Partisanship and apathy
Are they congenital defects in human democracy? I was reading Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment by Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross, a seminal work on research into the limits of human rationality. And I ran across this passage:
More vivid information… is likely to remain “in thought” for a longer time after being received. One might think that time in thought, by itself, might have no particular consequences. But this presumption is apparently wrong. Tester (1978) showed that the longer an object or proposition remains in thought, the more extreme are the attitudes toward it. For example, subjects asked to ponder a particular football play for a longer time end up with more extreme judgments of its advisability than do subjects allowed to think about the play for a shorter time. It seems likely that more vivid information may generate more extreme inferences partially because it incidentally is likely to remain in thought longer (Nisbett and Ross 1980, p. 55)
This is taking the idea somewhat out of context, but one might wonder if similar differences might be observed between people like those of us at the café, who latch onto news stories of interest, mull them over, talk or write about them, and those who read, take a moment to think ‘oh,’ and read on.
Are news junkies more likely to be at either end of the political spectrum? Are centrists voters more likely to be less engaged with current events?
Are centrists voters more likely to be less engaged with current events?
Interesting post, although I don't know how to approach answering it.
I do know, well, believe, that "centrist voters" is a myth. What's a "centrist"? There is no answer. There's no such thing. People basically lean one way or the other. There are two choices here, that's it.
Actually, a third position is not voting, which many people unfortunately choose.
Centrism is rationalization technique, used by people to puff themselves up, to make believe they aren't really sheep.
We're all sheep, though.
November 9, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a way, I don't think we are disagreeing on centrism.
First, though, I think that what follows is really extending the findings I quote far beyond justifiability. But taking the implicit thesis of my post, you might argue that anyone who spends much time thinking about a given issue is more likely to have views that are extreme, on some axis. The center, one might then argue, is hollow: what it means to hold views that aren't extreme is to hold very shallow views, based on a cursory familiarity with the facts.
But then again, what defines extreme in that case?
Having said that, I disagree with you in some sense that people basically lean one way or the other. I'm not sure that political beliefs are in any meaningful sense binary, for one thing, but more to the point, I think it's not terribly hard to be neutral on an issue, or on all issues, or to find both sides persuasive, etc.
November 9, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt centrists are hollow. That's kind of like saying they are shallow. But it may be that what they focus on tends not to be political. Perhaps they spend more time thinking of other things. And have strong feelings about those other things.
Though there may be a subset of people, who spend so little time thinking of politics or know nothing of politics and thus "call" themselves independents because they really don't know where they stand. People who never vote for example, but might be embarrassed to admit that.
November 9, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One way of looking of centrism is that it is the part of the spectrum that deals with voluntary change. The far left knows what is best and wants to move rapidly forward in that direction. The far right knows what was best, and wants to go backwards quickly.
If the political spectrum is indeed circular, the extremes will meet, with a horrible crash, somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere. If it's a Moebius Strip, we may be safe.
Seriously, I look at the extremes as people who want to compel social change. The center is broader, I think, than many here realize. There's a plausible center-left and center-right,depending on the issue.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 9, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not suggesting in this line of thought that centrists are hollow, but that the center is. That is, the implication (that I'm prepared to disavow, but am following because I put it out there) is that having less extreme views is a function of not being terribly wedded to them, or not cogitating too extensively on the issues that would drive you to some extreme. I suspect this is rather healthy, and may indeed produce better political outcomes (if our resident Burkean Howard is correct), even while it is the product of less political thought.
November 9, 2007 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intriguing. Thought provoking. Thanks.
Tiny bone of contention here. You ask if these are "congenital defects." Well that would mean you're born that way. And the research suggests it's when you're thinking a lot about certain things, not simply a matter of "genes" (= congenital)
November 9, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a sloppy word choice, but not wholly inapt. The literature that Nisbett and Ross examine, and that continues to come out of their work, deals with persistent, nearly universal errors in judgment that people make - so pervasive, in fact, that some authors would describe it as undermining the idea that we are rational; this is one example. But together, they suggest that our cognition is structured in ways that produces a fair amount of false beliefs about the world. I sort of meant a congenital defect not of individuals, but of the species (which is where the word choice becomes even more inaccurate).
November 9, 2007 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, now I understand. Cognitive errors. As I said, it was a tiny bone of contention.
If you enjoy reading about that, look at the work by Tversky and Kahneman. Fascinating. And they are the originators of this particular field.
I still would not call it congenital of the species. Think about it. Blue eyes are congenital. You can't change that. But these cognitive errors can vary. You can teach people to avoid them. Does that make sense? So, humans are prone to error. And we can study types of errors. It's like those photos where if you look at it one way, you see one picture. And if you look at it differenty, you see another.
Actually, this research fits with Buddhism. In this sense. Buddhism teaches you to let go of feelings, to stay in the moment. That would help people to become more balanced - which is exactly what Buddhists strive for.
Lots of different ways you can think about this phenomenon.
November 9, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nisbett and Ross reference Kahneman and Tversky frequently, and that's where I first got introduction to the rationality literature.
You can train yourself out of many errors - sometimes. But it's not common for many. For instance, there is one particular test that involves a set of four cards that tests for modus tollens that apparently only philosophy grad students perform well on. And, in the 80s, it seems, the chances that a physician was a smoker was inversely proportional to the proximity of their area of specialty to the lungs. Some things we can learn to avoid, but only if we're being attentive. In that sense, I'm not entirely sure that this is something that can be changed, just compensated for.
And on the other hand, what distinguishes Nisbett and Ross from other things I've read in this area is their contention that many inferential errors are due not to faulty modes of cognition, but to the misapplication of modes that are effective within a defined domain. That makes it much harder.
November 9, 2007 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are by definition not rational except about things that we are disinterested in. We can be very good calculators, but we can't be dispassionate about things that only makes sense emotionally. What is the "right" thing to do? We'll feel it, and then find arguments to support it.
That these are rationalizations is not a crippling feature, since they take on a continuing life when they connect to other rationalizations, as in legal precedent. Justice Stevens, I think, said legal opinions were a search for s defensible rationlization of what you felt was right.
But as the logical structure grows, it becomes an anlaytic tool to explore those feelings and the ramifications of setting a particular value on them. So we can measure the balance between individual and group rights, for example, and check with precendent for how other comparisons ame out.
November 10, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that there are more basic problems, and that many of the glitches in our rationality are in fact due to the structure of our information processing mechanisms, irrespective of whether or not we have any emotional reaction to the object of judgment.
If I understand you when you say we'll feel it, and then find arguments to support it, I'm not sure I agree. Isn't it possible that we 'feel it' because the logical processes that lead to valid judgments are tacit, not explicitly available to consciousness?
On another note, I think it's unsurprising, especially to an adaptationist like you, that there would be limits to our rationality. I think I got this from Elliott Sober: in asking whether reliability (a high likelihood of producing true beliefs) is adaptive, one must distinguish between false positives and false negatives. The ability to avoid false negatives ought to confer selective advantage, but not necessarily the ability to avoid false positives, where these are a form of erring on the side of caution. There isn't much of a price to be paid for thinking the wind is a tiger, compared to thinking that a tiger is just the wind.
November 10, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes to all. What we feel is just a label for another computation.
I think what the justice meant was that the kind of thinking that happens when we say "turn the problem over in my mind" is non-verbal, a sort of tactile feeling one's way to a solution.
The word "irrational" can mean"obviously wrong choice", but I use to mean "not purely rational, but biased". Since each of us has a personal viewpoint, we tend to be most rational (in my sense) when the answer doesn't matter to us.
November 10, 2007 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Devon,
It's rare when I disagree strongly with you. For me, that's because I see you as a "moderate" kind of thinker, reasonably well-informed and thoughtful on what you comment on, and what you present never seems very partisan. So this post really surprises me! It immediately struck me myself and I as being backwards!
Partisans are, by the nature of the label, ideological! They might read lots of news and punditry and analysis, but they are, by nature of being ideological, looking for stuff that's slanted to their ideology.
For me, people who read or study a lot with an open mind, or who become wise from age and experience, generally become less partisan and less ideological. You can call that moderation or being independent or whatever. I call it getting to the point of seeing the shades of grey.
Sure there are learned and wise rabid partisans of great age, but they are an exception, no?
An added note. I've seen Yglesias post a bit on polls of "Independents," perhaps this is where you are getting some of this theme. He has suggested slightly that they show "Independents" are often not up on current political issues. I don't think that you can extrapolate that (if true, and I am not sure it is because I didn't read in enough detail) to saying these are woefully irresponsible people who don't bother to inform themselves before they vote. To me, the latter are more likely the ones who say they are Democrat or Republican (or Social Democrat or Communist for that matter) because their parents and grandparents were, ye olde "blind partisanship," I think they call it. The kind that proudly say "I always vote a straight Democratic ticket," to me those are the ones that might not be well-informed voters. Calling oneself an Independent, now that at least takes a bit of sophistication about the political system, it means you've learned or experienced some things about the political system to be wary of the ideologies, and that you're going to judge each candidate individually. Granted, maybe in many cases it's a cynicism learned in one's more partisan youth when one kept up more with the "news," now paying less daily attention to news in midlife with career and family concerns.
It gets confusing, I think, as our media and news sources, including blogging, becomes more partisan and ideological, more like the traditional British system. But traditionally in our culture, a learned informed person with life experience becomes more "moderate," more attuned to shades of grey rather than being partisan fighters defending one tribe or another with cherry-picked news and analysis.
Finally, take a look at hcberkowitz's signature on all his comments for a perfect example. It says "equal opportunity offense to both extremes," Howard may be a lot of things, but ill-informed doesn't seem one of them, nor does partisan.
November 10, 2007 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't let you disagree with me just yet, Art, because I don't really hold an opinion here - I'm just throwing out another ill-formed inference to see what the crucible of my friends here makes of it.
For one thing, despite the anti-centrist road I've gone down, it's not at all clear to me from the bit of evidence I cite does not support the center rather than the extremes. In the study, those who were made to consider the football play longer held more extreme - which I take it means something like emotionally laden, or strident, or possibly unjustifiable - opinions. This might well be evidence in favor of less considered judgment.
In any case, my original intent wasn't to be yay-extreme boo-center, or vice versa; it was to suggest that the shape of our political spectrum might be shaped by less-than-conscious habits of thought that have nothing, really, to do with political facts.
But I shouldn't leave my claims here entirely orphaned. I think that the relatively anti-centrist point I was making, ultimately, isn't about the political center in the traditional left-right sense. It's maybe more of a circle. One way that one could extrapolate from the evidence I cite is to think that, perhaps, anyone who spends time mulling over political issues is going to have more extreme views in some sense - more strongly held, more motivational, etc. One might depart from the left-right center and still be a centrist, I think. Plenty of principled moderates have what might be characterized as extreme views in the sense just given; you might think of them as far from the center of a circle. By contrast, plenty of people aren't wildly interested in the political dimension of life, don't linger over the same stories that we do here, and maybe hold, in the end, more pallid or less carefully constructed political views. I'm thinking of the center that may not vote, more apathetic than moderate.
Does that segment of the population exist? It seems so on the surface, but one should be skeptical. But if it does, this might be one way to explain the polarized dynamic of our political system, which in the end leads to elections dominated by those who don't make up their minds until the end.
November 10, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just thoughts.
One place it really strikes me where I feel you are getting off-track is the reference to "centrism." I think in the blogosphere there's a tendency to label people as politically centrist when they object to cherry-picked partisan coverage of the news, bringing up objections that don't fit the partisan propaganda narrative along the lines of "well, that's not quite right, that's not the entire truth." (An example: bringing up some negotiation or statement that Condi Rice made that shows that there are sometimes two competing foreign policies in the Bush administration. It ruins some people's narratives about Cheney being in charge or whatever. One gets labeled a party pooper for injecting difficult facts.)
A person who is "reality-based" and is looking to learn what is actually going on and to deconstruct the partisan narratives is automatically considered to be politically centrist as well. I think you have been looked at some times by others here that way, just because you challenge partisan narratives. I know I have been labeled that way, many times, here and on other blog forums. For myself, it has been really frustrating. I have taken all those internet tests that tell you your political slant and they always put me in the category of "liberal." Then I read news gathering and opinion on blogs that call themselves "liberal" and I see a lot of slant, truthiness, propaganda and outright untruths. And on forums, I have actually been angrily attacked for being too "moderate," for not having enough "passion" about this or that topic, when in actuality, I am simply trying to discern reality and see no reason why anyone else would be interested in my opinions or "passions" in a group therapy session about how much we all hate this or that politician or whatever.
I just don't think actual political centrism has anything to do with this. Partisanship and interest in really finding truth work at cross purposes is what the problem is.
It's easier to label someone looking to learn truth as "centrist" in our society because we have a two-party system. If you don't buy either of the partisan narratives, it's assumed that you fall between them.
I also think that many registered Independents are not ignorant, uninformed people, but rather people who are fed up with or have become skeptical of the red vs. blue thing that has developed over the last few decades, and they learned that skepticism from trying to be informed and giving up over "spin."
Have you noticed how we hear the word spin so much less now than during the early to mid 1990's? I think that's because with the advent of blogging and the internet, there is an embrace of partisan spin, an acknowledgment that spin is the best one can do.
In a way, can we blame it on post-modernist philosophy? Their intent was to deconstruct spin to aide people in seeing reality. Instead, what happened is that everyone wanted to do it.
November 12, 2007 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
On centrism:
I get really annoyed with atheists who feel a need to adopt some other term because ‘atheism’ is defines your position in terms of what it is not. But maybe centrism suffers from a similar problem. I’m not at all clear what political positions define someone as a centrist, apart from a rough-and-ready characterization of the poles that define it, and I’d argue that most others aren’t either. It becomes a convenient term of disparagement, in this case.
On the thesis here:
That said, speaking in favor of centrism, I think it is quite plausible, as you seem to think, that cogitation, as one might put it, has a well-known moderate bias; that thinking about things honestly and fully leads to more moderate conclusions. This plausible thesis contradicts what I said above, at least as far as I understand what I said above (I haven’t read the cited study). That’s fine with me; it’s compelling on its face, and might just as well be true. I guess I’ll have to really mull it over and see what happens....
November 12, 2007 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: related to my sentences above: "They might read lots of news and punditry and analysis, but they are, by nature of being ideological, looking for stuff that's slanted to their ideology." and "It gets confusing, I think, as our media and news sources, including blogging, becomes more partisan and ideological, more like the traditional British system."
This is going to be interesting:
This Week: Professor Cass Sunstein
Welcome to Table for One, the guest-blogging section at TPMCafe.
November 12, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this discussion ahead of it's time! Though if my tendentious thesis is correct (I'll admit it probably isn't), what breeds polarization and radicalism, or extremism and conformity as it was put on the mother ship, is our modes of cognition.
I'll have more to say on your comments on centrism above soon (I hope).
November 12, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A word or two based on practical experience on a level different from most of the discussion here.....
Devon said:
"I think it's not terribly hard to be neutral on an issue, or on all issues, or to find both sides persuasive, etc."
Tom Wright said:
"We are by definition not rational except about things that we are disinterested in. We can be very good calculators, but we can't be dispassionate about things that only makes sense emotionally."
After four decades as a newspaper reporter and editor I can say that true journalists (forget the tabs, the commentators using the outrageous for effect, and so on) have a strong, if imperfect ability to explore and report on issues that matter to them, and to do so in a manner that is essentially fair.
Many people who are accustomed to announcing their opinions and acting on them have difficulty believing that journalists can or do make any effort -- especially can -- to report honestly and with serious intent to lay out information that is relevant and as accurate as one can make it without layering in personal biases.
But it happens and regularly so.
The reason is not that the reporters/editors are dispassionate or disinterested. On the contrary, most people in that line of work care a lot about issues and people. But they also have a need to explain and relay information. Wanting to be taken seriously, they work at being fair.
(I won't say "fair and balanced," because fair does not mean equal space and weight for all opinions. At some point, journalists had to say that segregation is wrong, and not try to balance anti-segregation views with the views of racists. At some point, and it is here or growing, journalists have to say that global warming is happening, and not pretend that claims that it is not have equal merit; the extent to which it is happening is up for discussion, and to some degree the causes, but not the basic fact of warming.)
Of course, journalists have personal views, although not on every topic. One of the great advantages of the role is that they get to learn about new subjects. And like many or most people, they don't always know the best solution to a problem, i.e., how to provide health care to all, or how to deal with the government of another country. But interested in the issues, they enjoy investigating such topics and providing information on them. Journalists in a newsroom will spend offtime discussing such matters and without pretense that they have all or some of the answers.
When they do have personal views, the trick is to put them aside, to report as factually as possible with advocates for any view involved having some say. (Again, that does not mean equal space for every view in every story, but fairness over a period of days and weeks. A profile of one presidential candidate, to use an obvious example, does not include every other candidates' lengthy comment on that person.
Because a good system has reporters working with more than one editor -- two or three might read a story before it hits print -- possible bias (like missing information or lack of clarity) can be questioned along the way.
One problem in fact is that journalists sometimes bend over backwards too far to be fair and the result is another form of unfairness. That is the kind of problem that has happened with reporting on the Iraq war both in the months leading up to it and in the first couple of years or more. A president and his administration deserve respect in terms of fair relating of their actions and words, but not without good examination of the facts behind those actions and words. Critics need not be considered knee-jerk opponents merely because they often or usually disagree with the administration.
At bottom, journalists are pretty good at withholding personal biases because they really believe in the goal of informing people. Even in news analysis (as opposed to personal columns) they can make a good effort at preventing inclusion of bias. Newsroom meetings at legitimate newspapers regularly discuss how a story succeeded in that regard; at times, self-examination is damned near pre-confession 1950s-style Roman Catholic. With enough people weighing in, they can do a pretty good to excellent job of giving people good information.
All of this is on a plane different from most of the discussion here. It is intended, as I said in the beginning, as thoughts based on practical experience, experience with making judgments in what one hopes is a rational way while remaining not an advocate for a givenb view, but rather a carrier of information.
And do journalists go home and expound personal views? Yes. But sometimes, to the consternation of friends and family, with an annoying tendency to say, "On the other hand...."
November 11, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that there are excellent journalists, and that most try and mostly succeed at fair reporting. I don't buy the argument that all media is biased.
It's training and the nature of the job working against a natural tendency. Many of us have jobs where we set aside our interests. I imagine it's harder to be effectively dispassionate when making executive decisions, like editors and conductors.
November 11, 2007 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no trouble saying, as I should have said, that sometimes journalists, even good ones, fail to hit the mark. The good thing is that they question themselves and each other a lot.
Perhaps the biggest problems with bias result in a failure to report or question. After all, journalists with larger organizations are middle class (and, for the lucky ones, better), and if they do not make sure they know how the rest of the world is living, they can be blind to a concern or the conditions of others. Any number of times I have seen newsroom meeting conflicts arise when those with a better sense of the real world challenged those who have had little experience at living on little, don't come from working class backgrounds, and, more important, don't make an effort to find out about those who live with less.
The other, maybe more visilble fault lies in running with the pack, not questioning enough or assuming the easy to believe attitudes (Al Gore exaggerates his accomplishments, or the administration couldn't be lying, could it?).
The best question any of us can ask journalists -- and this gets far afield from the inital discussion but it goes to rooting out bias and lazy reporting -- is, "How do you know that?"
November 12, 2007 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan Hortsch,
I for one really really appreciate both of your comments. I have long been a passionate partisan (hee) about defending those journalists who are out there trying to continue the radical mid-20th-century innovation of journalism as a true profession (profession as in doctor, lawyer, accountant). The way I see it is that the internet allowed more access to the work of professional journalists, but that the blogosphere on the whole is working contrary to that, back to the partisan journalism of centuries past. Being a boomer, I grew up with the former, and I rue that it is currently losing the fight.
Probably part of the reason I am passionate about this one thing is that I am an appraiser of fine art (like others are appraisers of real estate.) My work is in no way a science, it's totally an art. If you remember what real estate appraisers did to cause the S & L crisis, well, art appraisers can do 10 times worse. Most art is one of a kind, there are no scientific comparables. Those few of us who are really knowledgeable in the areas we work in also know how much we can fudge things, how easily any convincing narrative about the value of something can be created. I am constantly involved with clients and other involved parties who want the spin rather than the truth. I know from my own experience that knowledgeable journalists can do "truth" quite well if that is what is required from them. The ability of humans to be objective if it is required of them is woefully underestimated in current culture, especially if they don't have a conflict of interest.
I have always considered the anomosity towards "he said, she said" journalism to be overblown. In the past, anyone with an education should have known how to read such a story: it's an objective report of spin by politicians, simply informing the reader of what was said, without injecting analysis. In current times, it's even more ridiculous to be angry about it, as virtually everyone knows what spin is. My retort to the complainers is: so you would rather the reporter inject his own spin into the equation of the spin from "he" and "she"? I don't expect primary school textbook or encyclopedia-style explanations about other views out there from daily journalism, and I do want to know what "he" and "she" said without extra spin added.
Also I don't bother with analysis pieces by journalists until I know that they have a lot of boots on the ground reporting experience in that field, whether it be the White House press room or Lebanon. I look for those analysis pieces and tend to ignore the bloviating on the topic of every Tom, Dick and Harry on the net unless I have time for infotainment and being aggravated at how much partisan disinfo is being passed. That has nothing to do with journalism, that is politics interfering spinning journalism.
November 12, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, artappraiser, you do have a tough job. With art, truth is in the eye of the beholder and the spender. Not giving in to encouragement to inflate the value takes both a keen eye and a resolute desire to do the right thing.
Thanks for your comments. The Internet does indeed make it harder to discern what the facts are or might well be. I will say, though, that I have come to realize that the Internet carries good commentary, but as you indicated, it takes time to weed out the good from the not so good to appalling.
As for he said/she said reporting: It can have its limits on usefulness if the reporter is not also relating solid information that helps the reader decide who is closest to being right or thoughtful. Or if the reporter is not investigating claims and reporting information that disputes those claims. Many times a story starts as he said/she said, but then evolves as reporters have more time to investigate what lies behind the statements.
In regard to Devon's intial comment: People with strong feelings probably explore more sources while more moderate folks less involved might be happy to get information from a pretty reliable source or two and go with it. That is an argument for fair -- but not superficial -- reporting right there.
November 15, 2007 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink