Abstract
That policy makers will ever rationally respond to scientific warnings about the ecological crisis should be treated as a falsifiable hypothesis. After more than five decades of such warnings, there is a strong case for skepticism. Climate and other ecological tipping points constitute the quantitative thresholds beyond which current political systems can definitively be said to have failed. This presents a mandate to generate broad consensus on where tipping points lie, and at what proximity to them new strategies should be pursued. Central to any new strategy should be an understanding of why the old one failed—an understanding of why those in power almost exclusively derive from academic backgrounds other than physical science, and the psychological differences between those who issued or received so many warnings of collapse. To that end, a psychological trait syndrome relevant to political power is proposed, based on correlations between academic specialization, psychometric results, and the behavior of powerful people across a wide range of societies. This proposed syndrome consists of four covarying dimensions of individual difference. These are perceptions of hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, established knowledge vs. open inquiry, physical vs. symbolic action, and schematic vs. particular knowledge.
Reference15 articles.
1. Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism;Amodio;Nature Neuroscience,2007
2. Baccini, A., Walker, W., Carvalho, L., Farina, M., Sulla-Menashe, D., & Houghton, R. A. (2017). Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science, 358(6360), 230-234. doi:10.1126/science.aam5962
3. Brown, D. E. (1991) Human Universals. McGraw-Hill.
4. The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind;Carney;Political Psychology,2008
5. Chomsky, N. & Foucault, M. (1971) Transcript of debate on human nature: Justice versus power. https://chomsky.info/1971xxxx/