Scaring the public into a predetermined solution often backfires

Scary Pictures by Bjørn Lomborg

Campaigners on important but complex issues, annoyed by the length of time required for public deliberations, often react by exaggerating their claims, hoping to force a single solution to the forefront of public debate. But, however well intentioned, scaring the public into a predetermined solution often backfires: when people eventually realize that they have been misled, they lose confidence and interest.

This comports with the central message of It Ain't Necessarily So by David Murray et al which I am currently reading. It is fascinating to read again and again how major stories have been materially and inaccurately reported. Murray et al point to the same cause as does Lomborg. It is so hard to convince people with empirically supported logical arguments (which are often very nuanced) and therefore eager advocates will default to argument ad baculum (using fear as the basis for argument rather than making the argument itself).

In an environment of competing factions and groups, this seems all we have these days - competing arguments ad baculum and very little actual discussion and formal argument making. Every interest group is desparately seeking to justify their position based on the bad things that might happen if they don't get their way. Highly corrupting of hygienic thinking.