Do politics make us irrational? - Jay Van Bavel
In 2013, a team of researchers
held a math test.
The exam was administered
to over 1,100 American adults,
and designed, in part, to test
their ability to evaluate sets of data.
Hidden among these math problems
were two almost identical questions.
Both problems
used the same difficult data set,
and each had one objectively
correct answer.
The first asked about the correlation
between rashes and a new skin cream.
The second asked about the correlation
between crime rates
and gun control legislation.
Participants with strong math skills
were much more likely
to get the first question correct.
But despite being
mathematically identical,
the results for the second question
looked totally different.
Here, math skills
weren’t the best predictor
of which participants answered correctly.
Instead, another variable the researchers
had been tracking came into play:
political identity.
Participants whose political beliefs
aligned with a correct interpretation
of the data
were far more likely
to answer the problem right.
Even the study’s top mathematicians
were 45% more likely
to get the second question wrong
when the correct answer
challenged their political beliefs.
What is it about politics that inspires
this kind of illogical error?
Can someone’s political identity
actually affect their ability
to process information?
The answer lies in a cognitive phenomenon
that has become increasingly visible
in public life: partisanship.
While it’s often invoked
in the context of politics,
partisanship is more broadly defined
as a strong preference or bias
towards any particular group or idea.
Our political, ethnic, religious,
and national identities
are all different forms of partisanship.
Of course, identifying with social groups
is an essential and healthy part
of human life.
Our sense of self is defined not only by
who we are as individuals,
but also by the groups we belong to.
As a result, we’re strongly motivated
to defend our group identities,
protecting both our sense of self
and our social communities.
But this becomes a problem
when the group’s beliefs
are at odds with reality.
Imagine watching your favorite sports team
commit a serious foul.
You know that’s against the rules,
but your fellow fans
think it’s totally acceptable.
The tension between
these two incompatible thoughts
is called cognitive dissonance,
and most people are driven to resolve
this uncomfortable state of limbo.
You might start to blame the referee,
complain that the other team started it,
or even convince yourself
there was no foul in the first place.
In a case like this,
people are often more motivated
to maintain a positive relationship
with their group
than perceive the world accurately.
This behavior
is especially dangerous in politics.
On an individual scale,
allegiance to a party allows people
to create a political identity
and support policies they agree with.
But partisan-based cognitive dissonance
can lead people to reject evidence
that’s inconsistent with the party line
or discredits party leaders.
And when entire groups of people revise
the facts in service of partisan beliefs,
it can lead to policies
that aren’t grounded in truth or reason.
This problem isn’t new—
political identities
have been around for centuries.
But studies show
that partisan polarization
has increased dramatically
in the last few decades.
One theory explaining this increase
is the trend towards clustering
geographically in like-minded communities.
Another is the growing tendency
to rely on partisan news
or social media bubbles.
These often act like echo chambers,
delivering news and ideas
from people with similar views.
Fortunately, cognitive scientists
have uncovered some strategies
for resisting this distortion filter.
One is to remember that you’re probably
more biased than you think.
So when you encounter new information,
make a deliberate effort
to push through your initial intuition
and evaluate it analytically.
In your own groups, try to make
fact-checking and questioning assumptions
a valued part of the culture.
Warning people that they might have been
presented with misinformation
can also help.
And when you’re trying
to persuade someone else,
affirming their values
and framing the issue in their language
can help make people more receptive.
We still have a long way to go before
solving the problem of partisanship.
But hopefully, these tools
can help keep us better informed,
and capable of making evidence-based
decisions about our shared reality.
