[PREV - WE_SMART] [TOP]
WE_DETAIL
June 2, 2014
November 9, 2018
Continuing with some material
posted to the dailykos as http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/19/1307271/-Towards-a-smarter-we
"Toward a Smarter We":
WE_SMART
Expanding on the exchange
I was talking about:
Ezra Klein, "How politics makes us stupid",
April 6, 2014:
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/6/5556462/brain-dead-how-politics-makes-us-stupid
"To spend much time with Kahan’s research is to stare into
a kind of intellectual abyss. If the work of gathering
evidence and reasoning through thorny, polarizing political
questions is actually the process by which we trick
ourselves into finding the answers we want, then what’s the
right way to search for answers? How can we know the
answers we come up with, no matter how well-intentioned,
aren’t just more motivated cognition? How can we know the
experts we’re relying on haven’t subtly biased their
answers, too? How can I know that this article isn’t a form
of identity protection? Kahan’s research tells us we can’t
trust our own reason. How do we reason our way out of that?"
Paul Krugman, "Asymmetric Stupidity", April 7, 2014 5:05 pm
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/asymmetric-stupidity/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
"... the lived experience is that this effect is
not, in fact, symmetric between liberals and
conservatives. Yes, liberals are sometimes subject
to bouts of wishful thinking. But can anyone point
to a liberal equivalent of conservative denial of
climate change, or the "unskewing" mania late in the
2012 campaign, or the frantic efforts to deny that
Obamacare is in fact covering a lot of previously
uninsured Americans? I don't mean liberals taking
positions you personally disagree with-- I mean
examples of overwhelming rejection of something that
shouldn't even be in dispute."
In the comments section you will see people like me bringing
up nuclear power:
Joseph Brenner April 8, 2014:
"'But can anyone point to a liberal equivalent of
conservative denial of climate change' Yes,
unfortunately: the nuclear power issue. You see a lot of
the same phenomena: cherry-picking expert opinion that
agrees with you, dismissing any experts that don't agree
as obviously biased (how do you know they're biased? They
disagree with you). The parallels are particularly apt,
because if you take global warming seriously, ramping up
nuclear power use is an obvious thing to do (and yes,
sure, push solar too-- it's not in the same class, but
why not?)."
Other commenters mentioned GMOs and
(probably erroneously) the
anti-vaccination movement.
I gather from some of Krugman's later writings, he was
not impressed with these examples. Notably, soon
afterwards he wrote this New York Times column which
suggests that nuclear power is now irrelevant because of
the tremendous progress with renewable energy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/opinion/krugman-salvation-gets-cheap.html
"... Until a few years ago, the best guess was that it
would proceed on many fronts, involving everything from
better insulation and more fuel-efficient cars to increased
use of nuclear power.
"One front many people didn’t take too seriously, however,
was renewable energy."
Krugman revisited the issue with "On the Liberal Bias of Facts",
April 18, 2014, where I think he gets the main thing right:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/on-the-liberal-bias-of-facts/
"What I tried to suggest, but maybe didn’t say
clearly, is that the most likely answer lies not
so much in the character of individual liberals
versus that of individual conservatives, as in the
difference between the two sides’ goals and
institutions."
Here I am in the comments again, though I note that I was
trying on some ideas that are a little different than what
I'm saying here now, suggesting that there's a difference
between being the party in power and out:
Joseph Brenner, April 18, 2014:
"Start with an assumption of equivalent
tribal bias (established by experiment) but
combine that with an asymmetric need to
reject reality, and you pretty much have the Dan Kahan often tries to
phenomena you're describing. This asymmetric make the point that it's
need may be largely (I would guess not not just a question of
entirely) due to being in power-- if you're getting the right answer,
in control, you're responsible for what it's a question of how you
actually happens, and the potential for work it out. You can't
embarrassing cognitive dissonance increases, give yourself credit for
and the sense that you need to respond to rational thought if you've
criticism declines. essentially just lucked
out.
Then I get back to my usual line:
"Myself, I'm one of the many people that
keeps pointing to the areas where liberals
are quite happy to reject expert technical
opinion (the safety of nuclear power and
genetically modified crops being two very
apropos cases); but I really don't expect
the anti-nuclear activists of the 70s to
ever "mark-their-beliefs-to-market" and
admit that they're responsible for the
increased coal usage that's killed many and
may have doomed the planet with CO2
emissions.
"No more than I expect economists of the 90s
to consider that free trade agreements may
have undermined environmental controls and
labor conditions."
(I gather I was annoyed at Krugman's dismissive treatment
of my particular sub-tribe, hence the dig at the
end... Note that Krugman has been relatively silent about
his pro-free trade stance since his turn to the left.)
Dan Kahan commented on Krugman's "Asymmetric Stupidity" with amusement:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/4/9/more-on-krugmans-symmetry-proof-its-not-whether-one-gets-the.html/
"The test for motivated cognition is not whether
someone gets the 'right' answer but how someone
assesses evidence."
Kahan links to this on "motivated cognition": "Motivated
reasoning & its cognates" by Dan Kahan, May 15, 2013:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/5/15/motivated-reasoning-its-cognates.html
"Motivated reasoning refers to the unconscious tendency
of individuals to process information in a manner that
suits some end or goal extrinsic to the formation of
accurate beliefs. "
Ezra Klein returns, taking up Paul Krugman's question:
"What’s the liberal equivalent of climate denial?", April 23, 2014:
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/23/5642116/liberal-climate-denial
"... Krugman isn't looking at the lab. Nor is he
looking at individuals. He's looking at political And that's pretty
coalitions. And that's trickier for Kahan's data to similar to my take:
refute. His experiments don't say anything about
how political coalitions reason. It's possible that WE_SMART
liberals and conservatives have the same individual
tendencies towards self deception but something in
the composition of the liberal coalition provides a
check that the conservative coalition currently
lacks."
"... Political reasoning doesn't take place inside our
heads. It takes place inside our parties."
In a recent post by Dan Kahan (who should really take it
easier on the snark until he learns to do it better) on BURNING_LOGS
June 11, 2014, Kahan includes a graph of some of his data,
showing that anti-vaxxers exist across the political
spectrum This is not a good example of left-wing craziness:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/6/9/got-facts-the-boring-ignorant-anti-liberal-science-communica.html
Dan M. Kahan posts frequently on his blog at
the "Cultural Cognition Project" site:
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/author/kahan
--------
[NEXT - WE_BIFURCATE]