Maggie's Farm

I'm watching this now, but already have serious disagreement with his initial model. (I'm sure he'd say I'm showing a confirmation bias!)

He says the prior risk perception is "stupid", and the revised risk perception is better or more educated.

But he presumes that the "new information" is in fact accurate and presented without bias. There are good reasons humans have developed scepticism, i.e., confirmation bias. New information needs to be ranked by reliability of the source, the inherent uncertainty around the data produced, etc.. His assumption that "experts" have no hidden agenda is absurdly naive, and I would say reflect his own confirmation biases.

Science, like any human endeavor, has problems with professional conflicts of interest, and I don't just mean scientist X used to work for Exxon-Mobil. Careers are made and broken on machivellian manipulation and management, even within the purity of university faculty and government research facilities.

..and these scientists are members of certain subgroups in the culture, not immune to their own version of confirmation bias, and swayed by cultural values and memes.

Finally, I'd say his categories of people is deeply flawed. (Not the two axis, but his "experimental groups".) Hierarchical/individualistic and egalitarian/communitarian?

He characterizes them all screwy. Commerce is egalitarian. What could be more egalitarian than barter and contract? Egalitarian means people are on equal footing, and so should be responsible for themselves like every other individual. And what is this crap that individualists don't think guns are dangerous? Of course they are, or why else would I want to have firearms? It is their dangerousness that makes them useful. His whole spiel flows through his own cultural filters, and he doesn't seem to realize it.

I'm an egalitarian individualist. Which is why I don't have any respect for our political ruling class unless they earn it. And they haven't been interested in earning it for as long as I can remember.