2022 municipal election publicity

[danbrotherston]

I am not mystified by it, it's a clear example of motivated thinking.

Chapman (and NIMBYs in general) don't want more housing built.

They also have sympathy for those who cannot find housing.

Therefore they must believe that there is lots of housing in existence but isn't available.

If they didn't believe this, they would be the bad guy, and that's not something anyone is willing to believe.

The vast majority of the population do not reason using facts, but instead reason using emotion.

While I'm no longer mystified that this 'vacant condo' myth exists, I am frustrated when it doesn't seem like those who hold it (especially elected officials) feel like they need to back it up by any evidence at all. And, IMO, the Record seems to align with some of this thinking and don't seem to be asking (or looking for) any evidence to support such claims.

Sorry dtkmelissa, I hope I'm not harping on you too much here lol.

The clearest example I've seen of this type of thinking came a few years ago, maybe a decade ago, during some climate testimony in the US congress. One person who was called to testify was a theology/english literacy professor.

They argued that climate change isn't a big risk and that humans aren't causing it. They explained that this narrative was more compelling and positive, therefore it was the right one. For a lot of people (I suspect, the majority) facts and evidence aren't relevant, the question of "what evidence is there" doesn't really make sense. What *is* relevant is what is a compelling story and narrative. If you ask "what evidence" they reply with emotional explanations of why they prefer it to be true, because that's how they interpret the world. The "evidence" is their preference.

That's why I think articles like this one from time: https://time.com/5669022/climate-change-2050/ are important because they try to tell a compelling narrative where we do the right thing for something like climate change and how well it turns out. This kind of article will convince far more of those using motivated thinking than all the statistics in the world.

To convince Debbie Chapman and her followers we need to tell a narrative tell a story of how building more housing gives us a stronger healthier happier community. That is the only thing that will convince them. It doesn't even have to be true, just compelling.