[mike_hearn]

> even though these graphs inform positions on the same policy, they are composed of completely unrelated ideas

I'm still confused :( The two graphs shown at the start aren't two sides of the same issue, they're two different issues.

> I think there is a testable prediction: if you just go in guns blazing to a "culture war" argument and try to convince people of your viewpoint, you are not going to make any progress.

I think that was the observation that his theory is trying to explain, not a novel prediction of it. The theory would have to make a testable prediction that isn't just the original phenomenon existing.

The Slate Star Codex article is fun but it's a fictional story. It doesn't let us say anything about reality.

[gsf_emergency_2]

From the responses elsewhere in this thread the author of TFA (@staph here) sounds like a very agreeable & articulate person, but I can't shake off the feeling he's a post-Soviet plant attacking the very spirit of Western Civilization. Understating his intellect just like a mob boss.

A sign of actual good faith would be to provide a compelling (alternative) reasoning structure for climate change activists. Not a strawman graph*.

As you know the post Soviets need to believe in growth. They can't even get to solar without climate change! Therefore, anything to divide the opposition can only help the cause.

*A subgraph "potatoes -> vodka -> biofuels" would only be satire but quite uplifting to all involved.. and almost provides the prediction you are looking for