Education Fosters Political Polarization

[Quintessence]

Every so often, I run across something that is so intriguingly counterintuitive at first brush that it makes me go "wow, really?" Enter one of today's opinion pieces on the New York Times which examines the relationship between a person's level of education and the strength of political affiliations:

"Should taxes on households making $250,000 or more a year be raised? When you ask Democrats this question, you get a very interesting answer: Those on the bottom of the income distribution appear to want lower taxes on high earners than those on the top do.

Among Democrats making less than $30,000, 48 percent say yes; among those making more than $75,000, 68 percent do, according to data provided to The Times by Bridget Johnson of the Pew Research Center. Among Democrats with high school degrees, 48 percent say yes; among those with college degrees, it’s 71 percent."
From - Opinion | Which Side Are You On?
​

Really? Yes, really. But the story gets more interesting. This graph included with the article uncovers what's going on with these strange numbers:

Opinion | Which Side Are You On?​

Really? Yes, really. I'm still scratching my head a bit at this one. Education is associated with bias and prejudice? What? Isn't education supposed to do the opposite?

 

[WalterTrull]

Two things: 1. There is a study out there to prove anything you would like to prove. 2. It's possible that education presents more fodder to the bias machine. Notice that the nearly moderate in this study became more moderate.

 

[suncowiam]

Every so often, I run across something that is so intriguingly counterintuitive at first brush that it makes me go "wow, really?" Enter one of today's opinion pieces on the New York Times which examines the relationship between a person's level of education and the strength of political affiliations:

"Should taxes on households making $250,000 or more a year be raised? When you ask Democrats this question, you get a very interesting answer: Those on the bottom of the income distribution appear to want lower taxes on high earners than those on the top do.

Among Democrats making less than $30,000, 48 percent say yes; among those making more than $75,000, 68 percent do, according to data provided to The Times by Bridget Johnson of the Pew Research Center. Among Democrats with high school degrees, 48 percent say yes; among those with college degrees, it’s 71 percent."
From - Opinion | Which Side Are You On?
​

Really? Yes, really. But the story gets more interesting. This graph included with the article uncovers what's going on with these strange numbers:

Opinion | Which Side Are You On?​

Really? Yes, really. I'm still scratching my head a bit at this one. Education is associated with bias and prejudice? What? Isn't education supposed to do the opposite?

I'm going to guess that this is an indirect correlation.

Education increases X... And X increases bias.

Maybe it increases confidence? Stubbornness?

The study doesn't root cause why, is all I'm saying.

 

[Stevicus]

Every so often, I run across something that is so intriguingly counterintuitive at first brush that it makes me go "wow, really?" Enter one of today's opinion pieces on the New York Times which examines the relationship between a person's level of education and the strength of political affiliations:

"Should taxes on households making $250,000 or more a year be raised? When you ask Democrats this question, you get a very interesting answer: Those on the bottom of the income distribution appear to want lower taxes on high earners than those on the top do.

Among Democrats making less than $30,000, 48 percent say yes; among those making more than $75,000, 68 percent do, according to data provided to The Times by Bridget Johnson of the Pew Research Center. Among Democrats with high school degrees, 48 percent say yes; among those with college degrees, it’s 71 percent."
From - Opinion | Which Side Are You On?
​

Really? Yes, really. But the story gets more interesting. This graph included with the article uncovers what's going on with these strange numbers:

Opinion | Which Side Are You On?​

Really? Yes, really. I'm still scratching my head a bit at this one. Education is associated with bias and prejudice? What? Isn't education supposed to do the opposite?

I'm scratching my head over this as well. I'm not even sure what this graph is supposed to prove.

One thing I've learned is that there is a difference between education and intelligence, as they don't always mean the same thing. Just like there's a difference between "book learning" and practical knowledge.

As for bias and prejudice, those qualities may be formulated when one's overall personality is formed, perhaps due to culture, environment, upbringing.

 

[metis]

Every so often, I run across something that is so intriguingly counterintuitive at first brush that it makes me go "wow, really?" Enter one of today's opinion pieces on the New York Times which examines the relationship between a person's level of education and the strength of political affiliations:

"Should taxes on households making $250,000 or more a year be raised? When you ask Democrats this question, you get a very interesting answer: Those on the bottom of the income distribution appear to want lower taxes on high earners than those on the top do.

Among Democrats making less than $30,000, 48 percent say yes; among those making more than $75,000, 68 percent do, according to data provided to The Times by Bridget Johnson of the Pew Research Center. Among Democrats with high school degrees, 48 percent say yes; among those with college degrees, it’s 71 percent."
From - Opinion | Which Side Are You On?
​

Really? Yes, really. But the story gets more interesting. This graph included with the article uncovers what's going on with these strange numbers:

Opinion | Which Side Are You On?​

Really? Yes, really. I'm still scratching my head a bit at this one. Education is associated with bias and prejudice? What? Isn't education supposed to do the opposite?

People with higher levels of education tend to observe more nuances than those with lower levels, and they are less likely to believe in simplistic "answers". Because of this, black & white (dichotomy) responses are often more replaced with shades of grey.

However, since they tend to better do their homework, once they conclude that X leads to Y, they are less willing to take "neutral" positions.

So, concluding that they have more bias and prejudice is really missing the mark. If through study Joe fully realizes that X leads to Y, that doesn't make Joe "biased" or "prejudice". Actually, many studies indicate that it's the other way around, namely that less educated people tend to have more bias, prejudice, and stereotypes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I would posit that as people become more wealthy - tied with age too - then they are more likely to become more conservative - which is possibly why the lefties are in shtuck since we all basically want people to get more affluent. And are any numbers attached to that graphic?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm going to guess that this is an indirect correlation.

Education increases X... And X increases bias.

Maybe it increases confidence? Stubbornness?

The study doesn't root cause why, is all I'm saying.

Some of that is elaborated on both in the opinion piece and the main study they pulled this from (see Education is Related to Greater Ideological Prejudice | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic if you're able). It's been well-established for decades now that education has a negative relationship with prejudice (that is, the more educated you are, the less prejudiced you are). This has held steady across a wide array of prejudices, ranging from religious prejudice to to racial prejudice. But, as the study points out, this hadn't really been looked at for political prejudices. They found results that bucked an otherwise well-established trend:

"Results from our analyses of nationally representative data of Americans collected over 40 years yielded clear and consistent support for our hypothesis that, in contrast to interethnic bias, which is negatively related to education, ideological prejudice is stronger among those with high (vs. low) levels of education. These results call into question the notion that education promotes tolerance toward those who are different."
Education is Related to Greater Ideological Prejudice | Public Opinion Quarterly | Oxford Academic
​

They offer a couple different explanations for this. I'd quote the whole thing for those who don't have access to the article, but it's kind of long so I'll summarize:

1. Education serves to refine our ideologies. Therefore, the more education we have, the more our political orientation will be tethered to deeply held moral values (aka, have a polarizing effect).
2. Almost all research on the negative relationship between education and prejudice has looked at socially devalued or marginalized groups. Liberals and conservatives are not socially devalued or marginalized groups, so education doesn't incline people to reduce their prejudice of groups that are opposed to their ideologies.

 

[Audie]

Two things: 1. There is a study out there to prove anything you would like to prove. 2. It's possible that education presents more fodder to the bias machine. Notice that the nearly moderate in this study became more moderate.

I am not prejudiced against, say, creationists.

I had no idea what they were, at onetime.

Now I do.

Call it postjudiced.

 

[Quintessence]

So, concluding that they have more bias and prejudice is really missing the mark. If through study Joe fully realizes that X leads to Y, that doesn't make Joe "biased" or "prejudice". Actually, many studies indicate that it's the other way around, namely that less educated people tend to have more bias, prejudice, and stereotypes.

Except, apparently, on political affiliation. That's what's remarkable about this study.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I'm going to guess that this is an indirect correlation.

Education increases X... And X increases bias.

Maybe it increases confidence? Stubbornness?

The study doesn't root cause why, is all I'm saying.

I agree with this. There are likely several variables at play here.
Access to higher education also usually comes with increased family wealth; not to mention that gaining higher ed also leads to greater wealth in turn.
Greater wealth tends to increase conservatism, yet higher education tends to lead to more progressive knowledge and voting.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="Stevicus, post: 5609452, member: 32922"

One thing I've learned is that there is a difference between education and intelligence, as they don't always mean the same thing. Just like there's a difference between "book learning" and practical knowledge.

[/QUOTE]

Of course there is a difference of sorts between IQ
and education, but people who were educated, as
little children-enrichment activities, all that- have
brains that develop differently than those who are
deprived.

Re book learning, if by that you mean memorizing the
definitions, dates, names etc, that is great for
passing history and biology tests.

It is much less useful in math.

What counts, I would say, is understanding. Concepts
learned from books, but thoroughly internalized
are great. And you do have to be some amount smart to do that.

 

[metis]

Except, apparently, on political affiliation. That's what's remarkable about this study.

Studies have shown that Democrats tend to have a very unusual pattern in that they are more highly represented at the extremes educationally, with their highest percent, as compared to Republicans, being either very low education or very high education.

 

[Quintessence]

So here's a question worth asking - in your own personal experience, do you feel your education solidified and entrenched your political leanings that you felt earlier in life, or not?

 

[Augustus]

Really? Yes, really. I'm still scratching my head a bit at this one. Education is associated with bias and prejudice? What? Isn't education supposed to do the opposite?

It could be that the "better" we are at reasoning, the better we are at justifying out ideologically conceived notions and presumptions and the better we are at finding fault with opposing views that we do not want to agree with.

Also perhaps that it makes people trust their own judgement better, and thus increases levels of intellectual arrogance.

Some additional studies with similar findings:

The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief

There is extensive evidence that people engage in motivated political reasoning, but recent research suggests that partisanship can alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgments. We propose an identity- based model of belief for understanding the influence of partisanship on these cognitive processes. This framework helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth... Because people believe that they see the world around them objectively, members of other parties who disagree with them are seen as uninformed, irrational, or biased [25].
...
In this vein, one study examined the relationship between math skills and political problem- solving [58]. In the control condition, people who were strong at math were able to effectively solve an analytical problem. However, when political content was added to the same analytical problem – comparing crime data in cities that banned handguns against cities that did not – math skills no longer predicted how well people solved the problem. Instead, liberals were good at solving the problem when it proved that gun control reduced crime, and conservatives were good at solving the problem when it proved the opposite. In short, people with high numeracy skills were unable to reason analytically when the correct answer collided with their political beliefs. This is consistent with research showing that people who score high on various indicators of information processing, such as political sophistication ([59]; although see [48]), science literacy [60], numeracy abilities [58], and cognitive reflection [61], are the most likely to express beliefs congruent with those of their party...

Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

Public opinion toward some science and technology issues is polarized along religious and political lines. We investigate whether people with more education and greater science knowledge tend to express beliefs that are more (or less) polarized. Using data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, we find that more knowledgeable individuals are more likely to express beliefs consistent with their religious or political identities for issues that have become polarized along those lines (e.g., stem cell research, human evolution), but not for issues that are controversial on other grounds (e.g., genetically modified foods). These patterns suggest that scientific knowledge may facilitate defending positions motivated by nonscientific concerns.

Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

 

[WalterTrull]

There is a study that shows tall people get sunburned more quickly than short people. Proximity is the logical conclusion. (*Author's note: study made with self-confessed standers. Liers were not studied.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm going to guess that this is an indirect correlation.

Education increases X... And X increases bias.

Maybe it increases confidence? Stubbornness?

The study doesn't root cause why, is all I'm saying.

Maybe it increases certainty. That would be my guess.

 

[Audie]

There is a study that shows tall people get sunburned more quickly than short people. Proximity is the logical conclusion. (*Author's note: study made with self-confessed standers. Liers were not studied.)

Now see, I am short, and reasonably well educated, and, I do not get sunburned at all. This is getting very confusing.

 

[YmirGF]

So here's a question worth asking - in your own personal experience, do you feel your education solidified and entrenched your political leanings that you felt earlier in life, or not?

For me, it has had the opposite effect. I was a flaming Socialist in my teens, a card-carrying Liberal up to my mid 30's and eventually slid to the dark side once I was north of 40. Throughout that time I've never stopped trying to educate myself and have always been a voracious reader.

 

[Nakosis]

Really? Yes, really. I'm still scratching my head a bit at this one. Education is associated with bias and prejudice? What? Isn't education supposed to do the opposite?

Well you have to be taught your political biases don't you?

Education also breeds certainty. You spent a lot of money/time learning this stuff so it's got to be the truth. Only the uneducated could fail to see that.

 

[Audie]

The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

Check what it does for understanding of acceptance of evolution,
historical geology and, say, C14 dating.