nonvegans think differently than vegans

Some vegans watch Earthlings or Meet Your Meat and go vegan overnight, but most vegans went vegan slowly. I've long believed that the path most vegans arrive at veganism - the path that begins with reducing or eliminated consumption of mammals and then extends to birds and then to sea creatures and then extends beyond flesh to milk and eggs - is a path that follows a natural or logical progression of empathy extending out from our own kind to those who are similar to us.

That is, it is common for humans to feel some empathy for cats, dogs, dolphins, horses, rabbits and other mammals like cows and pigs. Some people act on that empathy by eating only certain types of animals that they think of as dissimilar to humans (such as chickens or fishes). Some people act on that empathy by eating only animals who have been treated according to certain "humane" standards. Vegetarians extend the empathy and choose not to eat animal flesh. Vegans extend that empathy to reach all sentient species and refrain from intentional and unnecessary harm to them.

But what gets someone who cares about animal suffering to make the leap into veganism?


A recent study on empathy compared omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. The study looked at the brains of vegans and nonvegans while showing them images of human and animal suffering. Among other findings, they discovered "a distinctive pattern of empathic response and emotional control in vegans."

"while omnivores are characterized by a greater activation of the bilateral posterior MTG during both human and animal negative valence scenes, vegetarians and vegans have constantly an higher engagement of empathy related areas while observing negative scenes, independently of the species of the individuals involved" [...]

"Collectively, our results reveal that distinct brain responses are evoked by emotionally significant pictures of humans and animals in people with vegetarian and vegan feeding habits, as well as between vegetarians and vegans, suggesting that different motivational factors might underlie their preferences and moral attitudes."

What can a vegan advocate learn from this? The take-away, as I see it, is that nonvegans think differently than vegans. We don't just have different beliefs, habits, education, resources, etc. though we may have those, too; we literally process the knowledge of others' suffering differently. We literally think about animal suffering differently than omnivores.

Hence, if we want to effectively advocate for animals, we can't rely solely on the reasoning that is most compelling to us. Nonvegans don't think like us. So we must include discussions that appeal to nonvegans. We must find ways to encourage animal rights that fit into nonvegans' paradigms.

---
Crossposted at Vegan Soapbox

Encouraging Accomplishments

PETA gets a lot of flack from vegans for handing out awards to people and organizations who haven't done much to help animals.

OK, so someone stopped wearing fur, that's great, but they're still wearing leather. Or a cosmetic company that stopped testing on animals but still contains animal ingredients. Or the restaurant that stops selling foie gras and veal but leaves chicken and steak on the menu. Or how about the fast food chain that adds one vegetarian item to the menu... big whoop!

The baby steps deserve recognition, but an award? Really?

The teeny tiny bits of progress here and there just don't seem worth acknowledging. In truth, I'm insulted whenever a nonvegan brags to me about how they only eat meat six days a week. Sure, meat-reduction is great, but don't tell me all about it, tell your friends who eat meat everyday! They're the ones who need to hear it.

In the past I've tried to ignore all of PETA's awards because of this. Even though I can rationally see these baby steps as progress, emotionally they bring me down. They remind me of how we're only moving inches at a time when we've got miles to go.

But yesterday I read something that helped me understand PETA's awards. It was Nobel Peace Prize myth-busting:

Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

So, the Nobel Peace Prize, like many of PETA's awards, are not simply for an accomplishment; they're praise to encourage more, similar accomplishments. That puts them in a whole new light, something that's a lot easier to stomach.

(Crossposted at Vegan Soapbox.)

Is Objectivity Overrated?

Matt Ball claims:

"There is a natural tendency for uncritical acceptance of claims we want to believe. In the long run, however, I believe that this causes more harm than good, because we lose support from people who have come to realize that we are not objective, and we miss chances to convince people who are inherently skeptical. Furthermore, most people are looking for some reason to dismiss us. Thus, it is imperative that we present information the public won’t regard as ludicrous and from sources that they won’t dismiss as partisan."

Is he right? Do studies support this?

There is a natural tendency for uncritical acceptance of claims we want to believe, yes, that seems to be true. But does that mean vegans should be more critical of our own beliefs or does it mean we should tailor our outreach and activism to suit the beliefs of the average person? Which is more effective in the long run?

It seems, in part, that he may be wrong. The staggering sales of Skinny Bitch by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, a book that no one would call "objective," seems to disprove Ball's hypothesis. If "most people are looking for some reason to dismiss" vegans and animal righters, why would they continue to buy and read a book about veganism?

Moreover, life experience has shown me that strong logic and truth are not very persuasive to the average person. In fact, very few people are what I would call "inherently skeptical."

The book, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion Robert B. Cialdini, suggests that people are more motivated by six principles of ethical persuasion: reciprocity, scarcity, liking, authority, social proof, and commitment/consistency. For the record, "social proof" is akin to the logical fallacy "appeal to popularity." According to Cialdini, we may be more effective animal advocates if we appeal to authority and popularity than if we appeal to truth and logic.

One has to wonder, is Ball right or wrong? Does it matter if we're more concerned with what's most effective?

I certainly agree with him from an ethical perspective. To me, it's immoral to promote information you know is false. Accurate information is always better. But from an efficacy perspective? I'm not so sure. I'd like to find or do marketing research to find out.

But go ahead and read Ball's piece. He makes some really great arguments >>