From Arnold Kling at www.techcentralstation.com:

Excerpts:

I am going to suggest that democratic politics is a very poor information-processing mechanism. The great mass of people form their political beliefs with little regard for facts or logic. However, the elites also have a strategy for avoiding truth. Elites form their political beliefs dogmatically, using their cleverness to organize facts to fit preconceived prejudices. The masses' strategy for avoiding truth is to make a low investment in understanding; the elites' strategy is to make a large investment in selectively choosing which facts and arguments to emphasize or ignore.

This essay represents a distillation of some ideas contained in a voluminous issue of a journal called Critical Review. I was particularly influenced by Jeffrey Friedman's introduction and by Gregory J. Wawro's "The Rationalizing Public?" Readers who are willing to plow through the rest of my essay will also enjoy Critical Review, as well as a new blog called overcoming bias, which is about dealing with psychological obstacles to objective analysis.

The Critical Review issue is built around a 1964 essay by public opinion researcher Philip E. Converse, called "The Nature of Belief Systems of Mass Publics." Converse suggested that the political beliefs of roughly 90 percent of the population are incoherent. Most voters lack elementary knowledge of our political system, they hold views that are ideologically jumbled and logically inconsistent, and their opinions change over time in ways that suggest almost random behavior. He suggested that there is a relative sharp fall-off in the coherence of opinions as one goes from the most highly-involved segment of the voting public. Hence, although it is likely that citizens' level of information falls along a continuum, it is a reasonable approximation to speak in terms of elite and mass.

The general public follows what I would call a "low-investment" strategy for avoiding the truth. They do not know the names of their representatives. They do not know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia. They do not know the approximate size of the Budget deficit or its outlook. And so on.

Ilya Somin, in his contribution to the Critical Review volume, points out that there is no particular reason for citizens to make a large investment in learning facts or forming coherent beliefs about political issues. The low probability that your vote will make a difference makes for an adverse cost-benefit calculation from obtaining information. Bryan Caplan, in this essay based on his forthcoming book, Myth of the Rational Voter, makes a similar point.

The authors in the Critical Review volume give a number of illustrations of public ignorance. For instance, Wawro writes..."One of my favorite examples...In February 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 72 percent of those surveyed believed that it was "likely" that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks."

...Self-identified Republicans were (and still are) far more likely to think there was a connection than were Democrats.

Somin points out that..."a 2002 Gallup Survey of public opinion in Arab and Muslim nations found large majorities denying that the September 11 attacks were carried out by "groups of Arabs." ... A 2002 survey conducted by the Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram found that 39 percent of Egyptian respondents blamed the September 11 attacks on "Israeli intelligence/the Mossad," while only 19 percent said that "Al-Qa'eda or other Islamic militants" were responsible."

These are two arguments that are commonly made to suggest that in spite of the individual ignorance of the typical voter, the overall decisions of the political process are sound. The political process gives us the wisdom of crowds, as it were.

The argument for macro wisdom is that ignorant individuals either take their cues from informed elites or vote randomly. In either case, the elites become the decisive actors, and the ignorance of the masses has little impact.

Converse himself strongly rejects the view that mass ignorance is unimportant. In his 1964 article, he pointed out how the voters who gave the Nazi party a plurality in 1930 "represented one of the more unrelievedly ill-informed clienteles that a major party has assembled in a modern state." He argued that that the peasants and first-time voters who gave the Nazis their victory could have easily been captured by the Communists or some other political party, with very different historical results.

Moreover, if the general public is ignorant, then elites are free to act against the interest of the general public. Converse sees this from a left-leaning perspective, leading to policies that favor the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Somin sees it from a right-leaning perspective, leading to government power that is excessive and unchecked. He writes..."Rationally ignorant voters are unable to keep track of more than a tiny fraction of all this government activity. Indeed, they probably would be unable to do so even with considerably greater knowledge than most of them currently possess. Other things equal, the greater the size and complexity of government, the greater the likelihood that many of its activities will escape meaningful democratic control."

Paul Krugman uses what I call a high-investment strategy for avoiding truth. He puts considerable effort into emphasizing facts and arguments that support his overall position, while ignoring conflicting evidence. However, in this regard, he is far from atypical as an opinion leader. As Jeffrey Friedman puts it...
"To liberal ears, a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity, while well informed about which policies are advocated by conservatives and liberals, will seem appallingly ignorant of the arguments and evidence for liberal positions. The same goes in reverse for a Frank Rich or a Paul Krugman."

Rush Limbaugh and Paul Krugman clearly fall within the elite, according to the standards set by Converse and other opinion researchers. They know the facts about the structure of the American political system and the identities of major office-holders. They understand the connections between various beliefs. They maintain consistent positions, and their opinions are highly predictable, unlike the unstable, random positions that show up in polling of the mass public.

Limbaugh and Krugman may not necessarily be wrong (although it is hard for both of them to be right). However, both follow strategies that are designed to reinforce prior beliefs of conservatives and liberals, respectively. They highlight information and arguments that support their prior beliefs. When they encounter contrary evidence, they engage in "motivated skepticism," seeking to undermine the credibility or minimize the significance of the adverse information.

In fact, one could argue that Limbaugh and Krugman do not have wisdom that exceeds that of the ignorant public. However, while the typical individual's rationalizations of his or her beliefs are illogical and ill-informed, Limbaugh's and Krugman's rationalizations are clever and erudite.

One of my strongly-held beliefs, for which I tend to attract supporting evidence and repel contrary arguments, is that markets process information more effectively than does the political process. Perhaps it as an exaggeration to refer to the market as the "world of truth," as Tim Harford does in The Undercover Economist. However, it strikes me that it is easier for market forces to drive a bad firm out of business than it is for political forces to extinguish a policy that fails to meet the objectives that purportedly drive its enactment.

Those who believe in the wisdom of the political process might argue that the competition between political elites--between Democrats and Republicans or between Krugman and Limbaugh--promotes reasonable outcomes. However, I suspect that the net result of this competition is to lead to greater accretion of government power, giving the elites more to fight over. Politics ultimately becomes a competition to promise the undeliverable, whether it be better public education, inexpensive health care, or government suppression of drug abuse or sexual immorality.

I believe in democracy because I distrust the elites. I distrust the elites because I believe that self-deception is widespread, and the elites are particularly skilled at it. Accordingly, I believe that it is important for those in power to have the humility of knowing that they may be voted out of office.

Others believe in democracy because they are hoping to see the triumph of a particular elite. Many liberals want to see sympathetic technocrats manipulating the levers of government, nominally for the greater good. I see government technocrats as inevitably embedded in a political system that inefficiently processes information. The more they attempt, the more damage they are likely to do. Many conservatives want to see government used for "conservative ends." However, I believe that the more that government tries to correct the flaws of families, the more flawed families will become.

As Taber and Lodge observe in the quotation with which this essay began, in all of our intellectual pursuits we tend to follow strategies for avoiding truth. The more knowledgable we are, the more we follow a high-investment strategy of selectively accepting evidence that favors our outlook while discounting contrary information. In science, this process ultimately is checked by the methods of experimentation, prediction, and falsification. In markets, it is checked by the process of profit and loss. In politics, the checks are less powerful. Our political beliefs are likely to be especially unreliable, regardless of which strategy we use to avoid truth.

quote:

As Taber and Lodge observe in the quotation with which this essay began, in all of our intellectual pursuits we tend to follow strategies for avoiding truth. The more knowledgable we are, the more we follow a high-investment strategy of selectively accepting evidence that favors our outlook while discounting contrary information. In science, this process ultimately is checked by the methods of experimentation, prediction, and falsification. In markets, it is checked by the process of profit and loss. In politics, the checks are less powerful. Our political beliefs are likely to be especially unreliable, regardless of which strategy we use to avoid truth.

Finding a web site that agrees with you isn't research.

I don't understand this piece, what is the point of it? It's no surprise to me that in our so-called democracy it is elites that make most of the decisions (nor that the great mass of people are ignorant, although I think I agree with the maxim you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time), and that pamphleteers/propagandists like Paul Krugman and Rush Limbaugh leave out information that doesn't support their arguments.

Ultimately this guy seems to come out against elite rule and for democracy. Well don't we already have democracy? Is he arguing America is a dictatorship? I don't get it. You think he'd clarify a term like democracy, when it's so important to what he's arguing (if he's even arguing anything at all).

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raoul Duke,

quote:

Originally posted by Coalage500:

As Taber and Lodge observe in the quotation with which this essay began, in all of our intellectual pursuits we tend to follow strategies for avoiding truth. The more knowledgable we are, the more we follow a high-investment strategy of selectively accepting evidence that favors our outlook while discounting contrary information. In science, this process ultimately is checked by the methods of experimentation, prediction, and falsification. In markets, it is checked by the process of profit and loss. In politics, the checks are less powerful. Our political beliefs are likely to be especially unreliable, regardless of which strategy we use to avoid truth.

I guess this paragraph is the ultimate conclusion to the essay. I'm not sure it brings together all the disparate elements here, but I guess that's what threw me.

I would hope anyone forming an opinion would look at what the other side(s) is/are saying so as not to develop some kind of tunnel vision through which one's views are formed. I personally don't read much conservative propaganda; but I think I understand what I hear from the right better all the time, and as I have done this it becomes even more distasteful to me.

I see where some others have picked up on this article in another thread.

The problem is defining what is the truth...especially when you are trying to discuss topics that have political overtones, which is just about everything these days.

We know that there are certain truths that are universally accepted...2+2=4, for example. No one debates this certainty. But, what is the truth on free trade, global warming, immigration, minimum wage, etc.?

I once attended a management seminar. The speaker, standing at the front of the room, held up a golf ball between his fingers and asked the attendees what color it was. Everyone answered it was white. He said no, that was wrong. It was black. Everyone looked a little dumfounded until he turned the golf ball around to see that the other side had been painted black. In other words, from where he stood, the ball was black.

You might be able to shoot me down on this, but I think of universal truth just like natural law. It's fine for philosophical or theological discussions, but it doesn't have much application to politics.

I don't necessarily disagree with your last post. I think there are some universal truths.
No question that politics is different. That's why the original article is somewhat skewed. On the great issues of the day...immigration, the war, global warming, minimum wage, education, universal health care, free trade, etc.,...there is not necessarily a right and wrong answer. Whichever side you happen to support, you can find learned articles and essays that will support your position.

These issues are more gray than mere black and white. Its why getting a consensus on them is so difficult. But its also why they are so much fun to talk about.

Coalage,

Sorry about the cross-post of the material you posted. Who do you believe Arnold Kling was hoping to reach with his article?

I'm not sure Kate.

I guess maybe he is trying to say that pundits, and their supporters from both sides, are too quick to dismiss the arguments that they disagree with. As I pointed out earlier, everybody can find articles and essays that will support your views.

Listening to current radio shows show reminds me of an old story about an IQ test...

A room with no windows, a faucet coming out ot the wall, 1 door, a mop, and a bucket, ONe by one candidates were sent in, each candidate would observe the room, see no outflow for the water coming in, and begin to furiously mop, until the bucket was full and despite herculean effort, the was no hope, The last candidate enters the room, surmises the situation, bends over and turns off the faucet.
TEST OVER
The drive for profit and the will of those in charge is what must be assaulted to fix all these other problems



ENERGY policy-, it isnt that there are no good solutions, those profiting from the current system dont want it, the PEOPLE do, The ELITE dont, look where we are



INSURANCE- people are paying lifetimes of premiums, but company officials act in the interest of stockholders, WITH RESPECT TO MONEY SPECIFICALLY EARMARKED FOR the people



SOCIAL SECURITY- same hustle, perhaps may yield more revenue, Guaranteed to cost 1.3 trillion to install, Wall Street paid out 23.9 billion in bonuses last month



CAR INDUSTRY- we could all be driving electric cars or going 80mpg in 5 yrs, but those
with the leverage dont want that. ELectric cars could revamp inner cities, restore industrial base, give us a viable export to developing countries, reduce unemployment, increase tax revenue, and we wouldnt have to import a single thing, But look where we are



VIEWED THRU THE PRISM THAT BUSH WILL NOT ACT UNLESS IT YIELDS HIM PROFIT must be recognized, NOTHING HE HAS DONE helps, despite the rhetoric and slogans, benefits the people, and unless he can graft 20% off each billion, its a non starter



PEOPLE ARE STARVING IN AFRICA< not even on the radar
but we have time for miitary intervention in Somalia, so we dont lose our leverage on the
largest untapped oil reserve remaining



Show hosts and pundits in particular must stop trying to sort out his COVER STORY, his father was CIA, you dont fake your way thru Yale and not learn a few trix (JR, not Sr) I actually respect George Sr, although he pulled the same racket,



***********8CREATE PUBLIC CRISIS, PROFIT FROM THE SOLUTION*********

Prescott bush HITLER, arms sales
George Bush Castro bay of pigs, ships the hit the beach, (BarbaraJ, and HOuston)
Vietnam TONKIN faked, but billions spent on war contracts, troops/ citizens screwed
Katrina billions saved by avoiding upkeep, billions GIVEN to Halliburton
people still screwed
Iraq II Saddam not a great guy, but wouldnt have existed without the aid Rumsfeld
shook hands on,(photo available)
billions spent, iraqis screwed, NOW were going to start a jobs program after 3 yrs



and once agani we have another military conflict of Republican/CIA origin, that Democrats will have to clean up and take the antiwar label for.



MILITARY Transition created a need by being irascible in UN, and every chance they can in public, Last night WE attacked Iranian embassy to dare Iran to respond.



Billions spent on military, but troops have no armor, outdated food (Sen Dorgan), low pay , unless its a sign up bonus, Higher premiums, and 1 billions shortfall at the V.A.



Bush does not care, and his mothers commentary about the Katrina refugees being better off billeting with families in Houston, give clear insight into the messages George got as a child.



HEs not stupid, hes not misinformed, hes purposely duplicitious, and at EVERY crossroad when faced with the choice between profit or public good, HE CHOOSES PROFIT 100%

We went into Iraq light , to boost profit like a low bid contract, (with no bidding, how ironic)
if it worked he got our corporate profit hooks sunk in and he looks like a hero
but if it went badly he went in just light enough to rip the scab off and keep it festering
keeps the budgets going and the graft going. there is less profit for him and his supporters with a solution, the only downside is a the soldier death, BUT SINCE THOSE DOING THE DYING ARENT in ANY POSITION TO PROFIT< there is your disconnect,


so in closing , Put down the mop, and turn off the faucet expose personal income vs the ECONOMY, they frequently say the economy is great,which is true, if you own stock. Bush is nothing if not loyal and consistent, true to th core for a subject born a Cancer/Dog (chinese astrology), He is simply engaging in the family business, fleecing the public for private gain. Grampa did it ( WWII), Papa did it
Korea/Vietnam/Middle East/ Iran Contra) Son( Iraq) VERY SIMPLE, and completely on the record.



While we do all this talking, the PETRO, PHARMA, MILITARY COMPLEX meter is running

purchasing more campaigns, fostering more judges and officials and politician.


Illuminotagain