Lightbulbs and politics

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Things have become more polarized and partisan in the last 20 years. And I'm not sure conservatives are attached to incandescent bulbs... some of them are probably more irritated with some of the more extreme environmental agendas and take that frustration out by not buying things with stickers on them that say "Save the environment!"

"Things" have not become more polarized and partisan. People have. Specifically the ones who behave to their own detriment in response to the completely non-political notion of giving a crap about the world they live in.

A bit irrational... I suppose. It's also a pretty loaded or partisan slogan, and a superficial and one at that. Personally, if I see stuff like that in any form it turns me off a little. STFU and let me buy what I want using my own reasoning you over-manipulating advertisement. It's almost as if "Save the Children!" was on the box. It's a shame that leftwing environmental cliches have made some people knee-jerk away from things even when there is some good to it.

Case in point. Yes, it's clearly the fault of the "left" and not the ones with the irrational knee-jerk reaction.

 

[irishScott]

Case in point. Yes, it's clearly the fault of the "left" and not the ones with the irrational knee-jerk reaction.

So in your version the boy who cried wolf is an innocent victim, and it's the asshole villagers' fault that he died?

 

[cwjerome]

"Things" have not become more polarized and partisan. People have. Specifically the ones who behave to their own detriment in response to the completely non-political notion of giving a crap about the world they live in.

Yes, things are more polarized today because of people, thanks for clarifying with that bit of wisdom. Is the bold supposed to imply that only conservatives who dislike environmental themes are more polarized and partisan?

Case in point. Yes, it's clearly the fault of the "left" and not the ones with the irrational knee-jerk reaction.

That's your opinion, but I'd disagree. Once again, I have some understanding why some people might have an irrational knee-jerk reaction since some leftwing eco-kookery has given elements of the environmental movement a bad name... but I wouldn't blame the left for people's undisciplined overreaction.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Yes, things are more polarized today because of people, thanks for clarifying with that bit of wisdom. Is the bold supposed to imply that only conservatives who dislike environmental themes are more polarized and partisan?

No, I certainly didn't mean to imply it's only those conservatives.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm seeing an abstract which makes a claim. I'd like to see the magnitude of this effect.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I was unaware that a company pointing out an obvious feature of their product was similar to a business repeatedly and explicitly stating their views and donating to political action groups that enforced those views.

That's your perspective. How about this for an alternative? Some people object to micromanagement of their behaviors by an increasing powerful government and therefore do not buy a product as a protest, while liberals object so strongly to free expression that they'll invoke and encourage governments to ban the business they don't agree with.

BTW, I'm not picking a side or stating my perspective, but there's more than one. I did have problems with mayors saying that CFA wouldn't be permitted to do business in their cities.

 

[chucky2]

You can never be 100% sure what motivates and biases a person's decision making, but with statistical modeling and a large enough sample size, you can get pretty close. I don't have access to the raw data generated by the study, but given that it was published in a highly-respected scholarly journal, I feel safe in assuming that the researchers were able to correlate branding and the purchasing decisions of conservatives to a sufficiently high degree of confidence.

I don't have such a degree of confidence. There are plenty of old Democrats in my family who are also of a conservative nature and they've expressed multiple times of an item billed as "green" failing them and have since basically shunned "green" purchases. From some kind of bamboo flooring to a low water usage toilet to shitty lightbulbs, you've got to realize that some people are traditionalists, they don't change unless there's good reason. So, when they do actually try something new, and it bites them, it's going to leave a lot worse impression on them than someone who is biased to saving the Earth every second of their life or someone who tries new shit because they get some kind of rush from doing so each time.

These people also talk to each other, and share experiences.

So when someone who has been bitten a time or three by "green" items, has heard their friends/family relate similar experiences, sees the green bulb and a bulb that's not marked green, it's not a shocking wonder they're going to pick the unmarked bulb, even if it's the same bulb (does anyone really believe anyone whose not a green freak or some kind of technie would know the difference?).

All this study tells me is people either don't trust new shit and/or they don't like green marked products...nothing more.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I'm seeing an abstract which makes a claim. I'd like to see the magnitude of this effect.

My school's journal database doesn't have access to this work yet (and I'm not paying $10 for it), but I saw this on another board:

This graph, lifted from the report (on the x-axis, -1 is liberal and 1 is conservative), shows the damage the wrong messaging can do: With no messaging, roughly 60 percent of all participants picked the CFL; a pro-environment message boosted support in liberals but cut it sharply in conservatives:

Unfortunately, without information on sample size, confidence intervals, or a more thorough definition of the "Political Ideology Composite," that graph is missing a lot of context.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My school's journal database doesn't have access to this work yet (and I'm not paying $10 for it), but I saw this on another board:

This graph, lifted from the report (on the x-axis, -1 is liberal and 1 is conservative), shows the damage the wrong messaging can do: With no messaging, roughly 60 percent of all participants picked the CFL; a pro-environment message boosted support in liberals but cut it sharply in conservatives:

Unfortunately, without information on sample size, confidence intervals, or a more thorough definition of the "Political Ideology Composite," that graph is missing a lot of context.

There's something wrong here. -1 is liberal. 1 is conservative. The point where the graph intersects is -0.6, which is hardly conservative. If this is the actual graph then the interpretation is completely bogus, because the effect is from that point to 1 with the maximum disparity being about +0.6. In other words it's applicable to the majority of the political spectrum except for a 0.6 segment out of a total length of 2, and "conservative" doesn't have the greatest spread.

 

[woolfe9998]

There's something wrong here. -1 is liberal. 1 is conservative. The point where the graph intersects is -0.6, which is hardly conservative. If this is the actual graph then the interpretation is completely bogus, because the effect is from that point to 1 with the maximum disparity being about +0.6. In other words it's applicable to the majority of the political spectrum except for a 0.6 segment out of a total length of 2, and "conservative" doesn't have the greatest spread.

I'm not sure if I follow here, but looking at the graph, it suggests that the likelihood of buying the "green" labelled bulb declines sharply as you move from far left to dead center, and stays about static moving from center to far right. Actually, it slightly declines moving from center to middle right, then oddly enough climbs back up slightly going from middle to far right.

Many unanswered questions. If they are using a political ideology composite, I'd like to know their methodology for determining where each subject falls.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not sure if I follow here, but looking at the graph, it suggests that the likelihood of buying the "green" labelled bulb declines sharply as you move from far left to dead center, and stays about static moving from center to far right. Actually, it slightly declines moving from center to middle right, then oddly enough climbs back up slightly going from middle to far right.

Many unanswered questions. If they are using a political ideology composite, I'd like to know their methodology for determining where each subject falls.

My point is that the graph is at odds with this statement.

Conservatives were willing to subvert their own preferred purchase in order to demonstrate their dislike for anti-carbon emissions ideology

Ok, if we look at the value of 1, which is "conservative" that statement is strictly true, but more importantly it applies to everyone else except for the segment from -0.6 downward. In other words the implication is that not only "conservatives" but the majority by a large margin reacts the same way.

 

[werepossum]

Al Gore has annoyed a lot of people by preaching carbon abstinence from his mansion and private jet. It's human nature for those people to vote against him with their wallet.

If I saw an "approved by PETA" or "Westboro Baptists like this product" sticker on something I'd be less likely to buy it too. Money isn't the only thing that determines my purchases.

Well said.

We all need to do our homework though, not merely assume that if something has a political or politicized logo, then it is necessarily worse or supporting our political opponents. And we all need to be willing to support our political opponents when they are on the correct side of an issue.

 

[werepossum]

My point is that the graph is at odds with this statement.

Ok, if we look at the value of 1, which is "conservative" that statement is strictly true, but more importantly it applies to everyone else except for the segment from -0.6 downward. In other words the implication is that not only "conservatives" but the majority by a large margin reacts the same way.

I think DaveSimmons nailed it for conservatives. For them and everyone else, we've become conditioned to think that if a political slogan is proclaimed, we're making sacrifices toward that end.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ok, if we look at the value of 1, which is "conservative" that statement is strictly true, but more importantly it applies to everyone else except for the segment from -0.6 downward. In other words the implication is that not only "conservatives" but the majority by a large margin reacts the same way.

Yes the graph does suggest that conclusion. In fact, it suggests that demand for the labelled bulb starts to diminish the moment you depart from -1 (presumably far left). So even mainstream and moderate lefties are somewhat less likely to buy it. I find that hard to believe, which is why I'd like to see the whole study.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes the graph does suggest that conclusion. In fact, it suggests that demand for the labelled bulb starts to diminish the moment you depart from -1 (presumably far left). So even mainstream and moderate lefties are somewhat less likely to buy it. I find that hard to believe, which is why I'd like to see the whole study.

Agreed. One graph and an abstract does not a good paper make.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes the graph does suggest that conclusion. In fact, it suggests that demand for the labelled bulb starts to diminish the moment you depart from -1 (presumably far left). So even mainstream and moderate lefties are somewhat less likely to buy it. I find that hard to believe, which is why I'd like to see the whole study.

I think the most accurate way to describe it would be that as one's politics become more conservative you are generally less likely to buy a lightbulb with environmental messaging on it. Determining what criteria they used to classify people would be highly useful though, yes.

 

[smackababy]

I think the most accurate way to describe it would be that as one's politics become more conservative you are generally less likely to buy a lightbulb with environmental messaging on it. Determining what criteria they used to classify people would be highly useful though, yes.

I would also like to know if they educated people on these bulbs and how so. I would expect more people are fairly ignorant on actual CFL light bulb technology.

 

[cubby1223]

My school's journal database doesn't have access to this work yet (and I'm not paying $10 for it), but I saw this on another board:

This graph, lifted from the report (on the x-axis, -1 is liberal and 1 is conservative), shows the damage the wrong messaging can do: With no messaging, roughly 60 percent of all participants picked the CFL; a pro-environment message boosted support in liberals but cut it sharply in conservatives:

Unfortunately, without information on sample size, confidence intervals, or a more thorough definition of the "Political Ideology Composite," that graph is missing a lot of context.

If that were the results of this study, why is the ultra-left so inept at picking the "correct" light-bulb when they are not labelled like everyone else was?

Seems pretty clear to me that the real conclusion from this is that people don't like others preaching to them about how to live their lives. It's not that moderates or conservatives don't like the environment, it's that we know the "save the environment" sticker was placed by people who believe we are evil. It's more about returning the spite than anything else. I guarantee if there were some "Jesus approved" sticker placed on the CFL bulbs, the graph would be skewed with the ultra-left avoiding them like the plague.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think the most accurate way to describe it would be that as one's politics become more conservative you are generally less likely to buy a lightbulb with environmental messaging on it. Determining what criteria they used to classify people would be highly useful though, yes.

We have to make assumptions aplenty, but one would think that "conservativeness" would cause an increasing relationship, but that seems to end about moderate left and even decrease at the far right.

Here's the problem. The data can be explained this way- "Far left people choose environmentally friendly products over any other consideration." That would include any objection on principle against what most might consider overregulation. Is that true? I don't know. I can guess, but that's not very satisfying.

These studies are a bit of a trap, because one might form a conclusion not proven by the data. The old saying is that correlation does not equal causation, or another oldie, Caveat Emptor.

Hopefully we will learn more so we can discuss this from a more informed perspective.

 

[blankslate]

It may be that the benefits of CFL are not so clear as the liberal thinks and tbe conservative is aware of such.

CFL bulbs are a stop gap until LED bulb technology evolves.

CFL bulbs do have advantages right now, however their applications have limits compared to incandescent and LED bulbs. As LED bulb technology improves and their production gets cheaper they should supplant CFLs

For people willing to put a lot up front for bulbs that will save a hundred or so dollars over their lives then the LED is already here. For most people who want cheap bulbs LED bulbs still have a way to go. However, LED bulbs can be used on a dimmer and their lives aren't shortened by things that cause a CLF bulbs life to be reduced.

LED bulbs already have been costing less money to run than CFLs it's just until very recently LEDs have had definite disadvantages compared to other types in terms of light flood (they were pretty much directional where other bulbs provided more omni-directional light) and in many cases color rendition.

http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led comp chart.html

http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/lightcommunity/trends/l-prize/lprizeinfo.wpd

http://www.amazon.com/Philips-423244.../dp/B007RKVT4C

The LED bulb I have for my desk is still burning after 3+ years of 8-12 a day daily (except a period of a month) use. there hasn't been any perceivable degradation of performance. I've had it so long that it's pretty much obsolete as far as LEDs go.

Philips brand bulbs based on their L-Prize winning design will probably be my next LED purchases.


Really though instead of mentioning the environment the labeling should mention the money you'll likely save in the long run by choosing either CLFs or LEDs over incandescent bulbs. Almost everyone likes to save money.

 

[cubby1223]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/26/1218453110

While most of the outcomes of this study are in the 'no duh' category, one really sticks out. Basically consumers were given a choice between CFL light bulbs and regular ones at various price points. When price, etc was equal, everyone chose basically the same light bulb. (no duh, right?)

The interesting part came from when a 'save the environment' sticker was put on some of the light bulb packaging. In this case conservatives were less likely to purchase it even when all other things were equal. Conservatives were willing to subvert their own preferred purchase in order to demonstrate their dislike for anti-carbon emissions ideology. In a light bulb that nobody will use but them. That nobody else will even notice they were using. To their financial detriment.

That is mighty irrational.

In P&N this devolved into people linking images of Mike Haggar pile driving a shark. Can we do better here than the new Ballad of Mike Haggar?

You could have created a thread to discuss the pros and cons of various lightbulb technologies and their economic and ecological impacts.

But instead, whether it was intentional or not (my money is on intentional), you presented this study not to discuss lightbulbs but to make your same old statement of belief that conservatives are inherently irrational, lightbulbs merely being your newest piece of evidence. You got exactly what you deserved in these threads. You created the responses by the way you wrote your post. The respect you take is equal to the respect you make.

 

[fskimospy]

You could have created a thread to discuss the pros and cons of various lightbulb technologies and their economic and ecological impacts.

But instead, whether it was intentional or not (my money is on intentional), you presented this study not to discuss lightbulbs but to make your same old statement of belief that conservatives are inherently irrational, lightbulbs merely being your newest piece of evidence. You got exactly what you deserved in these threads. You created the responses by the way you wrote your post. The respect you take is equal to the respect you make.

I wanted to discuss a study about the impact of political ideology on purchasing decisions. Discussing the pros and cons of various light bulb technologies would be only modestly related to that. So basically you're saying 'if you don't want the P&N crowd to act stupid, don't discuss things that might make them mad'. Then again according to you pointing out the failures of austerity is an ego trip.

As for 'what I deserve', do you think I didn't expect their response? I'm fine with how they behave, in fact I get a fair bit of enjoyment watching dim witted individuals rage and twist themselves into knots trying to figure out how to not think about uncomfortable thoughts. (a personal flaw, I know).

 

[fskimospy]

We have to make assumptions aplenty, but one would think that "conservativeness" would cause an increasing relationship, but that seems to end about moderate left and even decrease at the far right.

Here's the problem. The data can be explained this way- "Far left people choose environmentally friendly products over any other consideration." That would include any objection on principle against what most might consider overregulation. Is that true? I don't know. I can guess, but that's not very satisfying.

These studies are a bit of a trap, because one might form a conclusion not proven by the data. The old saying is that correlation does not equal causation, or another oldie, Caveat Emptor.

Hopefully we will learn more so we can discuss this from a more informed perspective.

You really couldn't draw that conclusion. 'Far left' individuals already bought CFLs more than 50% of the time anyway. Putting that sticker on it pushed it up to 80%. A .3 increase in probability hardly indicates 'over any other consideration'.

My guess would be that the far right indication is a sample size based artifact, but without knowing the n sizes I can't be sure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You really couldn't draw that conclusion. 'Far left' individuals already bought CFLs more than 50% of the time anyway. Putting that sticker on it pushed it up to 80%. A .3 increase in probability hardly indicates 'over any other consideration'.

My guess would be that the far right indication is a sample size based artifact, but without knowing the n sizes I can't be sure.

not being able to draw conclusions would be my point. It seems that we have insufficient information to draw any conclusions based on the data at hand. Its very well could be a matter of sample size but if that's the case then the validity of the study comes into question.

Science grad students are notorious for ruthlessness in critical analysis of papers. Once or twice a month I participated in the ritual slaying and the number of published works which escaped unscathed was nil. Although we here do not have to abide by that standard, I hold to it. Based on what I can know my judgement would be "insufficient data for review" and that no conclusions or inferences can be drawn.

I need more for this to be considered at all.