Blanca M. sent in this clip by Penn and Teller, in which a woman gets people at a World Fest rally (which appears to be an environmental event of some sort) to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide…commonly known as water:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw[/youtube]
You might use it in a discussion of social psychology and the way that people tend to go along with what they see other people doing and to do what they are asked or instructed to do without asking many questions (that is, if someone asks you to sign a petition, very often you will, whether or not you really know what it’s about). You could also use it to talk about perceptions of environmental risk, and how bad we are at evaluating it: if something has a chemical-sounding name, we tend to assume it’s bad (but if it sounds “natural,” we think it must be safe).
I think it would be a good clip for talking about political participation and the limitations of passive forms of participation such as these: the require very little of people, so while they might be quick to sign, they’re unlikely to know much about the issue or to follow up. My guess is that politicians keep this in mind, too. Burk M. was a Senate campaign consultant for a while and says that though written petitions are generally taken seriously by elected officials (particularly if signed by constituents and delivered personally in the presence of a media outlet), email petitions are completely ignored (I knew it!) because there’s no real concern that the people who signed it will ever check back in to see what happened (assuming they’re real people to start with). Government agencies, such as the EPA, may not show as much concern for even printed petitions, since they are not made up of elected officials who fear their constituents might be watching what they do. Thus, these forms of minimal-involvement political participation may make people feel like they’re doing something about an issue, when in fact there is little impact (particularly in the case of email petitions).
Thanks, Blanca!
Comments 5
David — November 10, 2008
This is also a good example of how statistics & opinion surveys can be unreliable due to the way information is presented to the participants. While numbers don't lie, people do.
Kelly — November 10, 2008
This is more of an example that chemical names are generally not parsed by people. For the most people, those kinds of terms are basically meaningless, so that's not how they try to understand a statement or argument. I had to have that joke explained to me and it's not because I don't think, but because I don't use chemistry to make sense of my world.
thoughtcounts Z — November 10, 2008
Reminds me of the time I pretended to sell "dehydrated water" to my friends at school. ("Just add water and stir! It's super convenient!") I told them it was for a fundraiser, but I cracked up and couldn't go through with it when the first person I tried it on was about to give me real money. One of those interesting social experiments that, afterward, you kind of wish you never knew the results of...
Fabian — November 10, 2008
I agree with Kelly. This is more about people's automatic reaction against anything that sounds vaguely "chemical" i.e. not "natural". There is a great deal of overreaction to anything chemical and as this clip shows, most people don't have the first clue to what the chemicals actually are or what they represent, no matter how benign. I think you'd have the same reaction if you told people that companies are putting Sodium Chloride in your food.
SociologicalMe — November 10, 2008
This reminds me of a stunt they did on "The Man Show" where they got all these people to sign a petition to end women's suffrage- playing on people's confusing "suffrage" with "suffering."