Intelligence and political bias

[Augustus]

An interesting paper on political bias (full text in link).

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].


Most of this is pretty clear (at least when we are looking at those of a different political persuasion), although I don't think many people are aware of the degree to which our strongly held beliefs can alter our perception of reality and inhibit objective analysis.

It is also worth noting that it applied to people across the political spectrum, which goes against the narrative that it 'science denial' is specifically a right-wing trend.

Something I found interesting was:

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...


Something we hear a lot is that "blindly following the party line" demonstrates a lack of intelligence or critical reasoning abilities. This is not something supported by the paper, which in fact shows somewhat the opposite.

It's always wise to be somewhat cautious with such results, although similar findings have been discussed in other papers. As well as our emotions inhibiting cognitive functionality, one thing that could be behind this is that superior reasoning abilities enable people to construct better reasons to not believe things that they do not want to accept as true.

Thoughts?

Are smart people sometimes more sheep-like than less intelligent people?

To what extent do you think your partisanship alters your memory, critical evaluation, and perceptual judgment?

 

[Polymath257]

Confirmation bias isn't unique to any political or social position. And intelligent people can find more ways to fall into confirmation bias.

 

[Sunstone]

There have been over the past decade or so (at least over the past decade or so) a growing body of scientific studies revealing that political views and opinions are often enough either the product of -- or at least heavily conditioned by -- irrational biases and brain functions. One of the implications of this evidence is that the notion that there is a "marketplace of ideas" which if allowed to function freely will result in bad ideas being weeded out and good ideas coming to the fore -- an implication is that that notion might not be supported by the evidence, and might even be contradicted by it.

 

[Curious George]

An interesting paper on political bias (full text in link).

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].


Most of this is pretty clear (at least when we are looking at those of a different political persuasion), although I don't think many people are aware of the degree to which our strongly held beliefs can alter our perception of reality and inhibit objective analysis.

It is also worth noting that it applied to people across the political spectrum, which goes against the narrative that it 'science denial' is specifically a right-wing trend.

Something I found interesting was:

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...


Something we hear a lot is that "blindly following the party line" demonstrates a lack of intelligence or critical reasoning abilities. This is not something supported by the paper, which in fact shows somewhat the opposite.

It's always wise to be somewhat cautious with such results, although similar findings have been discussed in other papers. As well as our emotions inhibiting cognitive functionality, one thing that could be behind this is that superior reasoning abilities enable people to construct better reasons to not believe things that they do not want to accept as true.

Thoughts?

Are smart people sometimes more sheep-like than less intelligent people?

To what extent do you think your partisanship alters your memory, critical evaluation, and perceptual judgment?

My thoughts are in agreement with this study, but is that my political bias?

I think it is helpful to understand all sides. I think that in addition to this type of confirmation bias, (could we call it analytical blindness?), people often vilify the other side of any political dispute.

This tactic is likely to further entrench them in their point of view which will make overcoming obstacles like this analytical blindness much harder.

I wonder how this obstacle would test after others were forced to argue for the opposite view as their own. If they were tasked with arguing for the other side, would it eliminate some of the analytical blindness?

 

[Curious George]

There have been over the past decade or so (at least over the past decade or so) a growing body of scientific studies revealing that political views and opinions are often enough either the product of -- or at least heavily conditioned by -- irrational biases and brain functions. One of the implications of this evidence is that the notion that there is a "marketplace of ideas" which if allowed to function freely will result in bad ideas being weeded out and good ideas coming to the fore -- an implication is that that notion might not be supported by the evidence, and might even be contradicted by it.

So on to the Republic and the philosopher kings? Or are there ways to make the marketplace work?

 

[shunyadragon]

The measure of Intelligence (Intelligence tests?) can be a bit subjective. I see a more complex picture as why political bias develops particularly to the point of extreme irrational polarization. Political bias(?) is a natural social response for the desire of a sense of community and belonging along with cultural and religious bias.

I consider attitudes of skepticism, rational abilities to comprehend and weigh differences, philosophical reflection, and the comprehension of the nature of diversity as examples of intellect qualities that would be more important than what may be called Intelligence measured (?) by tests.

 

[Augustus]

I consider attitudes of skepticism, rational abilities to comprehend and weigh differences, philosophical reflection, and the comprehension of the nature of diversity to examples of intellect qualities that would be more important than what may be called Intelligence measured by tests.

As you say, intelligence is not easily bottled and measured. It's interesting that these results seem to show some evidence of repetition across numerous different variables that could be classified as representing intelligence though.

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

 

[Mindmaster]

To what extent do you think your partisanship alters your memory, critical evaluation, and perceptual judgment?

All political parties are trying to screw you, so that's the only healthy disposition.

 

[David T]

Confirmation bias isn't unique to any political or social position. And intelligent people can find more ways to fall into confirmation bias.

Isnt this site dedicated to arguing our confirmation bias? There was a neurological researcher who developed a theory on confirmation bias. He then researched a wide variety of studies, put them into a book about how the brain makes mistakes. The problem was all the research was found to false. He wrote a book on how the brain functions and how errors arrise only to be completely wrong.
Moral of story, mother nature is big, very, very, big, we are very, very, small. We "believe," we are big and mother nature is very small. Some artists, a few scientists, and monks, get this at all.

 

[Nakosis]

All political parties are trying to screw you, so that's the only healthy disposition.

True if you're not a party member. Generally a party will go out of it's way to support a party member.

 

[David T]

There have been over the past decade or so (at least over the past decade or so) a growing body of scientific studies revealing that political views and opinions are often enough either the product of -- or at least heavily conditioned by -- irrational biases and brain functions. One of the implications of this evidence is that the notion that there is a "marketplace of ideas" which if allowed to function freely will result in bad ideas being weeded out and good ideas coming to the fore -- an implication is that that notion might not be supported by the evidence, and might even be contradicted by it.

The marketplace of ideas....
Is the theoretical statement about "marketplace of ideas" hetrological or autological to the it's theoretical statement "marketplace of ideas"?
In that, is it an objectively independent reality outside the marketplace of ideas, autological, or is it in the marketplace of ideas, hetrological? If its outside then what is that? If its inside that then it's it irrelevant noise of the marketplace.

 

[shunyadragon]

As you say, intelligence is not easily bottled and measured. It's interesting that these results seem to show some evidence of repetition across numerous different variables that could be classified as representing intelligence though.

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

Your moving the goal posts from intelligence to scientific literacy and education are not equivalent. You are addressing science bias here, and not political bias.

Scientific literacy and education will naturally lead to people holding to the scientific evidence for global warming, evolution and abiogenesis. These issues are not controversial to scientists. The degree of support among layman is related to education level in the sciences, and religious agenda, and not intelligence. The claim of controversy among layman is a different issue and not related to intelligence, nor the evidence of science. It is directly related to the conservative religious agenda that opposes these disciplines in science, which are noncontroversial in science

 

[Nous]

An interesting paper on political bias (full text in link).

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].


Most of this is pretty clear (at least when we are looking at those of a different political persuasion), although I don't think many people are aware of the degree to which our strongly held beliefs can alter our perception of reality and inhibit objective analysis.

It is also worth noting that it applied to people across the political spectrum, which goes against the narrative that it 'science denial' is specifically a right-wing trend.

Something I found interesting was:

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...


Something we hear a lot is that "blindly following the party line" demonstrates a lack of intelligence or critical reasoning abilities. This is not something supported by the paper, which in fact shows somewhat the opposite.

It's always wise to be somewhat cautious with such results, although similar findings have been discussed in other papers. As well as our emotions inhibiting cognitive functionality, one thing that could be behind this is that superior reasoning abilities enable people to construct better reasons to not believe things that they do not want to accept as true.

Thoughts?

Are smart people sometimes more sheep-like than less intelligent people?

To what extent do you think your partisanship alters your memory, critical evaluation, and perceptual judgment?

Partisanship or partisan bias (I actually prefer the word "partisanism") is a form of bigotry, as I noted in an OP a while back, here: The Increase of Partisan Bias, Blindness and Bigotry

Partisan bias is a type of bigotry, an irrational animus toward another group. Indeed, in another series of studies published in 2014, Stanford U. political science professor Shanto Iyengar and Princeton U. post-doc researcher Sean Westwood showed that partisan bias is stronger among Americans now than racist bigotry:

When defined in terms of social identity and affect toward co-partisans and opposing partisans, the polarization of the American electorate has dramatically increased. We document the scope and consequences of affective polarization of partisans using implicit, explicit and behavioral indicators. Our evidence demonstrates that hostile feelings for the opposing party are ingrained or automatic in voters’ minds, and that affective polarization based on party is just as strong as polarization based on race. We further show that party cues exert powerful effects on non-political judgments and behaviors. Partisans discriminate against opposing partisans, and do so to a degree that exceeds discrimination based on race. We note that the willingness of partisans to display open animus for opposing partisans can be attributed to the absence of norms governing the expression of negative sentiment and that increased partisan affect provides an incentive for elites to engage in confrontation rather than cooperation.​

http://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2014/iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf

In the study whose findings struck me as most disturbing, partisan participants demonstrated their willingness to deny deserving high school graduates a college scholarship, which was intended to be awarded on academic merit, due to the merely offhand mention of the student's extraciricular participation in an opposing party-affiliated activity, and instead awarded the scholarship to a less deserving student who was associated with the participants' party. Other studies showed participants' greater trust and generosity toward others on the basis of party affiliation, even when doing so ran counter to participants' own interests, and participants negatively evaluated those affiliated with the opposing political party for traits that they positively evaluated when exhibited by people of their own party.​

 

[Revoltingest]

Partisan bias is a type of bigotry, an irrational animus toward another group.​

It needn't be so.
Partisan bais can be a preference for a group's values & agendas.
It can have acknowledgement that one doesn't have The Truth,
& that other groups have different values & agendas without
dismissing them as being wrong.

"Partisan prejudice" would be different though.

 

[Nous]

It needn't be so.
Partisan bais can be a preference for a group's values & agendas.
It can have acknowledgement that one doesn't have The Truth,
& that other groups have different values & agendas without
dismissing them as being wrong.

"Partisan prejudice" would be different though.

All true. But it is less likely that one will come up with catchy phrases with those subtleties and qualifications than with my sweeping generalizations.

In any case, these days partisan affiliation seems to be largely a substitute for those traditional kinds of bigotry (and the worse aspects of religious affiliation). It's isn't socially acceptable for white Americans to denigrate African Americans any more, but, by God, one can say and do any awful thing about/to the awful people who are members of the other party. The studies show that for staunch partisans it doesn't matter what the policy or law being proposed is--as long as one's party leaders are for it or against it, it's right and good or wrong and horrible.