Identity Protective Cognition

Dan Kahan at Yale University's Cultural Cognition Project studies identity protective cognition. In a working paper, Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-protective Cognition, he discusses identity protective cognition.

ABSTRACT: This paper supplies a compact synthesis of the empirical literature on misconceptions of and misinformation about decision-relevant science. The incidence and impact of misconceptions and misperceptions, the article argues, are highly conditional on identity protective cognition. Identity protective cognition refers to the tendency of culturally diverse individuals to selectively credit and dismiss evidence in patterns that reflect the beliefs that predominate in their group. On issues that provoke identity-protective cognition, the members of the public most adept at avoiding misconceptions of science are nevertheless the most culturally polarized. Individuals are also more likely to accept misinformation and resist the correction of it when that misinformation is identity-affirming rather than identity-threatening. Effectively counteracting these dynamics, the paper argues, requires more than simply supplying citizens with correct information. It demands in addition the protection of the science communication environment from toxic social meanings that fuse competing understandings of fact with diverse citizens’ cultural identities.

INTRODUCTION: This paper investigates the role that “misinformation” and “misconceptions of science” play in political controversies over decision-relevant science (DRS). The surmise that their contribution is large is eminently plausible. Ordinary members of the public, we are regularly reminded (e.g., National Science Foundation 2014, 2016), display only modest familiarity with fundamental scientific findings, and lack proficiency in the forms of critical reasoning essential to science comprehension (Marx et al. 2007; Weber 2006). As a result, they are easily misled by special interest groups, who flood public discourse with scientifically unfounded claims on global warming, genetically modified foods, and other issues (e.g., Hmielowski et al. 2013). I will call this perspective the “public irrationality thesis” (PIT).

The unifying theme of this paper is that PIT itself reflects a misconception of a particular form of science: namely, the science of science communication. One of the major tenets of this emerging body of work is that public controversy over DRS typically originates in identity-protective cognition—a tendency to selectively credit and discredit evidence in patterns that reflect people’s commitments to competing cultural groups (Sherman & Cohen 2002, 2006). Far from evincing irrationality, this pattern of reasoning promotes the interests of individual members of the public, who have a bigger personal stake in fitting in with important affinity groups than in forming correct perceptions of scientific evidence. Indeed, the members of the public who are most polarized over DRS are the ones who have the highest degree of science comprehension, a capacity that they actively employ to form and persist in identity-protective beliefs (Kahan 2015a).

The problem, in short, is not a gullible, manipulated public; it is a polluted science communication environment. The pollution consists of antagonistic social meanings that put individuals in the position of having to choose between using their reason to discern what science knows or using it instead to express their group commitments. Safeguarding the science communication environment from such meanings, and repairing it where protective measures fail, should be the principle aim of those committed to assuring that society makes full use of the vast stock of DRS at its disposal (Kahan 2015b)

Is Kahan right to argue that the problem is a polluted science communication environment and not a gullible or manipulated public? For example, the president met yesterday with propagandists of the radical right and praised their efforts at deceiving and manipulating the public, commenting no their propaganda tactics: "The crap you think of is unbelievable. I mean it's genius — but it's bad." That evinces manipulation broader than just science-based content. Is there a difference between a polluted science communication environment and a manipulated public?

B&B orig: 7/12/19

The Will of the People: Legislators Do Not Care

“Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts,” Gilens and Page write: Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

That’s a big claim. In their conclusion, Gilens and Page go even further, asserting that “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.” New Yorker magazine, 2014

Writing an opinion piece for the New York Times, political scientists Joshua Kalla and Ethan Porter report on a two-year study. They write:

We like to think that politicians care about what their constituents want. If voters in a legislative district have certain views about, say, the legality of abortion, we assume that their representative’s decisions will be shaped, or at least influenced, by those views. To a large extent, democracy depends on this assumption: The beliefs of voters should be reflected, however imperfectly, in the leaders they elect.

But there is reason to question this assumption. It is easy to think of issues, climate change and gun control chief among them, where the consensus of public opinion has provoked little legislative action. How much do legislators really care about the views of their constituents?

Over the past two years, we conducted a study to find out. We provided state legislators in the United States with access to highly detailed public opinion survey data — more detailed than almost all available opinion polls — about their constituents’ attitudes on gun control, infrastructure spending, abortion and many other policy issues. Afterward, we gauged the willingness of representatives to look at the data as well as how the data affected their perceptions of their constituents’ opinions.

What we found should alarm all Americans. An overwhelming majority of legislators were uninterested in learning about their constituents’ views. Perhaps more worrisome, however, was that when the legislators who did view the data were surveyed afterward, they were no better at understanding what their constituents wanted than legislators who had not looked at the data. For most politicians, voters’ views seemed almost irrelevant.

No one wants or expects politicians to march in lock step with their voters. Politicians are not supposed to mechanically replace their own views with the views of their constituents. But constituents’ perspectives should carry considerable weight. Our study suggests that for most politicians, voters’ views carry almost no weight at all.

What Kalla and Porter describe in this opinion piece accords with the Gilens and Page (Yale U. and Northwestern U., respectively) analysis from 2104.[1] Kalla and Porter's research shows a clear indifference by legislators as to what voters want, and when they do pay attention, they usually misunderstand what voters want.

Footnote:
1. The abstract from a Gilens and Page paper in Perspectives on Politics:

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.

A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. (emphasis added)

B&B orig: 7/12/19

The President's New Media Strategy?

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it. . . . . The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

The President hosted conservative provocateurs yesterday at the White House for a 'free speech' summit. One source writes that he "welcomed prominent conservative social media provocateurs to the White House and said that along with himself, they are being treated unfairly by big tech firms, which he says suppress conservative voices." The president was quoted as saying "We're not going to be silenced . . . . Big tech must not censor the voices. The crap you think of is unbelievable. I mean it's genius — but it's bad" as he complained about fluctuations in the number of his Twitter followers and praised the liars who support him.

Another source comments:

President Trump used a White House conference Thursday to applaud far-right social media provocateurs even as he conceded that some of them are extreme in their views. Trump, who has weaponized social media to eviscerate opponents and promote himself, led a "social media summit" of like-minded critics of Big Tech, excluding representatives from the very platforms he exploits, the AP reports. The president used the event to air grievances over his treatment by Big Tech, but also to praise some of the most caustic voices on the right, who help energize Trump's political base. "Some of you guys are out there," he told them. "I mean it's genius, but it's bad."

Trump praised James O'Keefe, whose Project Veritas organization once tried to plant a false story in the Washington Post. In May 2010, O'Keefe and three others pleaded guilty in federal court to a misdemeanor in a scheme in which they posed as telephone repairmen in Sen. Mary Landrieu's New Orleans office. "He's not controversial, he's truthful," Trump insisted of O'Keefe. Trump told the friendly crowd, "You're bypassing the very, very corrupt media." The meeting represented an escalation of Trump's battle with Facebook, Google and Twitter. The president has claimed, without evidence, that the companies are "against me" and even suggested US regulators should sue them on grounds of anti-conservative bias. He announced Thursday that he is directing his administration to explore "all regulatory and legislative solutions to protect free speech and the free-speech rights of all Americans." (emphasis added)

This may turn out to be another step toward the deeply corrupt, lies-based tyranny the president is intent on building in the US. Going forward, the president may simply stop talking to all responsible media sources that try to report truth. Instead he may opt to rely on friendly propaganda sites to communicate his dark free speech[1] to the American people. It may be the case that the professional MSM is often or usually unreasonably biased, fails to be honest (comprehensive) enough and/or plagued by other factors that impair its professionalism or the veracity of its content.

That said, our imperfect MSM is far better than the kind of obviously dark free speech-based sources that our dark free speech-driven president apparently wants to deal with. Or is that point debatable?

Footnote:
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or otherwise protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide corruption (~ lies and deceit of omission), and inconvenient truths and facts, and (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism.

B&B orig: 7/12/19

Different Points of View, Different Realities

In 2014, the US Geological Survey drew up this map showing how land accrued to the American nation over time. It shows the process from the official American history point of view.

Claudio Saunt, the associate director of the Institute of Native American Studies at the University of Georgia produced this 1½ minute video showing land acquisition from the Native American point of view.



The two versions of history look different. Different points of view can create different realities. Are both realities correct but arguably incomplete, is one false and the other true, or is one just more accurate than the other?

What about fact, truth and logic?: Does the same apply to fact, truth and logic in politics, if not everything else? Objectively true facts do not change with point of view, but truths can. If truths can vary with point of view, then that can affect logic and beliefs based thereon.

This is a factor that arguably can make at least some political disagreements unresolvable because people do not know about different points of view.

By relying on only one point of view when there are two or more legitimate points of view, the speaker is arguably lying or BSing, depending on the speaker's knowledge and intent. If that is true, honest speech requires at least that context. People need to know about relevant, significant differing points of view to assess the veracity of what is presented.

That kind of honest context is rare to non-existent in partisan political speech. Arguably, it is not nearly common enough in news reporting. Maybe it is not common enough here at Dissident Politics.

B&B orig: 7/14/19

Pure Opinion vs. Fact- and Logic-Based Analysis

A couple of days ago, a commenter criticized part of a B&B discussion and I responded. It went like this.

Criticism: There is nothing true in the following paragraph you wrote. It is simply an emotional appeal based on opinion.

This may turn out to be another step toward the deeply corrupt, lies-based tyranny the president is intent on building in the US. Going forward, the president may simply stop talking to all responsible media sources that try to report truth. Instead he may opt to rely on friendly propaganda sites to communicate his dark free speech[1] to the American people. It may be the case that the professional MSM is often or usually unreasonably biased, fails to be honest (comprehensive) enough and/or plagued by other factors that impair its professionalism or the veracity of its content.

My response: That includes reasonable opinion based on fact. That is a legitimate basis for public discourse.

Facts:
1. Trump is corrupt because, for example, (i) he sees nothing wrong with continuing to profit from his businesses, (ii) he has a public track record of corrupt business practices, and (iii) he continues to refuse to show his tax returns
2. Trump has been very clear in public that he likes dictators and dictatorship, and he would like to have their kind of power for life
3. Trump has openly and repeatedly complained that the US press is the enemy of the people and he hates them and he would shut the press down if he could
4. He has an unmatched track record of lying, deceiving withholding facts and information and bullstiting the American people compared to all recent US presidents, and probably to all US presidents ever
5. He has an unmatched track record of contempt for the rule of law as evidenced by his refusal to comply with congressional oversight 6. He has an undeniable track record of surrounding himself with criminals and liars
7. He hosted propagandists at the White House and praised them, even though they spew lies and deceit
8. The professional MSM has a much better public track record of telling the truth than the lying propagandists that Trump invited to the White House

The opinions, e.g., the president is working toward a deeply corrupt, lies-based tyranny flows directly from the underlying facts. There is no leap of logic that is not firmly grounded in fact. Given the facts, it is perfectly reasonable to think that Trump might simply stop talking to White House press corps MSM sources and try to put lying propagandists the White House press corps and speak only to them.

So, what's the flaw(s) in any of that? Is Trump honest and not a chronic liar? Does he hate dictatorship? Did he not invite lying propagandists to the White House and praise them? Are some or all of the asserted facts not true? Are the opinions unwarranted in view of the facts or based on flawed logic? Is this just pure (100%) emotional appeal based on no facts or reality whatever, or is there some reasonable degree of fact- and/or logic-based content in it?

The concern: Are the eight things above that are called facts not really facts, and at best are only debatable truths? How much evidence does it take to elevate an opinion from just an opinion to a matter of debatable truth or even not debatable fact? Am I just irrationally rationalizing this? Is the criticized paragraph nothing more than pure personal opinion with an insufficient link to reality for the eight asserted "facts" to amount to truth and/or fact?

In other words, am I unreasonably self-deluded or reality-detached here? And elsewhere?

B&B orig: 7/15/19

Race-Based Politics?

A New York Times article alleges that the President's recent remarks are racist and have hit a new low. Is that mostly true or is it just the biased corporate media spewing hateful propaganda?

WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Sunday that a group of four minority congresswomen feuding with Speaker Nancy Pelosi should “go back” to the countries they came from rather than “loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States” how to run the government.

Wrapped inside that insult, which was widely established as a racist trope, was a factually inaccurate claim: Only one of the lawmakers was born outside the country.

Even though Mr. Trump has repeatedly refused to back down from stoking racial divisions, his willingness to deploy a lowest-rung slur — one commonly and crudely used to single out the perceived foreignness of nonwhite, non-Christian people — was largely regarded as beyond the pale.

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, “now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.”

Mr. Trump added: “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.”

{In saying “go back,” President Trump fanned the flames of a racial fire, our correspondent says in an analysis.[1]}

Delivered on the day he had promised widespread immigration raids, Mr. Trump’s comments signaled a new low in how far he will go to affect public discourse surrounding the issue. And if his string of tweets wa

s meant to further widen Democratic divisions in an intraparty fight, the strategy appeared quickly to backfire: House Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, rallied around the women, declaring in blunt terms that Mr. Trump’s words echoed other xenophobic comments he has made about nonwhite immigrants.

{When it comes to race, Mr. Trump plays with fire like no other president in a century.[1]}

As the president’s remarks reverberated around Twitter, a chorus of Americans took to social media to say that they had heard some version of Mr. Trump’s words throughout their lives, beginning with childhood taunts on the playground. Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey and a presidential candidate, joined scores of people who said it was jarring to hear the phrase from the president.

Ms. Pelosi may have offered the bluntest take on Mr. Trump’s comments when she said his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” “has always been about making America white again.”

But only one of the women, Ms. Omar, who is from Somalia, was born outside the United States. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was born in the Bronx to parents of Puerto Rican descent. Ms. Pressley, who is black, was born in Cincinnati and raised in Chicago. And Ms. Tlaib was born in Detroit to Palestinian immigrants.

“These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

Representative Joaquin Castro, Democrat of Texas and the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, called Mr. Trump a “bigot.” Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, who left the Republican Party this month over differences with Mr. Trump and is the child of Syrian and Palestinian immigrants, declared the comments “racist and disgusting.”

All four lawmakers in “the squad” eventually weighed in and responded to the president. “You are stoking white nationalism,” Ms. Omar said, because “you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda.”

Truth, propaganda or both?: Is the NYT presenting a basically honest picture, is it mostly propaganda or is it a roughly equal mix of truth and lies-propaganda? Is it something else, and if so, what?

Some research indicates that the most important source of support for the president in the 2016 election arose from unease among white voters at an impending demographic change from majority white to majority minority, coupled with unease over globalization and a perception that America was losing power and influence.[2] Economic concerns were second. If that data is correct, Trump's remarks can arguably be seen as playing the race card and maybe even racist.

Trump and his most or all of his supporters will reject that, probably arguing that the target of his comments are ingrates who attack and undermine America, none of which has anything to do with race. Is it racist to tell members of congress, or any American citizen, to go back to where they came from? Are members of congress allowed to criticize American policy and advocate for change?

Is this mostly liberal biased corporate media making an issue out of essentially nothing. Or, is it something more troubling than just crude politics in our new era of crudeness? Can one argue that Trump is dismantling another social norm that used to keep most people from making racist comments in public, or is there nothing racist at all in what Trump said?

Are there better arguments one can make in Trump's defense? If so, what are they?

Footnotes:
1.

WASHINGTON — President Trump woke up on Sunday morning, gazed out at the nation he leads, saw the dry kindling of race relations and decided to throw a match on it. It was not the first time, nor is it likely to be the last. He has a pretty large carton of matches and a ready supply of kerosene.

His Twitter harangue goading Democratic congresswomen of color to “go back” to the country they came from, even though most of them were actually born in the United States, shocked many. But it should have surprised few who have watched the way he has governed a multicultural, multiracial country the last two and a half years.

When it comes to race, Mr. Trump plays with fire like no other president in a century. While others who occupied the White House at times skirted close to or even over the line, finding ways to appeal to the resentments of white Americans with subtle and not-so-subtle appeals, none of them in modern times fanned the flames as overtly, relentlessly and even eagerly as Mr. Trump.

2. “This study evaluates the “left behind” thesis as well as dominant group status threat as an alternative narrative explaining Trump’s popular appeal and ultimate election to the presidency. Evidence points overwhelmingly to perceived status threat among high-status groups as the key motivation underlying Trump support. White Americans’ declining numerical dominance in the United States together with the rising status of African Americans and American insecurity about whether the United States is still the dominant global economic superpower combined to prompt a classic defensive reaction among members of dominant groups.”

B&B orig: 7/15/19