I recently resigned from the non-profit organization that I and two friends founded because of one simple fact: it became predominantly populated by liberal types and my conservative brain found the environment intolerable. It wasn’t because of their politics. It was because of their thought processes. I liked the way the liberal mind is more open to new ideas and willing to debate the facts. Likewise, I dislike the conservative mind’s “my way of the highway” approach and its predilection to elevate misinformation. I remembered that great statement from a member of the Republican Presidential Election committee, “We are going to let the fact-checkers run our convention.”
One might challenge my decision to quit by saying, “Why didn’t you populate this organization with conservative thinkers?” Simple answer to that, the organization’s mission was that of social welfare. Try getting the “Ayn Rand types” to participate in anything “social.” I think Conservatives participate in government only for the purpose of being obstructions.
I also resigned from the Safe Routes to School Network Committee. My reasoning can be summed up with a question I asked at the meeting before I left. “Since 2005, Tennessee has spent $20 million on this program. How many more kids are walking or biking to school as a result of it?” No one could give me an answer or even thought that was important. When I petitioned to get our Committee to focus on getting more of the funding obligated (Tennessee has a horrible obligation rate of only 38% and less than the national average) ) and to determine the program’s
effectiveness, I was over-ruled. They told me, “The National organization
believes we can be more successful writing policy.” No end-point goals or
metrics are ever set and success is measured by the pounds of glossy reports
they issue, not by the increase in number of kids walking and biking to school.
I once naively thought we could have a good debate with the best representatives of pros and cons, declare a winner, and then get on with the implementation of the winning position. Not so. The liberals want to continue the debate ad infinitum and the conservative don’t believe any fact that they haven’t “cherry picked.”
For more on this topic read, “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality.” By Chris Mooney. Below is a very insightful review [added emphasis is mine]
Get over the title and
dive in, May 7, 2012 By Aaron
C. Huertas "Aaron Huertas"
The first thing you need to do when you pick up Chris
Mooney's The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science--and
Reality is get over whatever initial reaction you have to the title.
Partisan labels are so loaded that it's easy for liberals and conservatives
alike to mistake Mooney's nuanced overview of psychological research for a
jeremiad about "stupid conservatives."
And, in fact, that reaction has typified many conservative and some liberal
responses to the book. Which sort of proves Mooney's point. Thinking is more
important than information
Decades ago, social scientists started tearing down the Enlightenment view that
human beings rationally and methodically process information. In the old view,
our brains were like filing cabinets into which we inserted new information to
synthesize. In reality, we are motivated reasoners: we use facts and
information to justify what we want to believe.
In many cases, the more educated or "smarter" someone is, the more
able they are to seek out information that justifies their views. There's a
fundamental difference, one of the researchers in Mooney's book points out,
between being stupid and being misinformed. And Mooney's book is all about
misinformation, the brains it lands in, and how it gets there.
What's the difference between dominant liberalism and dominant conservatism?
One of the chief values that underpins liberalism, Mooney argues, is
"Openness." Liberals are more likely to be open to new
experiences, new cultures, and new ideas. They embrace uncertainty,
ambiguity and messiness. Conservatives are more likely to exhibit
Conscientiousness: a need for order, stability, clarity and cleanliness.
As he puts it, people who rate high on conscientiousness are, "highly goal
oriented, competent, and organized--and, on average, politically
conservative."
But the other side of the Conscientious coin is a need for "closure"
and definitive answers. Often, science doesn't provide them. And whenever
science appears to conflict with the values of someone with a strong need for
closure, they're more likely to reject the science.
We are all liberals, we are all conservatives
At various points in the book, Mooney weaves in a more nuanced view of the
liberal-conservative divide. Many social scientists rely on four variables, not
two, to describe how people view society: a predilection toward hierarchical
structures (big business, the military) vs. egalitarian structures (community
groups, social movements) and a communitarian view that emphasizes the needs of
the group vs. an individualistic view of the world that emphasizes personal
responsibility. Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along
these four variables in different combinations over the years, but today
extreme conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme
liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome, these terms
get to deeper truths about how people think about the world.
There are several points in the book where Mooney compliments conservatives for
their decisiveness and ability to bring order to the world. For instance,
conservatives are more likely to work in hierarchical organizations like police
forces and the military. And thank goodness for that. A country full of
anti-authoritarians would probably be pretty ripe for invasion. And he suggests
that societies are "balanced" by cooperation among conservatives and
liberals.
How these personality traits play out in the real world
Mooney's psychological primer -- which is full of fascinating summaries of
clever, thought-provoking studies -- provides a base layer of understanding as
he moves into the changes in American politics and media that have made it
easier for misinformation to find a willing home in many Americans' brains,
particularly the most extreme hierarchical individualists that have aligned
into the conservative movement.
He covers the assimilation of Southern Democrats into the Republican Party and
the resulting polarization in American politics as the country sorted itself
along party lines. And he talks about the fascinating political journey Phyllis
Schlafley took to illustrate how the conservative movement has changed over her
lifetime. He chronicles the rise of the intellectual right and the expanded
universe of think tanks that sprang up in the 1970s to provide analysis that
justifies conservative ideology and policy.
He also covers the dominance of Fox News, talk radio and partisan blogs as
information sources for conservatives. Their combined power and links to think
tanks and the Republican Party can create an information bubble that can easily
turn into a misinformation bubble.
From death panels to revisionist histories of America's founding, the
misinformation machine is an equal-opportunity weapon against reality. As Shawn
Lawrence Otto ably demonstrates in Fool Me
Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, we happen to be living
in a time when scientists have discovered problems such as climate change that
can hit a lot of ideological buttons and become ready targets for hierarchical
/ individualist oriented think tanks that feed misinformation into the bubble.
But aren't liberals guilty of the same biases?
Not really, Mooney argues. And certainly, I laugh whenever anyone equates Fox
to MSNBC or NPR. Fox is so much more entertaining and delivers a coherent
narrative to its viewers. MSNBC and NPR simply have different missions.
Mooney argues that liberals can certainly slip into anti-science and assimilate
misinformation. But those anti-scientific views aren't allowed to dominate the
liberal extremes or cross over into the mainstream.
Take the vaccine-autism "debate" for instance. It's a natural for
extreme liberals who fear any possibility of environmental harm to believe
misinformation linking vaccine use to autism, Mooney says. But leaders of that
movement, including celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, have found their claims
rejected by opinion elites on the left. So anti-vaccination attitudes have only
gained a tenuous foothold in communities Mooney calls "granola" like
Ashland, Oregon and Boulder, Colorado.
Mooney credits liberals' Openness with their faculty for criticizing one
another and reining in their extremists. And he points to other examples from
nuclear power to natural gas fracking to prove his point. The bad claims and
the extremists' craziest arguments get weeded out of the system. There is, he
says, "a psychology of disobedience and anti-authoritarianism on the left
that ensures that those making these claims will be challenged, sometimes quite
vigorously or even viciously."
Put another way, when Ann Coulter says something provocative, conservatives
share it on Facebook and say "Right on!" When Michael Moore says
something provocative, his fellow liberals pounce on him for not being nuanced
or accurate enough. If pressed, they will say they pretty much agree with what
he says, but they don't like how he says it.
Mooney puts a finer point on it by telling stories about David Frum and other
conservatives who were booted from their movement by being "too open"
to new ideas and too willing to criticize their brethren. Meanwhile, Democrats
rarely boot apostates from their ranks.
Ultimately, I found the shifting power dynamics of political movements and the
media environments in which they operate a stronger explanation for where we
stand today than the psychological research. And Mooney acknowledges that some
of the most interesting and startling findings from social science research
come with a healthy dose of uncertainty themselves.
So what do we do about it?
Mooney's closing chapter contains some concrete suggestions for how to address
anti-science. This is a step up from Unscientific America, which he coauthored
with Sheril Kirshenbaum. Like many readers, I enjoyed the book, but wanted a
lot more discussion about what to do about the sorry state of our public
discourse around scientific topics.
First, Mooney argues, we need to come to grips with the fact that more facts
won't win the day if people are predisposed to rejecting or ignoring them.
Mooney argues that listening to people and helping them see how their worldview
is affirmed - not threatened - by scientific findings is one way to overcome
these challenges.
He also encourages journalists to become more conversant in how liberals and
conservatives view the world and to communicate that to their audiences. So
don't just tell us there's a budget disagreement tell us why liberals'
egalitarian values and conservatives' personal responsibility values are in
conflict over spending and debt. In other words, stop letting politicians
simply talk past each other.
He says liberals should learn to be more decisive and cites the Occupy Wall
Street movement and the ongoing European debt crisis as typical liberal
discussion-fests lacking clear leadership, focus or a willingness to make
decisions. Heck, the occupiers designed their movement to avoid classic
leadership. Sometimes one plan, any plan, is much better than endless debate.
Conclusion
Mooney's book offers a combination of detail, breeziness and narrative that
should satisfy anyone who is frustrated by the prevalence of
misinformation in America's political debates, particularly scientific
misinformation. And he offers some tantalizing suggestions for how this might
be effectively addressed.
But more importantly, like any good science fan, he calls for more research.
And he acknowledges his own uncertainty about his conclusions.
But, overall, the weight of the evidence Mooney presents for the simple idea
that liberals and conservatives process information differently
is incontrovertible. And in the current political context, those differences
are ever more apparent. And that's a fact we should all accept if we're
interested in making our democracy stronger.
Partisan labels are so loaded that it's easy for liberals and conservatives alike to mistake Mooney's nuanced overview of psychological research for a jeremiad about "stupid conservatives."
And, in fact, that reaction has typified many conservative and some liberal responses to the book. Which sort of proves Mooney's point. Thinking is more important than information
Decades ago, social scientists started tearing down the Enlightenment view that human beings rationally and methodically process information. In the old view, our brains were like filing cabinets into which we inserted new information to synthesize. In reality, we are motivated reasoners: we use facts and information to justify what we want to believe.
In many cases, the more educated or "smarter" someone is, the more able they are to seek out information that justifies their views. There's a fundamental difference, one of the researchers in Mooney's book points out, between being stupid and being misinformed. And Mooney's book is all about misinformation, the brains it lands in, and how it gets there.
What's the difference between dominant liberalism and dominant conservatism? One of the chief values that underpins liberalism, Mooney argues, is "Openness." Liberals are more likely to be open to new experiences, new cultures, and new ideas. They embrace uncertainty, ambiguity and messiness. Conservatives are more likely to exhibit Conscientiousness: a need for order, stability, clarity and cleanliness. As he puts it, people who rate high on conscientiousness are, "highly goal oriented, competent, and organized--and, on average, politically conservative."
But the other side of the Conscientious coin is a need for "closure" and definitive answers. Often, science doesn't provide them. And whenever science appears to conflict with the values of someone with a strong need for closure, they're more likely to reject the science.
We are all liberals, we are all conservatives
At various points in the book, Mooney weaves in a more nuanced view of the liberal-conservative divide. Many social scientists rely on four variables, not two, to describe how people view society: a predilection toward hierarchical structures (big business, the military) vs. egalitarian structures (community groups, social movements) and a communitarian view that emphasizes the needs of the group vs. an individualistic view of the world that emphasizes personal responsibility. Ultimately, American political movements have aligned along these four variables in different combinations over the years, but today extreme conservatives happen to be hierarchical individualists while extreme liberals tends to be communitarian egalitarians. While cumbersome, these terms get to deeper truths about how people think about the world.
There are several points in the book where Mooney compliments conservatives for their decisiveness and ability to bring order to the world. For instance, conservatives are more likely to work in hierarchical organizations like police forces and the military. And thank goodness for that. A country full of anti-authoritarians would probably be pretty ripe for invasion. And he suggests that societies are "balanced" by cooperation among conservatives and liberals.
How these personality traits play out in the real world
Mooney's psychological primer -- which is full of fascinating summaries of clever, thought-provoking studies -- provides a base layer of understanding as he moves into the changes in American politics and media that have made it easier for misinformation to find a willing home in many Americans' brains, particularly the most extreme hierarchical individualists that have aligned into the conservative movement.
He covers the assimilation of Southern Democrats into the Republican Party and the resulting polarization in American politics as the country sorted itself along party lines. And he talks about the fascinating political journey Phyllis Schlafley took to illustrate how the conservative movement has changed over her lifetime. He chronicles the rise of the intellectual right and the expanded universe of think tanks that sprang up in the 1970s to provide analysis that justifies conservative ideology and policy.
He also covers the dominance of Fox News, talk radio and partisan blogs as information sources for conservatives. Their combined power and links to think tanks and the Republican Party can create an information bubble that can easily turn into a misinformation bubble.
From death panels to revisionist histories of America's founding, the misinformation machine is an equal-opportunity weapon against reality. As Shawn Lawrence Otto ably demonstrates in Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, we happen to be living in a time when scientists have discovered problems such as climate change that can hit a lot of ideological buttons and become ready targets for hierarchical / individualist oriented think tanks that feed misinformation into the bubble.
But aren't liberals guilty of the same biases?
Not really, Mooney argues. And certainly, I laugh whenever anyone equates Fox to MSNBC or NPR. Fox is so much more entertaining and delivers a coherent narrative to its viewers. MSNBC and NPR simply have different missions.
Mooney argues that liberals can certainly slip into anti-science and assimilate misinformation. But those anti-scientific views aren't allowed to dominate the liberal extremes or cross over into the mainstream.
Take the vaccine-autism "debate" for instance. It's a natural for extreme liberals who fear any possibility of environmental harm to believe misinformation linking vaccine use to autism, Mooney says. But leaders of that movement, including celebrities like Jenny McCarthy, have found their claims rejected by opinion elites on the left. So anti-vaccination attitudes have only gained a tenuous foothold in communities Mooney calls "granola" like Ashland, Oregon and Boulder, Colorado.
Mooney credits liberals' Openness with their faculty for criticizing one another and reining in their extremists. And he points to other examples from nuclear power to natural gas fracking to prove his point. The bad claims and the extremists' craziest arguments get weeded out of the system. There is, he says, "a psychology of disobedience and anti-authoritarianism on the left that ensures that those making these claims will be challenged, sometimes quite vigorously or even viciously."
Put another way, when Ann Coulter says something provocative, conservatives share it on Facebook and say "Right on!" When Michael Moore says something provocative, his fellow liberals pounce on him for not being nuanced or accurate enough. If pressed, they will say they pretty much agree with what he says, but they don't like how he says it.
Mooney puts a finer point on it by telling stories about David Frum and other conservatives who were booted from their movement by being "too open" to new ideas and too willing to criticize their brethren. Meanwhile, Democrats rarely boot apostates from their ranks.
Ultimately, I found the shifting power dynamics of political movements and the media environments in which they operate a stronger explanation for where we stand today than the psychological research. And Mooney acknowledges that some of the most interesting and startling findings from social science research come with a healthy dose of uncertainty themselves.
So what do we do about it?
Mooney's closing chapter contains some concrete suggestions for how to address anti-science. This is a step up from Unscientific America, which he coauthored with Sheril Kirshenbaum. Like many readers, I enjoyed the book, but wanted a lot more discussion about what to do about the sorry state of our public discourse around scientific topics.
First, Mooney argues, we need to come to grips with the fact that more facts won't win the day if people are predisposed to rejecting or ignoring them. Mooney argues that listening to people and helping them see how their worldview is affirmed - not threatened - by scientific findings is one way to overcome these challenges.
He also encourages journalists to become more conversant in how liberals and conservatives view the world and to communicate that to their audiences. So don't just tell us there's a budget disagreement tell us why liberals' egalitarian values and conservatives' personal responsibility values are in conflict over spending and debt. In other words, stop letting politicians simply talk past each other.
He says liberals should learn to be more decisive and cites the Occupy Wall Street movement and the ongoing European debt crisis as typical liberal discussion-fests lacking clear leadership, focus or a willingness to make decisions. Heck, the occupiers designed their movement to avoid classic leadership. Sometimes one plan, any plan, is much better than endless debate.
Conclusion
Mooney's book offers a combination of detail, breeziness and narrative that should satisfy anyone who is frustrated by the prevalence of misinformation in America's political debates, particularly scientific misinformation. And he offers some tantalizing suggestions for how this might be effectively addressed.
But more importantly, like any good science fan, he calls for more research. And he acknowledges his own uncertainty about his conclusions.
But, overall, the weight of the evidence Mooney presents for the simple idea that liberals and conservatives process information differently is incontrovertible. And in the current political context, those differences are ever more apparent. And that's a fact we should all accept if we're interested in making our democracy stronger.
No comments:
Post a Comment