. Today, as forests have become dense with trees and fuels, that proportion is between 40 and 60 percent for fires that break out after initial containment efforts. In 2014 about half of the King Fire burned at high severity and killed all the conifers across a 40,000-acre area in the central Sierras east of Sacramento. “That’s way outside of what we think would have been natural,” Kocher says.
The extent of high-severity burn has important consequences. For one, because conifer seeds in pine cones only spread a short distance from their mother trees, it may take a long time, or even be impossible, for ponderosa pines and other evergreens to move back in. The majority of a large burned landscape could remain devoid of conifers for decades. The mixed-severity fires that burned for thousands of years spared more mothers, allowing the high-severity patches to reseed.
A high-severity fire also does not preclude big subsequent blazes. Ecologists who monitor field plots in the Sierra Nevada have observed that high-severity fires tend to produce more high-severity fires. When an intense blaze rips through most of the trees, it leaves behind a scorched and shadeless area. Shrubs easily sprout in the resulting surplus of sunlight. Remaining dead trees fall over. In the first few years, the shrubby expanse is not particularly flammable because young plants contain a lot of water. Over time, the bushes accumulate dead twigs and leaves, and desiccated branches fall from the scorched trees. If there is a spark around eight or more years later—lightning, a downed electrical wire, a fugitive campfire—the shrubs and fallen wood can sustain another large fire, providing a continuous blanket that can easily spread flames. “Shrubs naturally burn at higher severity,” says Michelle Coppoletta, a Forest Service ecologist who has documented this phenomenon. “You’re getting this perfect storm of fuel that can carry high-intensity fire.”
This process may have partly driven the 2018 Camp Fire, the disastrous conflagration that destroyed the town of Paradise, Calif., and killed dozens of people. The landscape where the fire started had also burned in the years previously, says Don Hankins, a pyrogeographer at California State University, Chico, and a Plains Miwok cultural practitioner. “That’s partly why the Camp Fire spread so quickly. It was moving through areas that had a lot of regrowth of shrubs and grass.”
Back-to-back fires can completely convert a landscape. The large, high-severity regions “often reset to chaparral [shrubland] or sometimes grassland,” says Wolfy Rougle, forest health watershed coordinator at the Butte County Resource Conservation District in Northern California. “So now you’ve got this high-severity patch that continues to burn that way.” The recurring fires eat away at neighboring forests, too.
A large-scale conversion also has implications for carbon storage and biodiversity. As Coppoletta puts it, the result is a homogenization of the landscape. What was at one time a mosaic of conifers, shrubs and meadows is comprised of just a few shrub species. Much of the biodiversity associated with the prior mosaic can be lost. Furthermore, “that chaparral or brush-field vegetation is not going to really build carbon over the long term the way the forest would because it tends to burn all at once,” Rougle says.
Fire-driven conversion is not unique to forests. Hankins points out that fire in California chaparral and oak woodlands can give invasive annual grasses a chance to move in. Nonnative annual grasses spring up quickly with winter rains but dry out by June. If there is a spark, “it’s always going to be ready to burn,” Hankins says. Meanwhile, although the oaks can tolerate some fire, he says, “they haven’t necessarily evolved to survive these [severe] fires and this frequency of fires. So we’re losing oak forest at the same time.”
Land managers have two primary tools to try to stop severe forest fires from recurring: thinning and prescribed fire. Thinning some dead and smaller live trees and other vegetation can reduce fuel loads. Carefully managed burns can prevent the growth of dense canopy and fuel buildup. But there is still debate about where intervention is feasible and which strategies to use, Coppoletta says.
Controlled fire can reverse the trend to severe fires in different ways. At the Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve, Hankins has researched the effect of Indigenous prescribed burning practices on an area that was dominated by star thistle and other invasive plants. By timing fires early in the season, when the thistle was just popping up, burn crews were able to allow native bunchgrasses to return. Those grasses are perennial and deep-rooted. They stay green for longer and are thus less susceptible to carrying a fire. “We’ve been able to shift the system to be relatively free of some of these species that we don’t want in the landscape,” Hankins says. “That’s all through very carefully timed fires.”
Rougle is part of an effort to reduce the potential for future intense reburns within the Camp Fire footprint. “We’ve only got maybe three years to reburn this chaparral and brush that’s sprouting up to try and keep it from becoming 10-foot-tall brush,” she says. The researchers are not necessarily trying to restore the forest that stood before. Instead they want to bring back patchiness to the landscape, breaking up vegetation both for fire safety and biodiversity. “We want fire to give us a healthy mosaic of habitat types, with a lot of edges. We want it to look very messy—high-severity [fire] over here, low-severity [fire] over there,” Rougle says. This “pyrodiversity,” she says, helped create California’s tremendous biodiversity.
Officials are still mapping how much of the record-breaking four-million-plus acres that burned in California this year succumbed to severe fire. It looks like the August Complex Fire mostly burned at low severity, removing dry fuels but leaving trees intact. Others, such as the Creek Fire on the Sierras’ western slope, burned hot, fed by standing trees already dead from drought and insects.
“Ultimately, all of these lands are going to need management within anywhere from two to 10 years —and probably closer to two to five years after a fire—to maintain that reduction in fuel,” says Kate Wilkin, a fire scientist at San José State University. As climate change makes California hotter and drier, increasing the propensity for monstrous fires, this need will only grow.


scientificamerican--2020-11-25--Are Toxic Political Conversations Changing How We Feel about Objective Truth?

In a key moment of the final Trump-Clinton presidential debate , Donald Trump turned to a question regarding Russian president Vladimir Putin : “ He has no respect for her , ” Trump said , pointing at Hillary Clinton .
“ Putin , from everything I see , has no respect for this person.
” The two debaters then drilled down to try and gain a more nuanced understanding of the difficult policy issues involved .
Clinton said , “ Are you suggesting that the aggressive approach I propose would actually fail to deter Russian expansionism ?
” “ No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deter Russian expansionism ; it 's just that it would also serve to destabilize the ... ” Just kidding .
That 's not at all what happened .
Actually each side aimed to attack and defeat the other .
Clinton really said , “ Well , that 's because he 'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.
” Episodes like this one have become such a staple of contemporary political discourse that it is easy to forget how radically different they are from disputes we often have in ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to decide on a restaurant for dinner .
One might say , “ Let 's try the new Indian restaurant tonight .
I have n't had Indian for months.
” To which another replies , “ You know , I saw that place is getting poor reviews .
Let 's grab some pizza instead ?
” “ Good to know—pizza it is , ” says the first .
Each comes in with an opinion .
They begin a discussion in which each presents an argument , then listens to the other 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward an agreement .
This kind of dialogue happens all the time .
In our research , which involves cognitive psychology and experimental philosophy , we refer to it as “ arguing to learn.
” But as political polarization increases in the U.S. , the kind of antagonistic exchange exemplified by the Trump-Clinton debate is occurring with increasing frequency—not just among policy makers but among us all .
In interactions such as these , people may provide arguments for their views , but neither side is genuinely interested in learning from the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ score points , ” in other words , to defeat the other side in a competitive activity .
Conversations on Twitter , Facebook and even YouTube comment sections have become powerful symbols of what the combativeness of political discourse looks like these days .
We refer to this kind of discussion as “ arguing to win.
” The divergence of Americans ' ideology is accompanied by an animosity for those across the aisle .
Recent polls show that partisan liberals and conservatives associate with one another less frequently , have unfavorable views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even be unhappy if a family member married someone from the other side .
At the same time , the rise of social media has revolutionized how information is consumed—news is often personalized to one 's political preferences .
Rival perspectives can be completely shut out from one 's self-created media bubble .
Making matters worse , outrage-inducing content is more likely to spread on these platforms , creating a breeding ground for clickbait headlines and fake news .
This toxic online environment is very likely driving Americans further apart and fostering unproductive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribalism , an important question has arisen about the psychological effects of arguing to win .
What happens in our minds—and to our minds—when we find ourselves conversing in a way that simply aims to defeat an opponent ?
Our recent research has explored this question using experimental methods , and we have found that the distinction between different modes of argument has some surprisingly far-reaching effects .
Not only does it change people 's way of thinking about the debate and the people on the opposing side , but it also has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of understanding the very issue under discussion .
Are We Objectivists or Relativists ?
The question of moral and political objectivity is a notoriously thorny one , which philosophers have been debating for millennia .
Still , the core of the question is easy enough to grasp by considering a few hypothetical conversations .
Consider a debate about a perfectly straightforward question in science or mathematics .
Suppose two friends are working together on a problem and find themselves disagreeing about the solution : Mary : The cube root of 2,197 is 13 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ root of 2,197 is 14 .
People observing this conflict might not know which answer is correct .
Yet they might be entirely sure that there is a single objectively correct answer .
This is not just a matter of opinion—there is a fact of the matter , and anyone who has an alternative view is simply mistaken .
Now consider a different kind of scenario .
Suppose these two friends decide to take a break for lunch and find themselves disagreeing about what to put on their bagels : Susan : No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all .
It is completely disgusting .
In this example , observers might take up another attitude : Even if two people have opposite opinions , it could be that neither is incorrect .
It seems that there is no objective truth of the matter .
With that in mind , think about what happens when people debate controversial questions about morally infused political topics .
As our two friends are enjoying their lunch , suppose they wade into a heated political chat : Mary : Abortion is morally wrong and should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is nothing wrong with abortion , and it should be perfectly legal .
The question we grapple with is how to understand this kind of debate .
Is it like the math question , where there is an objectively right answer and anyone who says otherwise must be mistaken ?
Or is it more like a clash over a matter of taste , where there is no single right answer and people can have opposite opinions without either one being wrong ?
In recent years work on this topic has expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychology and cognitive science .
Instead of relying on the intuitions of professional philosophers , researchers like ourselves have begun gathering empirical evidence to understand how people actually think about these issues .
Do people tend to think moral and political questions have objectively correct answers ?
Or do they have a more relativist view ?
On the most basic level , the past decade of research has shown that the answer to this question is that it 's complicated .
Some people are more objectivist ; others are more relativist .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explored the differences between people with these types of thinking .
When participants are asked whether they would be willing to share an apartment with a roommate who holds opposing views on moral or political questions , objectivists are more inclined to say no .
When participants are asked to sit down in a room next to a person who has opposing views , objectivists actually sit farther away .
As University of Pennsylvania psychologist Geoffrey P. Goodwin once put it , people who hold an objectivist view tend to respond in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might this be ?
One straightforward possibility is that if you think there is an objectively correct answer , you may be drawn to conclude that everyone who holds the opposite view is simply incorrect and therefore not worth listening to .
Thus , people 's view about objective moral truths could shape their approach to interacting with others .
This is a plausible hypothesis and one worth investigating in further studies .
Yet we thought that there might be more to the story .
In particular , we suspected there might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps it 's not just that having objectivist views shapes your interactions with other people ; perhaps your interactions with other people can actually shape the degree to which you hold objectivist views .
To test this theory , we ran an experiment in which adults engaged in an online political conversation .
Each participant logged on to a Web site and indicated his or her positions on a variety of controversial political topics , including abortion and gun rights .
They were matched with another participant who held opposing views .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about a topic on which they disagreed .
Half of the participants were encouraged to argue to win .
They were told that this would be a highly competitive exchange and that their goal should be to outperform the other person .
The result was exactly the kind of communication one sees every day on social media .
Here , for example , is a transcript from one of the actual conversations : P2 : Abortion should be prohibited because it stops a beating heart P1 : Abortion is the law of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ P2 : The heart beats at 21 days its murder [ sic ] The other half of participants were encouraged to argue to learn .
They were told that this would be a very cooperative exchange and that they should try to learn as much as they could from their opponent .
These conversations tended to have a quite different tone : P3 : I believe abortion is a right all women should possess .
I do understand that some people choose to place certain determinants on when and why , but I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before a certain time point in the pregnancy agreed upon by doctors , so as not to harm the mother .
P4 : I believe that life begins at conception ( sperm meeting egg ) , so abortion to me is the equivalent of murder .
P3 : I can absolutely see that point .
As a biologist , it is obvious from the first cell division that “ life ” is happening .
But I do not think life is advanced enough to warrant abolishing abortion .
It is not all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to such results .
But would these exchanges in turn lead to different views about the very nature of the question being discussed ?
After the conversation was over , we asked participants whether they thought there was an objective truth about the topics they had just debated .
Strikingly , these 15-minute exchanges actually shifted people 's views .
Individuals were more objectivist after arguing to win than they were after arguing to learn .
In other words , the social context of the discussion—how people frame the purpose of controversial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosophical question about whether there is an objective truth at all .
These results naturally lead to another question that goes beyond what can be addressed through a scientific study .
Which of these two modes of argument would be better to adopt when it comes to controversial political topics ?
At first , the answer seems straightforward .
Who could fail to see that there is something deeply important about cooperative dialogue and something fundamentally counterproductive about sheer competition ?
Although this simple answer may be right most of the time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things are not quite so clear-cut .
Suppose we are engaged in a debate with a group of climate science skeptics .
We could try to sit down together , listen to the arguments of the skeptics and do our best to learn from everything they have to say .
But some might think that this approach is exactly the wrong one .
There might not be anything to be gained by remaining open to ideas that contradict scientific consensus .
Indeed , agreeing to partake in a cooperative dialogue might be an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balance ” —legitimizing an extreme outlier position that should not be weighed equally .
Some would say that the best approach in this kind of case is to argue to win .
Of course , our studies can not directly determine which mode of argument is “ best.
” And although plenty of evidence suggests that contemporary political discourse is becoming more combative and focused on winning , our findings do not elucidate why that change has occurred .
Rather they provide an important new piece of information to consider : the mode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our understanding of the question itself .
The more we argue to win , the more we will feel that there is a single objectively correct answer and that all other answers are mistaken .
Conversely , the more we argue to learn , the more we will feel that there is no single objective truth and different answers can be equally right .
So the next time you are deciding how to enter into an argument on Facebook about the controversial question of the day , remember that you are not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a person who holds the opposing view .
You are also making a decision that will shape the way you—and others—think about whether the question itself has a correct answer .

In a key moment of the final 2016 Trump-Clinton presidential debate, Donald Trump turned to a question regarding Russian president Vladimir Putin:
“He has no respect for her,” Trump said, pointing at Hillary Clinton. “Putin, from everything I see, has no respect for this person.”
The two debaters then drilled down to try and gain a more nuanced understanding of the difficult policy issues involved. Clinton said,
“Are you suggesting that the aggressive approach I propose would actually fail to deter Russian expansionism?”
To which Trump responded,
“No, I certainly agree that it would deter Russian expansionism; it’s just that it would also serve to destabilize the ...”
Just kidding. That’s not at all what happened. Actually each side aimed to attack and defeat the other. Clinton really said,
“Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”
To which Trump retorted,
“You’re the puppet!”
Episodes like this one have become such a staple of contemporary political discourse that it is easy to forget how radically different they are from disputes we often have in ordinary life. Consider a couple of friends trying to decide on a restaurant for dinner. One might say, “Let’s try the new Indian restaurant tonight. I haven’t had Indian for months.” To which another replies, “You know, I saw that place is getting poor reviews. Let’s grab some pizza instead?” “Good to know—pizza it is,” says the first. Each comes in with an opinion. They begin a discussion in which each presents an argument, then listens to the other’s argument, and then they both move toward an agreement. This kind of dialogue happens all the time. In our research, which involves cognitive psychology and experimental philosophy, we refer to it as “arguing to learn.”
But as political polarization increases in the U.S., the kind of antagonistic exchange exemplified by the Trump-Clinton debate is occurring with increasing frequency—not just among policy makers but among us all. In interactions such as these, people may provide arguments for their views, but neither side is genuinely interested in learning from the other. Instead the real aim is to “score points,” in other words, to defeat the other side in a competitive activity. Conversations on Twitter, Facebook and even YouTube comment sections have become powerful symbols of what the combativeness of political discourse looks like these days. We refer to this kind of discussion as “arguing to win.”
The divergence of Americans’ ideology is accompanied by an animosity for those across the aisle. Polls have shown that partisan liberals and conservatives associate with one another less frequently, have unfavorable views of the opposing party, and would even be unhappy if a family member married someone from the other side. At the same time, the rise of social media has revolutionized how information is consumed—news is often personalized to one’s political preferences. Rival perspectives can be completely shut out from one’s self-created media bubble. Making matters worse, outrage-inducing content is more likely to spread on these platforms, creating a breeding ground for clickbait headlines and fake news. This toxic online environment is very likely driving Americans further apart and fostering unproductive exchanges.
In this time of rising polarization, an important question has arisen about the psychological effects of arguing to win. What happens in our minds—and to our minds—when we find ourselves conversing in a way that simply aims to defeat an opponent? Our research has explored this question using experimental methods, and we have found that the distinction between different modes of argument has some surprisingly far-reaching effects. Not only does it change people’s way of thinking about the debate and the people on the opposing side, but it also has a more fundamental effect on our way of understanding the very issue under discussion.
Are we objectivists or relativists?
The question of moral and political objectivity is notoriously thorny, one that philosophers have been debating for millennia. Still, the core of the question is easy enough to grasp by considering a few hypothetical conversations. Consider a debate about a perfectly straightforward question in science or mathematics. Suppose two friends are working together on a problem and find themselves disagreeing about the solution:
Mary: The cube root of 2,197 is 13.
Susan: No, the cube root of 2,197 is 14.
People observing this conflict might not know which answer is correct. Yet they might be entirely sure that there is a single objectively correct answer. This is not just a matter of opinion—there is a fact of the matter, and anyone who has an alternative view is simply mistaken.
Now consider a different kind of scenario. Suppose these two friends decide to take a break for lunch and find themselves disagreeing about what to put on their bagels:
Mary: Veggie cream cheese is really tasty.
Susan: No, veggie cream cheese is not tasty at all. It is completely disgusting.
In this example, observers might take up another attitude: Even if two people have opposite opinions, it could be that neither is incorrect. It seems that there is no objective truth of the matter.
With that in mind, think about what happens when people debate controversial questions about morally infused political topics. As our two friends are enjoying their lunch, suppose they wade into a heated political chat:
Mary: Abortion is morally wrong and should not be legal.
Susan: No, there is nothing wrong with abortion, and it should be perfectly legal.
The question we grapple with is how to understand this kind of debate. Is it like the math question, where there is an objectively right answer and anyone who says otherwise must be mistaken? Or is it more like a clash over a matter of taste, where there is no single right answer and people can have opposite opinions without either one being wrong?
In recent years work on this topic has expanded beyond the realm of philosophy and into psychology and cognitive science. Instead of relying on the intuitions of professional philosophers, researchers like us have begun gathering empirical evidence to understand how people actually think about these issues. Do people tend to think moral and political questions have objectively correct answers? Or do they have a more relativist view?
On the most basic level, the past decade or so of research has shown that the answer to this question is that it’s complicated. Some people are more objectivist; others are more relativist. That might seem obvious, but later studies explored the differences between people with these types of thinking. When participants are asked whether they would be willing to share an apartment with a roommate who holds opposing views on moral or political questions, objectivists are more inclined to say no. When participants are asked to sit down in a room next to a person who has opposing views, objectivists actually sit farther away. As University of Pennsylvania psychologist Geoffrey P. Goodwin once put it, people who hold an objectivist view tend to respond in a more “closed” fashion.
Why might this be? One straightforward possibility is that if you think there is an objectively correct answer, you may be drawn to conclude that everyone who holds the opposite view is simply incorrect and therefore not worth listening to. Thus, people’s view about objective moral truths could shape their approach to interacting with others. This is a plausible hypothesis and one worth investigating in further studies.
Yet we thought that there might be more to the story. In particular, we suspected there might be an effect in the opposite direction. Perhaps it’s not just that having objectivist views shapes your interactions with other people; perhaps your interactions with other people can actually shape the degree to which you hold objectivist views.
WINNING VS. LEARNING
To test this theory, we ran an experiment in which adults engaged in an online political conversation. Each participant logged on to a website and indicated their positions on a variety of controversial political topics, including abortion and gun rights. They were matched with another participant who held opposing views. The participants then engaged in an online conversation about a topic on which they disagreed.
Half of the participants were encouraged to argue to win. They were told that this would be a highly competitive exchange and that their goal should be to outperform the other person. The result was exactly the kind of communication one sees every day on social media. Here, for example, is a transcript from one of the actual conversations:
P1: I believe 100 percent in a woman's choice
P2: Abortion should be prohibited because it stops a beating heart
P1: Abortion is the law of the land, the land you live in
P2: The heart beats at 21 days its murder [sic]
The other half of participants were encouraged to argue to learn. They were told that this would be a very cooperative exchange and that they should try to learn as much as they could from their opponent. These conversations tended to have a quite different tone:
P3: I believe abortion is a right all women should possess. I do understand that some people choose to place certain determinants on when and why, but I think it should be for any reason before a certain time point in the pregnancy agreed upon by doctors, so as not to harm the mother.
P4: I believe that life begins at conception (sperm meeting egg), so abortion to me is the equivalent of murder.
P3: I can absolutely see that point. As a biologist, it is obvious from the first cell division that “life” is happening. But I do not think life is advanced enough to warrant abolishing abortion.
It is not all that surprising that these two sets of instructions led to such results. But would these exchanges in turn lead to different views about the very nature of the question being discussed? After the conversation was over, we asked participants whether they thought there was an objective truth about the topics they had just debated. Strikingly, these 15-minute exchanges actually shifted people’s views. Individuals were more objectivist after arguing to win than they were after arguing to learn. In other words, the social context of the discussion—how people frame the purpose of controversial discourse—actually changed their opinions on the deeply philosophical question about whether there is an objective truth at all.
These results naturally lead to another question that goes beyond what can be addressed through a scientific study. Which of these two modes of argument would be better to adopt when it comes to controversial political topics? At first, the answer seems straightforward. Who could fail to see that there is something deeply important about cooperative dialogue and something fundamentally counterproductive about sheer competition?
Although this simple answer may be right most of the time, there may also be cases in which things are not quite so clear-cut. Suppose we are engaged in a debate with a group of climate science skeptics. We could try to sit down together, listen to the arguments of the skeptics and do our best to learn from everything they have to say. But some might think that this approach is exactly the wrong one. There might not be anything to be gained by remaining open to ideas that contradict scientific consensus. Indeed, agreeing to partake in a cooperative dialogue might be an instance of what journalists call “false balance”—legitimizing an extreme outlier position that should not be weighed equally. Some would say that the best approach in this kind of case is to argue to win.
Of course, our studies cannot directly determine which mode of argument is “best.” And although plenty of evidence suggests that contemporary political discourse is becoming more combative and focused on winning, our findings do not elucidate why that change has occurred. Rather they provide an important new piece of information to consider: the mode of argument we engage in actually changes our understanding of the question itself.
The more we argue to win, the more we will feel that there is a single objectively correct answer and that all other answers are mistaken. Conversely, the more we argue to learn, the more we will feel that there is no single objective truth and different answers can be equally right.
So the next time you are deciding how to enter into an argument on Facebook about the controversial question of the day, remember that you are not just making a choice about how to interact with a person who holds the opposing view. You are also making a decision that will shape the way you—and others—think about whether the question itself has a correct answer.


scientificamerican--2020-11-25--Do Wine over Those Brussels Sprouts

Do Wine over Those Brussels Sprouts

Thanksgiving is , of course , really all about the side dishes .
And alongside mashed potatoes and yams , Brussels sprouts are a common side on many Thanksgiving tables .
Not that they 're equally appreciated .
But science is here to save turkey day , with a way to mitigate the sprouts ' intense , slightly bitter flavor : take swigs of red wine as you eat 'em .
Like any human research study , or perhaps more importantly for one in which you 'll be forcing people to eat Brussels sprouts , the project started off with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then served 28 volunteers slices of microwaved Brussels sprouts , and asked them to rate the intensity or bitterness of their flavor on a scale of 1 to 10 .
They then alternated their bites with red wine , gravy , and bottled water .
And rated the flavor again .
Turns out , the subjects scored the sprouts as significantly less intense after a sip of wine : 3.5 out of 10 , compared to 5.5 .
Maybe , the scientists write , because the astringency of wine interferes with saliva 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the taste buds .
The results are in the Journal of Texture Studies…a real publication .
[ Guy Carpenter et al.
, Wine astringency reduces flavour intensity of Brussels Sprouts ] Unfortunately for the kids at the table , gravy and water did not do the taste trick .
But for adults who choose to use this Thanksgiving hack—please imbibe responsibly .
Though I do n't imagine you 'll be eating that many Brussels sprouts .
[ The above text is a transcript of this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
Thanksgiving is, of course, really all about the side dishes. And alongside mashed potatoes and yams, Brussels sprouts are a common side on many Thanksgiving tables. Not that they're equally appreciated. But science is here to save turkey day, with a way to mitigate the sprouts' intense, slightly bitter flavor: take swigs of red wine as you eat 'em.
Like any human research study, or perhaps more importantly for one in which you'll be forcing people to eat Brussels sprouts, the project started off with approval from an ethics committee.
Researchers then served 28 volunteers slices of microwaved Brussels sprouts, and asked them to rate the intensity or bitterness of their flavor on a scale of 1 to 10. They then alternated their bites with red wine, gravy, and bottled water. And rated the flavor again.
Turns out, the subjects scored the sprouts as significantly less intense after a sip of wine: 3.5 out of 10, compared to 5.5. Maybe, the scientists write, because the astringency of wine interferes with saliva's ability to deliver bitter flavor molecules to the taste buds.
The results are in the Journal of Texture Studies…a real publication. [Guy Carpenter et al., Wine astringency reduces flavour intensity of Brussels Sprouts]
Unfortunately for the kids at the table, gravy and water did not do the taste trick. But for adults who choose to use this Thanksgiving hack—please imbibe responsibly. Though I don't imagine you'll be eating that many Brussels sprouts.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-11-25--Riskiest Spot for Rising Seas Is 50 Miles from the Ocean

The county most at risk for coastal flooding is not in Florida , North Carolina or New Jersey , according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency .
It ’ s not even on a coast .
It ’ s Cowlitz County , Wash. , population 102,000 , about 50 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean on the Columbia River .
The ranking comes from a groundbreaking analysis by FEMA that measures disaster risk in a new way .
Instead of analyzing only the likelihood of a disaster and the damage it would cause , FEMA also assessed 78 socioeconomic factors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate , racial composition and church membership , and the percentage of residents with high-speed internet .
Those factors are important—and often overlooked—because they determine how much a community will suffer from a disaster and how quickly and thoroughly it will recover .
FEMA ’ s National Risk Index , released last week after six years of development , marks the first time the federal government has taken such a sweeping view of disasters .
The index has the potential to alter how the nation prepares for climate change as President-elect Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct more attention and money to disadvantaged communities by considering “ social vulnerability ” factors such as the percentage of people who are minorities , recent immigrants or non-English speakers .
And there are several surprises .
The index represents a new way of evaluating “ disaster risk ” to warn communities about their potential suffering .
“ It ’ s an awesome tool , ” said Susan Cutter , director of the University of South Carolina ’ s Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute , who helped develop the index .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for planning and mitigation planning.
” The index rates the risk of each of the nation ’ s 3,100 counties and 73,000 census tracts to 18 separate natural hazards including avalanches , heat waves , floods and storms .
A census tract is an area of about 5,000 people for which the Census Bureau collects demographic data .
The index features more than 1 million “ risk scores ” that rate on a 100-point scale the combined risk and vulnerability of a geographic area to a natural hazard .
The area with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ score of 100 .
Each county and census tract also has a cumulative score that rates its general risk to disasters .
“ It ’ s going to be very useful for the public to begin to understand what the risks are in their state or in their county , and how these risks can be amplified by the level of social vulnerability and attenuated by strong community resilience , ” Cutter said .
FEMA Assistant Administrator Michael Grimm said the index will help “ less sophisticated communities ” understand their risk to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities ” to prioritize risk-mitigation projects .
Brenda Ekwurzel , director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a co-author of the latest National Climate Assessment , said FEMA needs to promote the index to communities so they understand how to use it .
“ That ’ s where a report like this becomes real , ” Ekwurzel said .
The index does not account for climate change except to incorporate NOAA ’ s sea-level rise projections .
Those projections help explain why Cowlitz is the nation ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise is expected to elevate the Columbia River and endanger the heavily populated and developed area along the river in Cowlitz County .
“ Coastal flooding I would have thought is really prevalent on the East Coast with hurricane impacts , ” Schnabler said .
Most of the counties with the highest risk of coastal flooding are on the East Coast .
But the factor that puts Cowlitz County ahead of second-place Ocean County , N.J. , which suffered enormous damage during Superstorm Sandy in 2012 , is Cowlitz ’ s resilience to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ability to withstand a disaster and incorporates 49 factors such as housing quality , homeownership rates , flood insurance coverage , education levels , and affiliation with religious and civic groups .
FEMA gave Cowlitz a resilience score of 53.2 on a 100-point scale .
Ocean County ’ s score is slightly better at 57.2 .
Schnabler welcomed the top ranking for coastal flooding , whose value he was quick to grasp .
“ I like being there because it gives me ammunition to go and ask for federal grants to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ There are counties that have way higher flood potential than we have .
But I ’ m not disappointed to be No .
1.
” Cowlitz County was not the only surprise .
The county with the highest tornado risk is the Bronx , N.Y. , which was rated way ahead of tornado hot spots in the Great Plains and the Southeast .
The main difference is that although tornadoes in the Bronx are rare , they are highly destructive when they occur because of the county ’ s concentration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newton counties in Missouri—home of the notorious Joplin tornado outbreak that killed 158 people in 2011—scored far below the Bronx , with tornado risk scores of 18.3 and 12.8 , respectively .
The tornado rating “ gives the Bronx the ability to have that conversation ” about whether to spend more money protecting against tornadoes , said Grimm of FEMA .
“ It enables a conversation to happen where a more informed local decision could be made.
” The index could lead FEMA to direct resources to communities with low resilience and high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community ’ s susceptibility to disasters based on 29 factors related to race , class , ethnicity and elderly population .
“ There ’ s been a lot of discussion and press on where funds go .
That ’ s something we ’ re looking at very seriously now at FEMA—the social equity—and how do we effect our programs to take this into account , ” Grimm said .
Although Cowlitz County ’ s ranking is surprising , many of the risk rankings follow conventional wisdom .
Here are the counties that FEMA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six climate-related disasters in addition to coastal flooding .
Drought risk is measured largely by damage to agriculture .
Imperial County , in California ’ s southeast corner adjacent to Mexico and Arizona , is projected to face substantial agriculture losses during a drought .
But the county gets the top spot in drought risk because of its very high social vulnerability and very low disaster resilience .
Nearly a quarter of the county ’ s 180,000 residents live below the poverty line , and 80 % are Hispanic .
Heat wave risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is no property or agricultural damage from heat waves .
FEMA estimated that heat waves will kill eight people a year in Philadelphia , the highest number of any county after Cook , which is projected to see 10 heat-related deaths a year .
FEMA ranked Philadelphia first in heat wave risk because its social vulnerability score is 61.2 , compared with Cook County ’ s score of 43 .
Philadelphia ’ s population is 44 % Black compared with 24 % in Cook County , and Philadelphia has much higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is probably the least-surprising ranking of all .
With billions of dollars of coastal property and tens of thousands of people living in high-risk hurricane zones , the threat facing Miami-Dade is substantially higher than that to second-place Collier County in southwest Florida .
Miami-Dade ’ s well-known exposure is compounded by its lesser-known social vulnerabilities , such as a 16 % poverty rate and a population that is 53 % foreign-born and 69 % Hispanic .
Nearly 75 % of the county ’ s 2.7 million residents speak a language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 1,400 residents and little development , Wheeler County may seem like an odd pick to be the most vulnerable to landslides .
But unlike most disasters , landslides are more dangerous to people than to buildings .
FEMA projects that landslides will cause more human damage in Wheeler County than anywhere else .
Wheeler has high social vulnerability due to its 19 % poverty rate , generally high levels of unemployment and small number of college graduates .
The same characteristics that make Miami-Dade most at risk to hurricanes make it the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no surprise that the highest wildfire risk is in Southern California , with its endless development in wildfire-prone suburbs .
Riverside County rates just ahead of its two neighbors because it has so much development in the wildland-urban interface and a low resilience score .
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

The county most at risk for coastal flooding is not in Florida, North Carolina or New Jersey, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
It’s not even on a coast.
It’s Cowlitz County, Wash., population 102,000, about 50 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean on the Columbia River.
The ranking comes from a groundbreaking analysis by FEMA that measures disaster risk in a new way.
Instead of analyzing only the likelihood of a disaster and the damage it would cause, FEMA also assessed 78 socioeconomic factors such as a community’s poverty rate, racial composition and church membership, and the percentage of residents with high-speed internet.
Those factors are important—and often overlooked—because they determine how much a community will suffer from a disaster and how quickly and thoroughly it will recover.
FEMA’s National Risk Index, released last week after six years of development, marks the first time the federal government has taken such a sweeping view of disasters.
The index has the potential to alter how the nation prepares for climate change as President-elect Joe Biden emphasizes climate issues. It also could direct more attention and money to disadvantaged communities by considering “social vulnerability” factors such as the percentage of people who are minorities, recent immigrants or non-English speakers.
And there are several surprises.
The index represents a new way of evaluating “disaster risk” to warn communities about their potential suffering.
“It’s an awesome tool,” said Susan Cutter, director of the University of South Carolina’s Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute, who helped develop the index. “It’s going to be incredibly useful for planning and mitigation planning.”
The index rates the risk of each of the nation’s 3,100 counties and 73,000 census tracts to 18 separate natural hazards including avalanches, heat waves, floods and storms. A census tract is an area of about 5,000 people for which the Census Bureau collects demographic data.
The index features more than 1 million “risk scores” that rate on a 100-point scale the combined risk and vulnerability of a geographic area to a natural hazard. The area with the highest risk to a hazard gets a score of 100. Each county and census tract also has a cumulative score that rates its general risk to disasters.
“It’s going to be very useful for the public to begin to understand what the risks are in their state or in their county, and how these risks can be amplified by the level of social vulnerability and attenuated by strong community resilience,” Cutter said.
FEMA Assistant Administrator Michael Grimm said the index will help “less sophisticated communities” understand their risk to natural hazards and will enable “advanced communities” to prioritize risk-mitigation projects.
Brenda Ekwurzel, director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a co-author of the latest National Climate Assessment, said FEMA needs to promote the index to communities so they understand how to use it.
“That’s where a report like this becomes real,” Ekwurzel said.
The index does not account for climate change except to incorporate NOAA’s sea-level rise projections.
Those projections help explain why Cowlitz is the nation’s most vulnerable county to coastal flooding: Sea-level rise is expected to elevate the Columbia River and endanger the heavily populated and developed area along the river in Cowlitz County.
The ranking surprised Ernie Schnabler, the county’s emergency manager.
“Coastal flooding I would have thought is really prevalent on the East Coast with hurricane impacts,” Schnabler said.
Most of the counties with the highest risk of coastal flooding are on the East Coast.
But the factor that puts Cowlitz County ahead of second-place Ocean County, N.J., which suffered enormous damage during Superstorm Sandy in 2012, is Cowlitz’s resilience to disasters. Resilience measures a community’s ability to withstand a disaster and incorporates 49 factors such as housing quality, homeownership rates, flood insurance coverage, education levels, and affiliation with religious and civic groups.
FEMA gave Cowlitz a resilience score of 53.2 on a 100-point scale. Ocean County’s score is slightly better at 57.2.
Schnabler welcomed the top ranking for coastal flooding, whose value he was quick to grasp.
“I like being there because it gives me ammunition to go and ask for federal grants to go and mitigate even further,” Schnabler said. “There are counties that have way higher flood potential than we have. But I’m not disappointed to be No. 1.”
Cowlitz County was not the only surprise.
The county with the highest tornado risk is the Bronx, N.Y., which was rated way ahead of tornado hot spots in the Great Plains and the Southeast. The main difference is that although tornadoes in the Bronx are rare, they are highly destructive when they occur because of the county’s concentration of people and buildings.
Jasper and Newton counties in Missouri—home of the notorious Joplin tornado outbreak that killed 158 people in 2011—scored far below the Bronx, with tornado risk scores of 18.3 and 12.8, respectively.
The tornado rating “gives the Bronx the ability to have that conversation” about whether to spend more money protecting against tornadoes, said Grimm of FEMA. “It enables a conversation to happen where a more informed local decision could be made.”
The index could lead FEMA to direct resources to communities with low resilience and high social vulnerability. Social vulnerability measures a community’s susceptibility to disasters based on 29 factors related to race, class, ethnicity and elderly population.
“There’s been a lot of discussion and press on where funds go. That’s something we’re looking at very seriously now at FEMA—the social equity—and how do we effect our programs to take this into account,” Grimm said.
Although Cowlitz County’s ranking is surprising, many of the risk rankings follow conventional wisdom. Here are the counties that FEMA ranks as facing the most risk to six climate-related disasters in addition to coastal flooding.
Drought
Highest risk: Imperial County, Calif.
Runners-up: Doña Ana County, N.M., and Cottle County, Texas.
Drought risk is measured largely by damage to agriculture. Imperial County, in California’s southeast corner adjacent to Mexico and Arizona, is projected to face substantial agriculture losses during a drought.
But the county gets the top spot in drought risk because of its very high social vulnerability and very low disaster resilience. Nearly a quarter of the county’s 180,000 residents live below the poverty line, and 80% are Hispanic.
Heat waves
Highest risk: Philadelphia County, Pa.
Runners-up: St. Louis County, Mo., and Cook County, Ill., which encompasses Chicago.
Heat wave risk is measured largely by its human toll. There is no property or agricultural damage from heat waves.
FEMA estimated that heat waves will kill eight people a year in Philadelphia, the highest number of any county after Cook, which is projected to see 10 heat-related deaths a year.
FEMA ranked Philadelphia first in heat wave risk because its social vulnerability score is 61.2, compared with Cook County’s score of 43. Philadelphia’s population is 44% Black compared with 24% in Cook County, and Philadelphia has much higher rates of poverty and people with disabilities.
Hurricanes
Highest risk: Miami-Dade County, Fla.
Runners-up: Collier County, Fla., and St. Lucie County, Fla.
This is probably the least-surprising ranking of all. With billions of dollars of coastal property and tens of thousands of people living in high-risk hurricane zones, the threat facing Miami-Dade is substantially higher than that to second-place Collier County in southwest Florida.
Miami-Dade’s well-known exposure is compounded by its lesser-known social vulnerabilities, such as a 16% poverty rate and a population that is 53% foreign-born and 69% Hispanic. Nearly 75% of the county’s 2.7 million residents speak a language other than English at home.
Landslides
Highest risk: Wheeler County, Ore.
Runners-up: Douglas County, Ore., and Curry County, Ore.
With just 1,400 residents and little development, Wheeler County may seem like an odd pick to be the most vulnerable to landslides. But unlike most disasters, landslides are more dangerous to people than to buildings. FEMA projects that landslides will cause more human damage in Wheeler County than anywhere else.
Wheeler has high social vulnerability due to its 19% poverty rate, generally high levels of unemployment and small number of college graduates.
Riverine flooding
Highest risk: Miami-Dade County, Fla.
Runners-up: Bexar County, Texas, and Wayne County, Mich.
The same characteristics that make Miami-Dade most at risk to hurricanes make it the biggest target of riverine flooding.
Wildfire
Highest risk: Riverside County, Calif.
Runners-up: Los Angeles County, Calif., and San Diego County, Calif.
It’s no surprise that the highest wildfire risk is in Southern California, with its endless development in wildfire-prone suburbs.
Riverside County rates just ahead of its two neighbors because it has so much development in the wildland-urban interface and a low resilience score.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-11-25--The Search for Social Identity Leads to "Us" versus "Them"

Human societies are constantly rearranging themselves , causing profound disruptions in our social lives .
The industrial revolution of the late 18th and early 19th century fragmented communities as people moved for work , the decay of empires in the early 20th century reconfigured nations and national identities , and the Great Depression of the 1930s shattered people 's economic security and future prospects .
But we are now in what is perhaps a time of unprecedented uncertainty .
The early 21st century is characterized by rapid and overwhelming change : globalization , immigration , technological revolution , unlimited access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automation of work and a warming climate .
People need to have a firm sense of identity and their place in the world , and for many the pace and magnitude of such change can be alienating .
This is because our sense of self is a fundamental organizing principle for our own perceptions , feelings , attitudes and actions .
Typically it is anchored in our close interpersonal relationships—our friends , family , partners—and in the variety of social groups and categories that we belong to and identify with—our nationality , religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to predict with some confidence how others will view us and treat us .
Imagine navigating all the situations and people we encounter in day-to-day life while continually feeling uncertain about who we are , how to behave and how social interactions will unfold .
We would feel disorientated , anxious , stressed , cognitively depleted , and lacking agency and control .
This self-uncertainty can , in fact , be experienced as an exciting challenge if we feel we have the material , social and psychological resources to resolve it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these resources , however , it can be experienced as a highly aversive threat to ourselves and our place in the world .
Generally , self-uncertainty is a sensation that people are motivated to reduce .
When people are increasingly unsure about who they are and how they fit into this rapidly changing landscape , it can be—and indeed has become—a real problem for society .
People are supporting and enabling authoritarian leaders , flocking to ideologies and worldviews that promote and celebrate the myth of a glorious past .
Fearful of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek homogeneity and become intoxicated by the freedom to access only information that confirms who they are or who they would like to be .
As a result , global populism is on the rise .
One powerful source of identity resides in social groups .
They can be highly effective at reducing a person 's self-uncertainty—particularly if such groups are distinctive and have members who share a sense of interdependence .
Groups play this central role in anchoring who we are because they are social categories , and research shows that social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others as either “ in-group ” or “ out-group ” members .
They assign the group 's attributes and social standing to those others , thereby constructing a subjective world where groups are internally homogeneous and the differences between groups are exaggerated and polarized in an ethnocentric manner .
And because we also categorize ourselves , we internalize shared in-group-defining attributes as part of who we are .
To build social identity , we psychologically surround ourselves with those who are like us .
This psychological process that causes people to identify with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called social categorization .
It anchors and crystallizes our sense of self by assigning us an identity that prescribes how we should behave , what we should think and how we should make sense of the world .
It also makes interaction predictable , allows us to anticipate how people will treat and think about us , and furnishes consensual identity confirmation : people like us—the in-group members—validate who we are .
This self-uncertainty social-identity dynamic is not in itself a bad thing .
It enables the collective organization that lies at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that require the coordination of many in the service of common goals can not be achieved by people on their own .
Yet this dynamic becomes a problem when the sense of self-uncertainty and identity threat is acute , enduring and all-encompassing .
People then experience an overwhelming need for identity—and not just any identities but ones that are well equipped to resolve those disorienting , even scary , feelings .
Some features of groups and social identities are especially well suited to reducing self-uncertainty .
Most important , groups need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boundaries that distinguish between those who are “ in ” and those who are “ out.
” Internally they need to be clearly structured , typically in a hierarchical way .
These features make the group cohesive and homogeneous , such that members are interdependent and of one mind in sharing a common fate .
Diversity and dissent reinstate uncertainty and are therefore avoided .
When these facets do occur , individuals and the group as a whole react decisively and harshly , creating an atmosphere of suspicion that lays the ground for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opportunity for personal dislikes and vendettas to escalate under the guise of protecting cohesion .
That members are accepted and trusted fully is important not only for the group but also for the members themselves .
After all , they desperately want to be included so that their identity is validated and their uncertainty thus reduced .
Prospective and new members—and those who suspect they are viewed with suspicion or are uncertain about whether they are fully accepted—will go to extremes on behalf of the group to prove their membership credentials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zealotry and radicalization .
Neo-Nazis and white supremacists who publicly engage in violent acts of terrorism and racial hatred are one example of this extremism .
The social identity embodied by such groups also needs to be uncomplicated so that it can be taken at face value as “ the truth.
” Subtlety and nuance are anathema because they are an impediment to uncertainty reduction .
Clarity on where the group stands allows its members to know how they should think and feel—as well as behave .
Such identities are bolstered by having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morally bankrupt out-groups who can be demonized and cast in the role of “ enemy.
” Conspiracy theories thrive in this environment because they establish these out-groups as agents of historical victimization by the in-group .
If self-uncertainty motivates people to identify with a group and internalize that identity as a key part of who they are , they need to be confident that they know exactly what the group 's identity is .
When you need what you consider to be reliable and trusted sources of identity information , where do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are those who you believe are consensually viewed by the group to be its leadership—typically it is a person whose leadership position is also formalized .
Recent research on how self-uncertainty affects the type of leaders that individuals prefer paints a potentially alarming picture .
People just need someone to tell them what to do—and ideally those directives are coming from someone whom they can trust as “ one of us.
” Self-uncertain people have also been shown to prefer leaders who are assertive and authoritarian , even autocratic , and who deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about “ who we are ” rather than a more open , nuanced and textured identity message .
Perhaps most troubling is that self-uncertainty can enable and build support for leaders who possess the so-called Dark Triad personality attributes : Machiavellianism , narcissism and psychopathy .
Self-uncertainty , in other words , seems to fuel populism .
Another source of identity information is “ people like you ” who you feel embody the group 's identity and see the world in the same way as you do .
These can be people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or sources of information such as radio and television channels , particularly news outlets , that you watch .
But nowadays these sources are overwhelmingly information and influence nodes on the Internet , such as Web sites , social media , Twitter feeds , podcasts , and so forth .
The Web is an ideal place to decrease the discomfort of self-uncertainty because it provides nonstop access to unlimited information that is often cherry-picked by individuals themselves and algorithms that do it discreetly .
Therefore , people are only accessing identity-confirming information .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ human bias that is especially strong under uncertainty , separates information and identity universes that fragment and polarize society .
Online , people can easily seek out groups that may not be readily available in their physical lives .
The Internet further empowers confirmation bias under uncertainty because people want to be surrounded by those who think alike so that their identities and worldview are continuously confirmed .
The contours of “ truth ” then map onto these self-contained social-identity universes .
In this scenario , there are no absolute truths and no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewpoints because that would be kryptonite to social identity 's power to reduce self-uncertainty .
This dynamic helps to explain why people dwell in increasingly homogeneous echo chambers that confirm their identity .

Human societies are constantly rearranging themselves, causing profound disruptions in our social lives. The industrial revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries fragmented communities as people moved for work, the decay of empires in the early 20th century reconfigured nations and national identities, and the Great Depression of the 1930s shattered people’s economic security and future prospects. But we are now in what is perhaps a time of unprecedented uncertainty. The early 21st century is characterized by rapid and overwhelming change: globalization, immigration, technological revolution, unlimited access to information, sociopolitical volatility, the automation of work and a warming climate.
People need to have a firm sense of identity and of their place in the world, and for many the pace and magnitude of such change can be alienating. This is because our sense of self is a fundamental organizing principle for our own perceptions, feelings, attitudes and actions. Typically it is anchored in our close interpersonal relationships, such as with our friends, family and partners, and in the variety of social groups and categories that we belong to and identify with—our nationality, religion, ethnicity, profession. It allows us to predict with some confidence how others will view us and treat us.
Imagine navigating all the situations and people we encounter in day-to-day life while continually feeling uncertain about who we are, how to behave and how social interactions will unfold. We would feel disorientated, anxious, stressed, cognitively depleted, and lacking agency and control. This self-uncertainty can, in fact, be experienced as an exciting challenge if we feel we have the material, social and psychological resources to resolve it. If we feel we do not have these resources, however, it can be experienced as a highly aversive threat to us and our place in the world.
Generally, self-uncertainty is a sensation that people are motivated to reduce. When people are increasingly unsure about who they are and how they fit into this rapidly changing landscape, it can be—and indeed has become—a real problem for society. People are supporting and enabling authoritarian leaders, flocking to ideologies and worldviews that promote and celebrate the myth of a glorious past. Fearful of those who are different from them, they seek homogeneity and become intoxicated by the freedom to access only information that confirms who they are or who they would like to be. As a result, global populism is on the rise.
Seeking Social Identity
One powerful source of identity resides in social groups. They can be highly effective at reducing a person’s self-uncertainty—particularly if such groups are distinctive and have members who share a sense of interdependence.
Groups play this central role in anchoring who we are because they are social categories, and research shows that social categorization is ubiquitous. A person categorizes others as either “in-group” or “out-group” members. They assign the group’s attributes and social standing to those others, thereby constructing a subjective world where groups are internally homogeneous and the differences between groups are exaggerated and polarized in an ethnocentric manner. And because we also categorize ourselves, we internalize shared in-group-defining attributes as part of who we are. To build social identity, we psychologically surround ourselves with those who are like us.
Social groups soothe individual self-uncertainty but also delineate “in-groups” and “out-groups,” which can increase populism. Credit: Pyrosky/Getty Images
This psychological process that causes people to identify with groups and behave as group members is called social categorization. It anchors and crystallizes our sense of self by assigning us an identity that prescribes how we should behave, what we should think and how we should make sense of the world. It also makes interaction predictable, allows us to anticipate how people will treat and think about us, and furnishes consensual identity confirmation: people like us—the in-group members—validate who we are.
This self-uncertainty social-identity dynamic is not in itself a bad thing. It enables the collective organization that lies at the heart of human society. Human achievements that require the coordination of many in the service of common goals cannot be achieved by individuals on their own. Yet this dynamic becomes a problem when the sense of self-uncertainty and identity threat is acute, enduring and all-encompassing. People then experience an overwhelming need for identity—and not just any identities but ones that are well equipped to resolve those disorienting, even scary, feelings.
Reducing Uncertainty through Group Membership
Some features of groups and social identities are especially well suited to reducing self-uncertainty. Most important, groups need to be polarized from other groups and have unambiguous boundaries that distinguish between those who are “in” and those who are “out.” Internally they need to be clearly structured, typically in a hierarchical way. These features make the group cohesive and homogeneous, such that members are interdependent and of one mind in sharing a common fate.
Diversity and dissent reinstate uncertainty and are therefore avoided. When these facets do occur, individuals and the group as a whole react decisively and harshly, creating an atmosphere of suspicion that lays the ground for persecution of alleged deviants. It breeds an opportunity for personal dislikes and vendettas to escalate under the guise of protecting cohesion.
That members are accepted and trusted fully is important not only for the group but also for the members themselves. After all, they desperately want to be included so that their identity is validated and their uncertainty thus reduced. Prospective and new members—and those who suspect they are viewed with suspicion or are uncertain about whether they are fully accepted—will go to extremes on behalf of the group to prove their membership credentials and loyalty. These individuals are vulnerable to zealotry and radicalization. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists who publicly engage in violent acts of terrorism and racial hatred are one example of this extremism.
The social identity embodied by such groups also needs to be uncomplicated so that it can be taken at face value as “the truth.” Subtlety and nuance are anathema because they are an impediment to uncertainty reduction. Clarity on where the group stands allows its members to know how they should think and feel—as well as behave. Such identities are bolstered by having a strong ideology that identifies distasteful and morally bankrupt out-groups who can be demonized and cast in the role of “enemy.” Conspiracy theories thrive in this environment because they establish these out-groups as agents of historical victimization by the in-group.
How Uncertainty Breeds Populism
If self-uncertainty motivates people to identify with a group and internalize that identity as a key part of who they are, they need to be confident that they know exactly what their group’s identity is. When you need what you consider to be reliable and trusted sources of identity information, where do you turn? The first port of call is whoever you believe is consensually viewed by the group as its leadership—typically someone whose leadership position is also formalized.
Recent research on how self-uncertainty affects the type of leaders that individuals prefer paints a potentially alarming picture. People just need someone to tell them what to do—and ideally those directives are coming from someone whom they can trust as “one of us.” Self-uncertain people have also been shown to prefer leaders who are assertive and authoritarian, even autocratic, and who deliver a simple, black-and-white, affirmational message about “who we are” rather than a more open, nuanced and textured identity message.
Perhaps most troubling is that self-uncertainty can enable and build support for leaders who possess the so-called Dark Triad personality attributes: Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. Self-uncertainty, in other words, seems to fuel populism.
Another source of identity information is “people like you” who you feel embody the group’s identity and see the world in the same way as you do. These can be people with whom you interact face-to-face or as friends, or they can be sources of information such as radio and television channels, particularly news outlets, that you watch. But nowadays these sources are overwhelmingly information and influence nodes on the Internet, such as Web sites, social media, Twitter feeds, podcasts, and so forth.
The Web is an ideal place to decrease the discomfort of self-uncertainty because it provides nonstop access to unlimited information that is often cherry-picked by individuals themselves and algorithms that do it discreetly. Therefore, people are accessing only identity-confirming information. Confirmation bias, a powerful and universal human bias that is especially strong under uncertainty, separates information and identity universes that fragment and polarize society. Online, people can easily seek out groups that may not be readily available in their physical lives.
The Internet further empowers confirmation bias under uncertainty because people want to be surrounded by those who think alike so that their identities and worldview are continuously confirmed. The contours of “truth” then get mapped onto these self-contained social-identity universes. In this scenario, there are no absolute truths and no motivation to seriously explore and incorporate alternative viewpoints because that would be kryptonite to social identity’s power to reduce self-uncertainty. This dynamic helps to explain why people dwell in increasingly homogeneous echo chambers that confirm their identity.