The Ideological Insulation Of Motivated Ignorance: Or, "La, La, La, La, I'm Not Listening!"
Social psychologists Jeremy Frimer, Linda Skitka, and Matt Motyl wrote back in 2017 in the LA Times:
In the wake of the 2016 election, there's been a lot of talk about how Americans are stuck in partisan bubbles, especially on Facebook and Twitter. Anecdotes like the ones above remind us that bubbles don't happen accidentally or passively. Instead, many politically minded people are in a state of motivated ignorance: They neither know -- nor want to know -- what the opposition has to say.As social psychologists, we wondered whether liberals and conservatives were equally resistant to learning about one another's views. Some psychology studies, for instance, have suggested that conservatives are more prone to the confirmation bias -- meaning they selectively consume information, like biased news, that aligns with their preexisting opinions. But we weren't so sure that liberals were any more open-minded.
So we created some experiments to check. In one, we offered a chance to win $10 to participants who opposed letting gay couples marry. There was a catch: To qualify for the prize drawing, they had to read eight arguments for legalizing same-sex marriage. As an alternative, they could read eight anti-same-sex marriage statements -- but any potential prize money would be reduced to $7. Greed and curiosity were teamed up against motivated ignorance.
Motivated ignorance won. Most conservatives (61%) chose to stay in their bubble and forgo the extra cash.
And when we gave liberals the same dilemma? Slightly more, 64%, chose to stay in their bubble.
Why were they so dug in? It wasn't that they already knew the opposing arguments.
...In a separate study, people we surveyed said they anticipated getting angry if they were to listen to the other side, and suspected that it might damage their relationship with the person spouting off.
And the cost:
Talking past each other is deeply unhealthy for our entire political system. A functioning democracy requires that citizens make informed choices -- which voters can't do if their information sources are ideologically monochromatic. Motivated ignorance replaces the marketplace of ideas with two isolated, noncompeting monopolies.
And an approach. Doesn't always work -- but has a better chance of working than trying to hammer somebody with your point of view:
But I explain in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck" that we read verbal attacks like we do physical ones - they gin up same bodily offense system. So it's important to present things nonconfrontationally - as well as being a conversational cooperator: Listening https://t.co/RLQ6nH6qFU
— Amy Alkon (@amyalkon) July 8, 2018
Very few people have rational arguments for their beliefs.
And the people that do aren't interested in reading through poorly thought out tripe on either side of the issue for a lousy ten bucks.
I have to wonder what these *social scientists* think the rational argumemnts are on either side of such a contentious issue?
I made the mistake of offering to car pool on a 2600 mile round trip with a guy who gets all of his political opinions straight out of the op ed pages of the New York times.
Trust me, their is no possibility of a reasonable discussion going on here, or any mind changing.
I have been nice, but wont make myself a captive audience again. My truck, and I felt like kicking him out in the middle of Nebraska. He is deep deep into Trump deragement syndrome.
Isab at July 9, 2018 12:09 AM
"You can interact with people from other political ideologies and work with them to advance a mutual agenda. Everyone who has ever been employed in a normal job knows this for a fact. You can trust yourself to know on what issues and to what extent this can happen. You are wiser than the groupthink. Rise above it."
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/a-year-ago-i-wrote-about-cross-ideological-collaboration-heres-how-it-s-been-going-97aeab8cd87f
Snoopy at July 9, 2018 3:42 AM
The American “free press,” which is not like Russian state media, helped the FBI in Manafort investigation -
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2018/07/08/manafort-justice-department-reporters-701906
Snoopy at July 9, 2018 4:02 AM
Not one pundit who gave an inaccurate prediction lost a job -
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1016079192604139520
Snoopy at July 9, 2018 4:04 AM
That is why I won't visit my sister Isab. Being able to drive away and lock my door to get some peace and quiet is no longer negotiable.
Ben at July 9, 2018 6:18 AM
MSM and the politically biased higher education system have created the monster that is causing a political civil war that will divide the American nation and it's people while their enemies proper
Rome burned first from within
and all the barbarians had to do was
just wait
and the plum fell into their hand
Graham Palmer at July 9, 2018 6:57 AM
I made the mistake of offering to car pool on a 2600 mile round trip with a guy who gets all of his political opinions straight out of the op ed pages of the New York times.
_______________________________________
Seems to me the mistake was not finding out beforehand whether the man could be trusted to be POLITE enough not to talk about classic taboo subjects - religion, politics, and sex.
Of course, plenty of people don't KNOW those are, traditionally, taboo.
And for those who think it's unfair to apply that rule to adults...
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-01-01/features/9801010196_1_miss-manners-etiquette-vulgarity
Excerpt (about one-third):
"...Miss Manners recognizes that the relaxation of the old rules has permitted a few gratifying compliments -- along with a lot of embarrassing personal remarks and intrusions. She understands that people's work and interests may coincide to produce interesting conversation about their fields -- and a great risk of boring shop talk and vulgar networking.
"But she balks at the idea that we can all now be trusted to enliven our social lives by discussing important political, social and religious issues.
"How enlightening or enjoyable is social conversation among an assortment of people who have strong feelings about, say, the morality of abortion, assisted suicide or capital punishment, the effects on society of the welfare system or affirmative action, or whether sex education or prayer should be permitted in public schools?
"It isn't as though etiquette is opposed to airing controversy. On the contrary (so to speak): It prides itself on its specialty of providing rules for the very situations where controversial matters are most strenuously contested, such as courtrooms, classrooms and meetings. Etiquette (usually supplied by the rules of order of Miss Manners' colleagues Messrs. Robert or Riddick) is what keeps debate fair and to the point, rather than allowing one person to dominate or the whole thing to deteriorate into an exchange of insults.
"So it is a terrible insult to etiquette to characterize it as running around seeking superficial agreement at the cost of meaningful debate.
"But such rules cannot be invoked in social settings...
(snip)
lenona at July 9, 2018 11:09 AM
As is usual, the investigators got the wrong end of the stick. To a conservative, the gay marriage issue is sickening and to the progressive anyone opposed is evil, so in neither case will they want to read the opponents views for $10 (I don't). HOWEVER what they should have asked was can they give a statement of what the other side believes. It has been found in other studies that conservatives are quite aware of the arguments that Progressives use on any issue (abortion is about "rights" for example) but progressives just call conservatives deplorable and cannot verbalize their viewpoint or give it any credence at all.
cc at July 9, 2018 12:40 PM
I think it is quite revealing that when Amy posts about the merits/importance of holding rational discussions with those who disagree with you that the immediate reflex response of some posters is to declare that rational discourse is essentially impossible.
I have lots of lovely rational conversations with people across the political aisle all the time... just not on this blog.
I think the take home message is that if for some reason you find it impossible to hold calm and rational conversations with anyone across the political aisle... the problem is probably internal and not external.
Artemis at July 9, 2018 12:41 PM
CC Says:
"It has been found in other studies that conservatives are quite aware of the arguments that Progressives use on any issue (abortion is about "rights" for example) but progressives just call conservatives deplorable and cannot verbalize their viewpoint or give it any credence at all."
Can you please provide a link to these studies you are referencing?
It has been my experience that conservatives do not have the foggiest clue what people on the left are actually arguing for.
Just random claims of socialism, libtard, and snowflake... not exactly cause for celebration in terms of understanding policy positions.
Artemis at July 9, 2018 12:45 PM
“Seems to me the mistake was not finding out beforehand whether the man could be trusted to be POLITE enough not to talk about classic taboo subjects - religion, politics, and sex.”
And how does a polite person find that out? You just dont repeat the error. Next year it will not happen.
It seems to me, the mistake was his, assuming that because I and my other passenger were in agreement with him on one minor issue, the Second Amendement, that we would be in agreement on everything else.
“I have lots of lovely rational conversations with people across the political aisle all the time... just not on this blog.”
Gee, I wonder why that is?
“It has been my experience that conservatives do not have the foggiest clue what people on the left are actually arguing for.”
We understand quite well what policies they are arguing for, we just dont think the totalitarian all powerful police state required to implement those policy preferences is a place we want to live.
Isab at July 9, 2018 1:21 PM
the immediate reflex response of some posters is to declare that rational discourse is essentially impossible
Well, there are some who will tell you than anyone to the right of Mao is a Nazi, and that it is OK, nay, laudable to punch Nazi's, how does one have a conversation?
Conversely, how does one have a rational discourse with someone whom you consider a Nazi?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 9, 2018 1:39 PM
Related:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/08/reines-tweets-payback/
They've gone from "bake the damn cake" to "you better refuse certain people service or else." Again: how can one have any useful conversation with someone who demands your immediate and unconditional rhetorical surrender?
I R A Darth Aggie at July 9, 2018 1:45 PM
It has been my experience that conservatives do not have the foggiest clue what people on the left are actually arguing for.
Ocasio-Cortez gives a pretty good list. Sometimes, all you need to do is listen.
https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1013784599019782145
Open borders/Abolish ICE
Medicare for all
Housing as a human right
Jobs guarantee
Gun control
Clean Campaign Finance
Higher Ed for all
Mobilizing against climate change
Pretty sure she's onboard with $15/hour. So, as Adam Baldwin asked who pays? also, what is meant by gun control? is it the usual nonsense that does nothing, or are we talking actual confiscation?
Also: you can have a welfare state, or you can have open borders, but you can not have both. Economic ruin lies there.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 9, 2018 2:04 PM
CC is probably referring to this study, which made the rounds a few years ago - http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/manuscripts/graham.nosek.submitted.moral-stereotypes-of-libs-and-cons.pub601.pdf
There have been similar surveys by Pew w/ consistent findings.
Basically, when asked to characterize or attribute beliefs of other political groups, Liberals are shown to have the least realistic a/o accurate understanding of other's views. The gap is actually pretty dramatic.
Moderates and Conservatives have a decent understanding of Liberal beliefs and attitudes. They can correctly ascribe those beliefs and estimate their intensity.
But Liberals, and especially those who describe themselves as 'very liberal' have a wildly inaccurate view of others. They actually do believe that non-Liberals are evil people.
I suspect this is why Liberals tend to be so deranged and hateful towards their opponents.
melmo at July 9, 2018 4:25 PM
Interesting study, Melmo. I was especially struck by this part in the beginning...
"...liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do."
...since liberals tend to espouse a more group-centric socio-economic philosophy while conservatives tend to champion the "rugged individualism" school of thought.
Conan the Grammarian at July 9, 2018 4:55 PM
I'm with CC and Melmo. Give me a test on the other side's beliefs, I can probably give you 90% of their talking points without even trying.
But unlike them, I do not give the left credit for being liberals. They're absolutely illiberal.
jdgalt at July 9, 2018 5:54 PM
"Some psychology studies, for instance, have suggested that conservatives are more prone to the confirmation bias . . ."
Well, without citing those "studies" isn't this confirmation bias on their part?
They further show their bias by putting the word "ignorance" in the same paragraph with the word "conservative" when it fact their own study shows that liberals are more entrenched in their bias than conservatives. (64% of liberals to 61% of conservatives); instead of including it in the same paragraph with liberal.
So, while they are showing the facts correctly, they are playing a word association game by including "ignorance" in the same paragraph a conservative.
Also, why do they assume that folks (on the left or right) are choosing to NOT read/hear the other side? Just because folks chose to NOT read other arguments then and there doesn't mean they have not heard the other side before?
Is this really the kind of nonsense that passes for a "study" in their -ology? Wow, what garbage! No wonder people don't listen.
charles at July 9, 2018 5:56 PM
Is this really the kind of nonsense that passes for a "study" in their -ology? Wow, what garbage! No wonder people don't listen.
charles at July 9, 2018 5:56 PM
Yes, yes it is. Ergo our complete lack of respect for these *studies.*
Isab at July 9, 2018 6:09 PM
"I have lots of lovely rational conversations with people across the political aisle all the time... just not on this blog."
If you would endeavor to approach the content/syllable ratio of Andrew M. Garland, by so much as a few percent, that would change.
Radwaste at July 9, 2018 6:46 PM
Isab Says:
"Gee, I wonder why that is?"
Aren't you the one who was just retelling a story about how you find it impossible to hold conversations with people of differing political stances?
And now you wonder why I cannot hold conversations with you on such topics without you blowing a fuse?
Isab... the problem is you (and people like you).
I have many many civil conversations with rational folks across the entire political spectrum.
If you cannot hold such a conversation with me you need to look at yourself closely in the mirror.
The problem is your own complete and utter intolerance of and disdain for anyone who holds different political positions.
"We understand quite well what policies they are arguing for, we just dont think the totalitarian all powerful police state required to implement those policy preferences is a place we want to live."
That doesn't demonstrate a great understanding of any policy position Isab.
This illustrates my point... you are utterly ignorant of any policy position you do not already agree with.
Artemis at July 10, 2018 12:28 AM
Radwaste Says:
"If you would endeavor to approach the content/syllable ratio of Andrew M. Garland, by so much as a few percent, that would change."
Do me a favor and name 1... just 1 liberal leaning poster on this blog who you treat with courtesy and respect.
I'll wait...
Artemis at July 10, 2018 12:30 AM
melmo Says:
"I suspect this is why Liberals tend to be so deranged and hateful towards their opponents."
So right after you cite a study that claims the following as its principle finding:
"Both liberals and conservatives exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup."
You go ahead and prove that you are one of those conservatives that exaggerate the ideological extremity of the outgroup (i.e., liberals).
Don't you get it... you have made a parody of yourself.
You can't sit there and pat yourself on the back for being a conservative who sees straight while claiming that liberals are deranged and hateful.
Your perspective is part of the problem that that study you cite refers to.
Artemis at July 10, 2018 12:41 AM
Let's take a moment to define exactly what confirmation bias is shall we.
An example of confirmation bias is where someone ignores sociological research that concludes that conservatives may be more subject to confirmation bias... but accepts sociological research that concludes that conservatives score slightly better than liberals on ingroup vs. outgroup characterization.
It is the height of confirmation bias to dismiss any and all sociological research that tells you what you do not want to hear... and then accept the research that tells you what you want to hear.
You can't just pick and choose the research you like from a field after constantly claiming that the field is devoid of scientific rigor.
Artemis at July 10, 2018 12:48 AM
I R A Darth Aggie,
Your list of policy positions does not demonstrate an understanding of the arguments that Progressives use on these issues.
That is what the original claim was:
"It has been found in other studies that conservatives are quite aware of the arguments that Progressives use on any issue"
Knowing what the policy positions are... and what the arguments are in support of those positions are two completely different things.
In this entire discussion I have not identified a single person who has even attempted to demonstrate a knowledge of the arguments for progressive policy positions.
Isab for example seems to think that progessives go around arguing for a "totalitarian all powerful police state".
Such an argument has not been made. Progressives don't go around saying how much they would love to have a totalitarian police state.
That is a conservative rebranding and reinterpretation of progressive arguments.
That is no different than the progressive rebranding and reinterpretation of conservative arguments against abortion being all about dominating and controlling women's bodies.
None of this demonstrates even the slightest comprehension of policy arguments from across the aisle.
It is all bullshit propaganda and manipulative rhetoric.
My point is that many of the conservatives on this blog are guilty of doing this on a regular basis... all while bitching and moaning about how horrible it is when the liberals don't properly characterize their arguments.
This blog is full of conservative political hypocrites.
Artemis at July 10, 2018 12:57 AM
Immigration justice =/= open borders.
If you're trying to slam someone's ideas, at least list them as shown, not as you perceive them.
And a lot of those ideas are pretty good. You want to know how to pay for them?
Divert some of those YOUGE checks to the Pentagon.
DrCos at July 10, 2018 3:40 AM
“Such an argument has not been made. Progressives don't go around saying how much they would love to have a totalitarian police state.
That is a conservative rebranding and reinterpretation of progressive arguments.”
No, it is called drawing a conclusion, and learning from history.
Progressives don't understand that people dont want to fall in line with implementation of their redistributionist plans. The ultimate endgame is always force, by the government, ideally with them in charge.
Anything less is just an adolescent unicorn fantansy. Not worth debating.
I saw this a lot when I was living in Europe. Governments pretend to enforce the law, and the people pretend to follow it.
The more draconian is is, the less compliance there is, and the police quickly find better, less dangerous things to do, like writing traffic tickets.
But to understand how the game is played, you actually have to live there. From the press you will hear nothing but glowing praise for the latest government inititive and how well it is working. Especially the foreign press.
Isab at July 10, 2018 5:15 AM
No, in fact, they don't. Progressives, if asked, they will tell you they oppose a totalitarian police state.
Progressives, however, advocate policies that cannot be implemented without increasing the danger of the country devolving into a police state: confiscatory taxation, hate crime laws, hate speech bans, gun control, climate change, and equality of outcomes, just to name a few.
The number of progressives publicly calling for the imprisonment of climate change skeptics should serve as a warning. The number of rightwing-oriented speaking events shut down or cancelled due to threats of violence from progressives should serve as a warning. Progressives are not a tolerant people.
The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense and military spending (from SIPRI) and 19.3% of its GDP on social welfare (from OECD).
Conan the Grammarian at July 10, 2018 6:59 AM
And to reinforce what Conan said, I'll repeat: The combination of entitlements, and interest on the federal debt, constitutes two-thirds of all federal government spending. Every single other thing that the feds do, ranging from defense to the EPA to NASA to the NEA, is crammed into the other one-third.
Cousin Dave at July 10, 2018 7:53 AM
The third chart at this link breaks the total down.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Conan the Grammarian at July 10, 2018 10:07 AM
Sorry, it's the fourth chart.
Conan the Grammarian at July 10, 2018 10:08 AM
"Do me a favor and name 1... just 1 liberal leaning poster on this blog who you treat with courtesy and respect."
See? It's not about content, it's about butthurt. I don't just post on issues that actually have a "liberal" or "conservative" side, yet the volume of your posts remains beyond reasonable.
Is there a thread here, on which you have participated, that didn't devolve into arguing over your comments instead of the topic?
Mr. Garland gets to the point. Crid writes wonderfully. Patrick is passionate, or vehement, if you like.
They get to the point.
You are more likely to elicit "TL;DR" than anyone here. You bore me to death.
Radwaste at July 10, 2018 11:46 AM
Radwaste,
My point remains that you haven't demonstrated the capacity to hold a reasonable conversation with anyone who holds progressive points of view.
The point of this thread is that folks on different side of the political aisle are not listening to each other.
Can you name a progressive that you treat with respect?
I don't exactly recall you treating Crid or Patrick with respect and consideration.
You don't have any examples... which is the problem Amy is highlighting.
Artemis at July 10, 2018 1:25 PM
Isab,
If your concept of "understanding" progressive arguments is to suggest that they are arguing for a totalitarian police state then you are part of the problem.
I stand by my point that the rabidly partisan conservative individuals on this blog are examples of people who have no understanding whatsoever of arguments from the other side.
You are just making up strawmen... progressives are not arguing for their policy positions by saying how great a totalitarian police state would be.
That is your made up smears.
Artemis at July 10, 2018 1:29 PM
Conan Says:
"No, in fact, they don't. Progressives, if asked, they will tell you they oppose a totalitarian police state."
Thank you for being honest.
Do you think you can help get this reality through Isab's thick skull?
If you want to argue against their actual positions then go right ahead.
But characterizing the oppositions positions in such a dishonest way is precisely the problem Amy is highlighting.
Artemis at July 10, 2018 1:31 PM
Mr. Garland gets to the point. Crid writes wonderfully. Patrick is passionate, or vehement, if you like.
They get to the point.
hey, Hey, HEY
Why the fuck isnt anyone kissing MY ass?
lujlp at July 10, 2018 2:36 PM
Learn to wipe better Lujlp?
Ben at July 10, 2018 6:40 PM
>> You can't sit there and pat yourself on the back for being a conservative who sees straight while claiming that liberals are deranged and hateful.
Whoa. I'm not anyone's idea of a Conservative. 10 years ago I'd have told you I was a Liberal, and pointed to the fact that I've been a lifelong Democrat.
But in that time, I've seen Liberalism transform into an authoritarian Progressivism that hates literally half of the country and wants to destroy anyone who steps out of line.
Just like you.
'Oh I'm Artimis and I just want a reasoned and respectful discussion' - after I smear anyone who disagrees with me.
Thanks for proving my point - asshole.
melmo at July 10, 2018 7:24 PM
melmo,
The details of ones political affiliation change and evolve over ones lifetime.
That you would have said you were a liberal 10 years ago has no bearing on your stance as a progressive or conservative today.
When someone says the following:
"I suspect this is why Liberals tend to be so deranged and hateful towards their opponents."
It is reasonable to conclude that they do not count themselves among that group.
Or were you suggesting that you are a liberal and personally tend to be deranged and hateful?
Interestingly I never smeared you... I never called you anything.
Yet here you are asserting that I did.
"Thanks for proving my point - asshole."
No melmo... you have proved my point.
The only one name calling between us is you.
First you smeared an entire group as deranged and hateful... then you called me an asshole for suggesting that maybe your behavior/perspective was part of the problem.
You've only gone and bolstered my contention.
Artemis at July 11, 2018 12:00 AM
But Orion, do you say nice things about others?
Crid at July 11, 2018 8:57 AM
""Do me a favor and name 1... just 1 liberal leaning poster on this blog who you treat with courtesy and respect."
Rad's usually courteous and respectful to me, even when I've been a bit of a poop. YMMV.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 11, 2018 11:07 AM
Leave a comment