Fahrenheit's Blog

Well, less than a day after I accused her of hypocrisy, the honorable member for Bruce Grove is railing against it in just about everybody else.

This line ought to go down particularly well on the doorstep.

Sadly, it's not just the politicians and the council who are hypocritical. We are joined by masses of the public.

But political pointscoring aside, there is the germ of a valid point here so I'm afraid she's not going to get the sweary treatment this evening.


There are several forces at work here and I'll try to sketch out the major ones.


1. Cognitive dissonance and social pressure.

It's possible for people to hold, or espouse, several contradictory opinions simultaneously; or to hold different opinions in different contexts.

Certain words and phrases are very easy to agree with but difficult to deny. These tend to be things like: 'I'm a good person', 'I don't mind doing my bit', 'We should avoid pollution', etc. They're so easy to agree with because they're very broad and open to multiple interpretations.

In psychology these form the basis of the 'cold reading' or 'barnum' phrases that make it so easy to (falsely) ascribe accuracy to vague and general statements such as those in horoscopes.

When faced with one of these statements it is very easy to fit them to the positive mental representation we have of ourselves and agree without necessarily signing up to ALL possible interpretations of them. When you add in the social pressure of being asked publicly something like 'Do you agree that pollution should be avoided?' it can be very difficult to say no.

Because these statements are fairly open ended it is easy for people to hold contradictory beliefs about specific circumstances, while still subscribing to a general position.

For example, one can easily imagine situations where the people Emma is angry with could agree to a generalised statement that people should reduce their carbon emissions, while simultaneously holding the belief that in their particular, narrowly defined circumstances, that something else is more appropriate. This is why we see so much of 'Of course people should reduce their emissions, but cycling in London is just to dangerous for me', or 'Of course we should minimise rubbish, but least I know the pre-packed apples are clean'.

This isn't the same thing as hypocrisy as both beliefs are genuinely held, and the particular is not felt to negate the general. I'm not trying to defend the practice! it's just a psychological trait to look out for.

There was another great example when McDonalds et al introduced salads. People would tell researchers that, yes, they believed in healthy eating; and, no, they weren't one of those awful fatties that only ate junk. But next time they pulled up to the drive-thu, it was straight back to the double-meat-stacks-burgers.

As Wendy's' put it. “We listened to consumers who said they wanted to eat fresh fruit,” “Apparently they lied.”



2. Complex systems and incomplete information.

Sometimes blanket provisions aren't appropriate in all cases, and options which on the surface appear bad can have good results longer-term (and vice versa, of course). This is especially true when not all the facts are known.

Taking Emma's example of the Mayor of Haringey getting a new limo right after the council had agreed to reduce it's carbon emissions. On the surface this is pretty moronic, but for the sake of argument I'm going to throw up some scenarios which could make it a sound investment.

a) the car is large enough to replace two existing cars, thus reducing overall emissions.

b) the car replaces a much older model with far dirtier and less efficient engine and exhaust technology.

c) the finance arrangements are cheaper and free up resources that can then be spent on reducing emissions elsewhere.

d) a deal has been struck whereby the mayor gets his shiny new limo, but on the condition that he is only allowed to use it for a specific (highly limited) number of events there by prolonging its life, and on the condition that he gets the bus for his day-to-day travel.


I'm speculating wildly there, but the general point is that mechanisms of cause and effect are rarely as simple and direct as they seem.



3. Good old-fashioned mendacity, pig-headedness, and uncoordinated management.

This couldn't escape without a mention. And to be fair, knowing London councils, there probably IS a hefty chunk of this at work too.