Six years ago I posted an article on this website (Thinking – Is it Overrated?) challenging the popularity of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). I made the point that CBT is premised upon a long-since discredited view of the relationship existing between higher cognitive functioning and emotionally based cognition. Regardless, CBT is proffered as a scientifically sound technique, the validation of which (we are told) is evidence based. Consequently, we still have an army of CBT counsellors telling their patients that all emotion is led by thought, and that’s the end of the matter! I offered CBT as an example of a scientific community establishing a strong consensus, notwithstanding the incomprehensible levels of ill-informed naivety required to do so.

Today, I would like to return to the subject of thinking and emotion, but with quite a different motive. Before I start, I offer the following passage taken from Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind, which I think provides a most eloquent exposition of the issue:

In a landmark article, [Robert] Zajonc urged psychologists to use a dual-process model in which affect or “feeling” is the first process. It has primacy both because it happens first (it is part of perception and is therefore extremely fast) and because it is more powerful (it is closely linked to motivation, and therefore it strongly influences behaviour). The second process—thinking—is an evolutionarily newer ability, rooted in language and not closely related to motivation. In other words, thinking is the rider; affect is the [ridden] elephant. The thinking system is not equipped to lead—it simply doesn’t have the power to make things happen—but it can be a useful advisor.

Haidt’s metaphor of an elephant over which the rider has only limited influence (an elephant’s gotta do what an elephant’s gotta do) is intended to emphasise the primary role of our affects and emotions in invoking our moral positions. We may be able to offer a rationale for the stance we have adopted, but these are always post-hoc rationalisations. The rider serves the elephant and not the other way round. The moral position is established emotionally (by the elephant) and then justified rationally (by its rider).

The main way in which the rider (thinking) serves the elephant (affect and emotion) is by using its command of language to influence other riders, probably in an earnest attempt to get them to align their elephant with yours. After all, the only reason why we have moral positions is to affirm our rightful place in society. And so we spend endless hours on the internet, pushing our post-hoc rationalisations in the hope that some sort of herd behaviour would coalesce around our elephant.

But we are nearly always disappointed with the results, mainly because we shouldn’t actually be talking to the other riders — let’s face it, they are just as much along for the ride as you are. That’s not to say that a fruitful, rational exchange of views is impossible; it’s just far more likely that an impasse will result, with both parties seemingly unmoved by the other’s reasoning no matter how airtight it may be. How often, for example, have you found yourself dealing with an individual who is clearly out of his or her depth but who doggedly refuses to back down (‘tis but a scratch)? How often have you written to your MP pointing out the obvious folly of net zero, only to be fobbed off with a boilerplate response that allows for no nuance or balance? Often a supposedly moral or ethical position is maintained long after the individual concerned has run out of rational ways to defend it (it seems that reason is cheap but emotional attachment is sacrosanct). The bottom line is that the elephants are in charge and so, to get anywhere, you would be far better off appealing directly to the elephant.

The idea that rational debate is likely to fail when strongly held moral positions are at stake is well-known to psychologists. Consequently, the internet is loaded with expert observations as to how this plays out when the subject is climate change. However, you may have noticed that, despite the fact that everyone is riding their own elephant, only the climate change sceptic is deemed to be suffering from a lack of effective control. Only the climate change sceptic needs someone to have a quiet word with their elephant to help them achieve a higher plane of understanding. Take, for example, what Professor Sander van der Linden has been saying regarding the importance of manipulating affect and emotion. In one of his papers he states:

Indeed, the interactive engagement of both cognitive and emotional processing mechanisms is key to fostering more public involvement with climate change.

And according to the BBC:

He says years of research have shown him that confronting people with hard evidence is not the way to go. While it might be tempting to try to bluntly fight conspiracy theories with facts, “there’s a very high chance it backfires”.

Yes, it is obvious to van der Linden that irrationality is the exclusive domain of what he calls ‘conspiracy theorists’. But he is not alone. The IPCC has made it abundantly clear that it sees elephant whispering as the most valuable tool in its armoury, and that goes a long way towards explaining the media’s obsession with the anthropogenic contribution to extreme weather. Furthermore, in the UK we have the Behavioural Insights Team (aka the Nudge Unit) with its MINDSPACE, emphasising the importance of priming (‘our acts are often influenced by sub-conscious cues’) and affect (‘our emotional associations can powerfully shape our actions’). And I should add that Haidt is actually one of the worst culprits for singling out the climate change sceptic. Yes, they are all at it, employing every trick in the book to overcome the dogged resistance of the often intelligent but always ‘wrong-headed’ rider of the climate sceptical elephant.

This is all very well and I would be more than happy to sit back and take it on the chin, were it not for the obvious bias blind spot on display. Yes, we sceptics often are intelligent and that intelligence has provided us with the insight that we are dealing with a universal human trait here. There is absolutely no reason to believe that those on the climate alarmed side of the issue are debating sans éléphante. So for every person who is tearing their hair out with sceptics who can’t see that we are faced with an existential threat, you will find a hair-tugging sceptic who points out that there is nothing in the IPCC reports to suggest that the threat is existential. But it is not intelligence or education that determines which side of this debate you are on; it is probably the affect you experience when you reflect upon the physical risk posed by climate change as opposed to the translational risk posed by Milliband’s lunatic proposals. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but what will ultimately sway the debate is a public mood fuelled by self-interests, gut reactions and visceral fears. This is not a battle for minds but a battle for hearts. In the UK, blackouts and a ruined economy will finally settle the issue, but alas rather too late.