The Problem with Consensus

The issue of scientific consensus on climate change is back in the news again. For a good primer, see Chris Mooney's latest piece in the Washington Post: "Researchers think they’ve found a “gateway belief” that leads to greater science acceptance." I just want to jump quickly to what I find so challenging with focusing on consensus (and there are many) as a means to sway public opinion: if you view the climate change issue through a conflict lens, consensus is not the answer. Research actually shows the opposite -- that in intractable conflicts, which I believe climate change has become, introducing nuance, shades of gray, and multiple perspectives is what leads to change.

When it comes to thinking about conflict, I have found that the work of Peter Coleman of Columbia University and the Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity resonates with my own experiences. He specializes in intractable conflict, which can be defined in various ways but is, in general, long-term, chronic, polarized, and not easily approached using common conflict resolution approaches like mediation. For me, one of the most interesting things about thinking of some environmental conflicts as intractable is that it changes the kinds of solutions that might be considered useful.

Coleman's work has led him to focus on "dynamical conflict resolution." In general terms, the idea is that because one of the challenges with intractable conflicts is that things become incredibly polarized -- there is only black and white, wrong and right, us and them, etc. -- one of the solutions for working with it is to reintroduce nuance and complexity into the situation to begin to "break open" the two opposing perspectives. (There is a lot to read on the topic if you are interested and a good starting point is here.)

The idea of purposefully introducing, or even simply allowing, nuance and complexity is a bit counter-intuitive. As scientists and practitioners, much of the training that we get in terms of communication outside academic circles is about simplification and streamlining, distilling complexity down to a couple key points to be repeated over and over, focusing on more accurate information as a solution. It may work well a lot of the time. But what if that kind of approach heightens conflict in certain situations? I can't help but conclude it's less about "digging in" and consensus, and more about communicating a diversity of perspectives and solutions.

Note: some content repurposed from a previous post on conflict.  Related posts:

from Hacker News https://ift.tt/vWReDQG