Illusion of Understanding Can Lead to Extreme Political Attitudes

[Quiet]

Well of course... but still an interesting study...

from http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/0...ead-to-extreme-political-attitudes/54311.html

Illusion of Understanding Can Lead to Extreme Political Attitudes
By Rick Nauert PhD Senior News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on April 30, 2013

It has often been said that teaching a concept is the best way to learn the concept. New research presents a corollary to the adage as investigators learn that having to explain a political policy reduces extreme attitudes toward the policy.

The research suggests that people may hold extreme policy positions because they are under an illusion of understanding. Attempting to explain the nuts and bolts of how a policy works forces them to acknowledge that they don’t know as much about the policy as they initially thought.

The work of Phillip Fernbach, Ph.D., of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and colleagues is published in the journal Psychological Science.

Fernbach and his co-authors were interested in exploring some of the factors that could contribute to what they see as increasing political polarization in the United States.

“We wanted to know how it’s possible that people can maintain such strong positions on issues that are so complex – such as macroeconomics, health care, foreign relations – and yet seem to be so ill-informed about those issues,” said Fernbach.

Drawing on previous research on the illusion of understanding, Fernbach and colleagues speculated that one reason for the apparent paradox may be that voters think they understand how policies work better than they actually do.

In one study, researchers asked participants taking an online survey to rate how well they understood six political policies.

Issues included raising the retirement age for Social Security, instituting a national flat tax, and implementing merit-based pay for teachers.

The participants were randomly assigned to explain two of the policies and then asked to re-rate how well they understood the policies.

As the researchers predicted, people reported lower understanding of all six policies after they had to explain them, and their positions on the policies were less extreme.

In fact, the data showed that the more people’s understanding decreased, the more uncertain they were about the position, and the less extreme their position was in the end.

The act of explaining also affected participants’ behavior. People who initially held a strong position softened their position after having to explain it, making them less likely to donate bonus money to a related organization when they were given the opportunity to do so.

Notably, the results affected people from all sides of the political spectrum, from self-identified Democrats to Republicans to Independents.

Investigators believe these findings illuminate a psychological process that may help people to open the lines of communication in the context of a heated debate or negotiation.

“This research is important because political polarization is hard to combat,” Fernbach said.

“There are many psychological processes that act to create greater extremism and polarization, but this is a rare case where asking people to attempt to explain makes them back off their extreme positios.”

 

[Eventhorizon]

To pick your side in politics, all you have to do is understand human nature. In that, what is possible and what is not given the human equation.

 

[Lerxst]

I've seen the exact opposite. The more you, myself, or others I've known learn about politics, the more extreme I've seen views become. Take the Affordable Healthcare Act in this country, there were some people that already had a prejudice and stayed that way. Most people, though had no clue what it would do or involve, so most sane people withheld judgement. Now that more and more of it comes to light, more and more people are taking up one of two extreme sides in the debate.

I can say the same about pretty much any situation in any realm of politics; the more you do know, the more extreme your attitude. Another personal account form real life - I was neutral regards to labor unions and collective bargaining when they were just a fact of life that I didn't think too much about. It wasn't until I moved to a "Right to Work" state where Labor Unions have very little power, that I began to understand ore about how they operate, what they do and how beneficial they can be.

In fact, the more I think about this study, the more I have to completely disagree with everything it says. They only rated people on some very broad, generalized subjects that many people probably don't care much about one way or the other. Merit Pay, Flat Tax... intangible things that don't really have any effect on an average person not tied to those fields in one way or another.

Ask Immigrants, legal or not, what they think of Immigration Reform. Ask environmentalists what they think of the Keystone Pipeline. Ask farmers what they think of the "Monstanto Protection Act".

The closer people are tied to the issues, the more they know and the more extreme they become.

 

[muir]

Yeah there's truth in both points of view. On one hand people are missinformed deliberately by the corporate dominated mainstream media which exists to weave fairytale narratives to mask the true ugly goings on so many people don't know as much as they might think they know

They are likely to perceive themself as being well informed if they read a lot of the corporate dominated mainstream media but in fact all they will know if that is what they do is what the corporations want them to know which is feck-all

However as Lerxst says the more informed you become about what is REALLY going on the more you are likely to come down hard on one side or the other because you feel more compelled to take action of some sort or another (and there IS a clear polarisation at work)

 

[Gul Dukat]

I think that we all have different ideas about what constitutes 'understanding' or a lack thereof.

But I do think that it's probably best to be as charitable as possible to both sides of the story, because I don't believe that motivations are ever as simplistic as they might seem, or as the opposition tends to present them. That said, you still have to be wary of the fact that not everyone is out for the greater good... so every situation needs to be taken on its own and evaluated independent of the 'side' that is supporting it.

I think the problem is that a lot of people don't want to do that because it's easier just to identify with your 'side' and blindly support their position.

 

[SealHammer]

Was it really necessary to carry out an entire study to determine that the less you know (and the less you engage that knowledge through interaction), the less you're aware how much you don't know?
That and people often have totally unfounded pride their knowledge of one topic or another.

 

[Lee Taylor]

In the UK we have two main political parties - Labour and the Conservatives (the Liberal Democrats are third).

So why do people vote for Labour (other than policy reasons)?
Labour represents the working class historically. There's a lot of generational support.
Under Blair, there was charismatic, forceful and decisive leadership. Several Labour conferences with Blair had pop music playing to make it all feel like a party and he was trained how to speak.
The media (especially Murdoch) supported Labour heavily (they had a large press office). I remember reading The Times shortly before and after Blair left office, and the editorial slant changed completely.
People vote more for the Prime Minister, not their local MP.

So why do people vote Conservative (other than policy reasons)?
There's a lot of historical support.
The opposition provided by Gordon Brown was not especially charismatic.
Time for a change? People get fed up with the same government for a long time.
People vote more for the Prime Minister, not their local MP.

Within each party you've got loyalists who never sway (those who potentially understand the policies) and floating voters who most likely don't.

So to win an election the role of the superficial is important.

 

[Sriracha]

I think what needs to happen is better awareness on key issues, eradicating political parties and electoral college, and cap political campaign spending. What needs to be promoted is fairness to those who are running for election and fairness to the citizens voting these people into office. I think the majority of people will realize that they fit somewhere in the middle of the bell curve, but yet then do not have to identify with either extreme. The two extremes treat this country and policy like a game, and the rest of us suffer because of it. (USA)

What we need to realize is how obsolete political parties have become: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqhoVIh65k

 

[muir]

In the UK we have two main political parties - Labour and the Conservatives (the Liberal Democrats are third).

So why do people vote for Labour (other than policy reasons)?
Labour represents the working class historically. There's a lot of generational support.
Under Blair, there was charismatic, forceful and decisive leadership. Several Labour conferences with Blair had pop music playing to make it all feel like a party and he was trained how to speak.
The media (especially Murdoch) supported Labour heavily (they had a large press office). I remember reading The Times shortly before and after Blair left office, and the editorial slant changed completely.
People vote more for the Prime Minister, not their local MP.

So why do people vote Conservative (other than policy reasons)?
There's a lot of historical support.
The opposition provided by Gordon Brown was not especially charismatic.
Time for a change? People get fed up with the same government for a long time.
People vote more for the Prime Minister, not their local MP.

Within each party you've got loyalists who never sway (those who potentially understand the policies) and floating voters who most likely don't.

So to win an election the role of the superficial is important.

Yeah there's a game of political ping pong as power is handed back and forward between those two parties but the reality that more and more people are waking up to is the fact that both of those parties are part of the larger business party, which is why more and more votes are going to parties outwith the traditional two parties eg UKIP, Liberals, Nationalist parties such as the SNP etc


Both support big business at the expense of the public as part of a wider policy of 'neoliberalism' which is seeing all the wealth transferred from the many to the few

Its all a sham and the historical support for both parties (working class for old labour) and (landed gentry for tories) no longer holds any relevance as more and more people realise that they are not part of the club that is behind both parties and are essentially being sold down the river by those parties


If you want to read about who the people are behind big business the following book is very good:

''Big Oil & their bankers in the Persian Gulf'', by Dean Henderson

 

[Lee Taylor]

I disagree.

The major political parties are often typed as villains, but I think that is because people look to government for all the answers.

There's nothing wrong with businesses as long as the wealth gets recirculated. It's when it's hoarded that there are problems I think, and the answer to this, I think, is to encourage more small businesses, which I believe, the current administration is doing with it's small business loans/grants.

Edit: Also money concentrated can be quite useful, such as investments in travel, broadband and so on.

 

[muir]

I disagree.

The major political parties are often typed as villains, but I think that is because people look to government for all the answers.

There's nothing wrong with businesses as long as the wealth gets recirculated. It's when it's hoarded that there are problems I think, and the answer to this, I think, is to encourage more small businesses, which I believe, the current administration is doing with it's small business loans/grants.

Edit: Also money concentrated can be quite useful, such as investments in travel, broadband and so on.

The current government is not interested in helping small to medium businesses. It is just paying lip service to that. The tories are financed by big finance and they dance to the tune of big finance

Government has been usurped by the bankers

If you want effective reform then ending the central banks control of the money supply would be the best place to start in my opinion

Here is a member of Italian political party the 5 star movement discussing banker control in their parliament (will need to hit translation button if yo don't speak Italian!)

[video=youtube;dqoIA2IvrZQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dqoIA2IvrZQ[/video]

The central bankers control the central banks of Europe and the US and are robbing us through a stealth tax of inflation:
****please see clip in next post!****

The tories and labour are both funded by the bankers and help them

 

[muir]

[video=youtube;hzDUCb1WlEM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hzDUCb1WlEM[/video]

 

[Lee Taylor]

You may like this video (not saying I endorse it, just that it's an interesting perspective):

[video=youtube;hE5Sw8qJ-g0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE5Sw8qJ-g0[/video]

 

[muir]

Lol

I've already posted that video here!

If you want to see the strands of the web the following books is definately worth a read:

''Big Oil & their bankers in the Persian Gulf'', by Dean Henderson

The struggle that we are seeing manifesting everywhere at the moment is between a group of people who believe in monarchism and fascism versus the people of the world who are beginning to assert themselves with the intent of overturning the current system

The monarchists/fascists control the big 4 oil companies and the central banks but the people are now wise to this and are challenging the status quo. Further to this the power of the western fascists is being challenged by other countries who now see neo-liberalism for what it really is which is a fascist vehicle for domination of the masses

 

[Lee Taylor]

I think capitalism is liberating, however I do worry about the excess debt. I'd rather have QE with no debt (the value is determined relative to the QE of other currencies).

Our recession in the west is still nothing compared to the poverty Africa is enduring - and as China and Japan invest into Africa they'll get roads and infrastructure, jobs and opportunities (allbeit at a price). In the west our 'do-gooder' attitude (of which I admit to being part of) has prevented them from becoming capitalists... which, whilst meant in a nice way, is in fact, probably, selfish. The trouble is it's hard to undo it once the change is made. Maybe Africa could develop like the Scandanavian belt and avoid too much debt.

Inflation does rob people (savers), but it also cuts the value of debt.

I'm not convinced that guns, drugs and oil are owned by the same people or that these people are monarchists or fascists, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Even if wealth is globally concentrated into 10% of people, that's still 600-700 million people, all who've become strong in their fields, not just have a secret agenda.

 

[muir]

I think capitalism is liberating, however I do worry about the excess debt. I'd rather have QE with no debt (the value is determined relative to the QE of other currencies).

Its all part of a currency war between east and west

[video=youtube;UeCqzwNnqyk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeCqzwNnqyk[/video]

Our recession in the west is still nothing compared to the poverty Africa is enduring - and as China and Japan invest into Africa they'll get roads and infrastructure, jobs and opportunities (allbeit at a price). In the west our 'do-gooder' attitude (of which I admit to being part of) has prevented them from becoming capitalists... which, whilst meant in a nice way, is in fact, probably, selfish. The trouble is it's hard to undo it once the change is made. Maybe Africa could develop like the Scandanavian belt and avoid too much debt.

We were never do gooders. We always knew what we were doing and we were always cynically exploiting and still are

There's a story for example in the news at the moment about the british government finally admitting to torturing people in kenya during the mau mau rising

Sometimes people try to put colonialism in a better light by saying things like: 'we gave them roads and railways and ports'.....well yes we did put that infrastructure in but we only did it so that we could more efficiently extract their natural resources.....all under armed guard of course

Neo-imperialism is about bribing or threatening corrupt officials into taking out loans that their countries will never be able to pay back. Debt is one of the cornerstones of neo-liberalism

Inflation does rob people (savers), but it also cuts the value of debt.

It destroys the savings of the middle class but the interest rates that the central banks keep artificially low benefit the speculators

I'm not convinced that guns, drugs and oil are owned by the same people or that these people are monarchists or fascists, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

If you want a no nonsense insight into that situation the book i mentioned explains it in detail. Another story in the papers at the moment is of course the bilderburg meeting in watford.

All the corporate newspapers who finally are talking about bilderberg are of course trying to play it down and say 'there's nothing secret about it'.....well of course there isn't now that various people from the alternative media have publicised it!

Or they will try to say its not a big deal but in reality a bunch of oil and banking people meeting with royals and politicans with no democratic oversight IS a big deal

Even if wealth is globally concentrated into 10% of people, that's still 600-700 million people, all who've become strong in their fields, not just have a secret agenda.

The cabal is much smaller than that

Also it is not a meritocracy. You are not rewarded for being brilliant you are rewarded for going along with their agenda and for keeping your mouth shut

Of course even if you've been a great team player you may still end up dead as they seek to tie up any lose ends whenever they conclude one of their little ventures

What they are looking for in employees is a lack of empathy and a willingness to help uphold a system of inequality.

People such as the lawyers who are currently trying to block the tories planned attacks on legal aid that would see the poorest in society frozen out of any legal protections would not be hired as they clearly have a conscience

What you want is someone like Silvio burlesconi....bunga bunga!

 

[Lee Taylor]

Muir, I'm not naive to the realities of the world (I very strongly protested against ID cards in Britain when I was younger and I've explored my fair share of conspiracy theories (and have certainly not discounted them all)), but I feel that you've grabbed a series of negative points and joined them up.

Its all part of a currency war between east and west

I don't disagree really here. The dollar basket currency is being undermined by China and such, but it's in everybody's interest that the spending power of the west remains strong. Power and wealth is shifting east, however that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it brings up their citizens quality of life. The key is that the value has to be reciprocated.

In China, there is too much bias towards using Chinese goods when there may be better ones available from other nations and in America, the government seems to take delight in fining foreign companies. It's important that free trade encourages the free movement of wealth - so that everyone, anywhere can benefit from the growing global prosperity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...r-extortionate-US-fines-on-British-firms.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/24...iant-owes-the-us-398-million-in-bribery-fines

Although I can say the same for the EU in some instances - Microsoft is a regular target. It's easy money, right?

We were never do gooders. We always knew what we were doing and we were always cynically exploiting and still are

There's a story for example in the news at the moment about the british government finally admitting to torturing people in kenya during the mau mau rising

This is true, however there is equally a story in the news at the moment about the British government maintaining our commitment to overseas aid. We are also compensating the victims of the torture.

Yes, imperialism is not a fluffy, wide eyed kindness (I recall studying something about the Indian railway network and how it was carefully costed to ensure Britain got good value from it) but Britain did attempt, with the commonwealth, to continue to support former colonies after our empire ended.

As far as still exploiting, I don't condone or support slave labour, but as a consumer it's difficult to know whether an item was responsibly sourced. Price of goods does not equate necessarily good treatment of manufacturers. Because of globalisation, it's easy for a company to switch to a different supplier if costs go higher, potentially taking away jobs from countries that really need them.

My opinion is that a lot of companies now are pursuing 'ethical sourcing policies', fair trade and the like and I strongly support efforts in this area both as a consumer and possibly backed up with legislation (not ridiculous of course (e.g. everyone must be in a union) but fundamentally that products sold in a particular country must have been sourced from a workplace where it is not overly dangerous, working hours are reasonable and money is not completely exploitative (not sure how you would do this)).

It's a similar story with corporate taxes. The legislation should ensure that companies pay a fair rate of tax - not ridiculous or punitative tax, but a fair rate. At the moment, in Britain at least, small companies have to pay their full tax, but big companies can filter the cash through tax havens and pay little. However I'm not a corporate basher, I just think openness and transparency are key - that way greed can still be good, but within reasonable confines.

Neo-imperialism is about bribing or threatening corrupt officials into taking out loans that their countries will never be able to pay back. Debt is one of the cornerstones of neo-liberalism

Yes, but there was a big campaign in Britain to 'Drop the Debt' several years back (http://www.dropthedebt.com/). Debt levels in African nations were much lower a few years back, but they appear to have crept back up (*groan*): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

I agree that debt is a terrible thing (hence why I support QE instead of debt as a philosophy relative to world population and such), but it does create money in the capitalism system we live and could be used for investment and such.

The trouble is, as westerners, we've only scratched the surface of African value. Sure they have natural resources, but there's a massive cheap workforce that could in a few years, progress like China through the Demographic Transition Model to a higher stage of development which would potentially increase their standard of living (although I worry may also undermine their majestic cultures/freedoms/communal spirit and turn them into us - and many western nations have high rates of depression and such http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/15/depression-world-rate-forbeslife-cx_avd_0216depressed.html). I also wouldn't want to encourage too much deforestation/land grabs on sites of outstanding natural beauty.

It destroys the savings of the middle class but the interest rates that the central banks keep artificially low benefit the speculators

Again, I don't totally agree. Interest rates were much higher only a few years back and banks make a profit either way I believe. The motive for keeping interest rates low - I believe is to regulate growth and inflation to reasonable levels.

Another story in the papers at the moment is of course the bilderburg meeting in watford.

Yes, this is a 'secret' meeting, but I do genuinely accept there may be a case, occassionally, for some private discussions and networking amongst powerful people. As long as they are not abusing their power or doing anything harmful to the world, I can tolerate it, though we don't know. I feel safer now with the current president and British PM than I have in a long time.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10102170/Bilderberg-Group-2013-guest-list-and-agenda.html

Also it is not a meritocracy. You are not rewarded for being brilliant you are rewarded for going along with their agenda and for keeping your mouth shut

This may be true, however, rest assured, if I ever become a billionaire, I'll be following my own agenda as much as possible and I believe their is enough diversity in the world, to -mostly- prevent this sort of problem. However I do recognise the dangers of 'groupthink', governments getting involved with big data corporations like Google or Facebook and communities acting against individuals - e.g. I'm not a proponent of Rousseau's 'general will'. Individuals always should have basic human rights - right to speak, right to privacy, right to life, right to family and so on.

Of course even if you've been a great team player you may still end up dead as they seek to tie up any lose ends whenever they conclude one of their little ventures

I have no knowledge in this area - I believe you could be accurate, but I have no proof. I watched a cool movie called 'The International' - it's about a corrupt bank that loans money for weapons and such. I think you might enjoy it.

Lets hope Bradley Manning gets off with a slap on the wrist. I advocate a 5 year jail sentance (or less). He's already served 3 years, so 2 more years and then release.

People such as the lawyers who are currently trying to block the tories planned attacks on legal aid that would see the poorest in society frozen out of any legal protections would not be hired as they clearly have a conscience

I was not aware of this. I think it is always important that legal aid exists and gives due protection to defendants. Trying to get value for money is not in itself wrong, but as long as people are not unfairly discriminated against based on wealth. e.g. a poor person is just as innocent until proven guilty as a rich one.

I think if you've got a lot of wealth (salaries over £37k) it's not unreasonable to ask people to pay towards their legal defence, but obviously it's also relevant to the actual wealth you have, not just what you're currently earing.

*Phew* I'm done. Ok. Your turn.

Edit: if you want to.

 

[Gul Dukat]

[video=youtube;hzDUCb1WlEM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hzDUCb1WlEM[/video]

This is going a little-- no, actually, a LOT too far.

I don't think that all of our tax money always gets spent the way that most people want it to, but trusting private companies to build roads and infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts would probably result in highly developed areas for the rich, slums for everyone else (rented at ridiculously high rates from the rich), and a gigantic wall between the two places so the rest of us don't contaminate the nicer parts of the world… with a garbage chute high up in the wall constantly dumping the scraps into the eager arms of the slum-dwellers, whose greatest hope is that they'll one day pick up a cracked but still usable iPad.

So many libertarians seem either hopelessly naive or secretly evil to me… I'd much rather take my chances with a shady government than let the corporations rule the world.

 

[Lee Taylor]

Libertarians aren't really about class, they are about freedom and the rest derives from it.

Of course the trouble is, just as Rousseau proposed an ideology that suits the majority, so libertarians propose ideologies that suit many different individuals - but their claim to helping the masses is less stated, though it's two sides of the same coin - how to create a better world.

So many libertarians seem either hopelessly naive or secretly evil to me

Dang, you got me on both counts. Libertarians are marginalised by the mainstream.

I'd much rather take my chances with a shady government than let the corporations rule the world.

The problem with governments is that they have monopolies and you have to accept what you're given. Politicans often have 'causes' and don't always act for the good of all.

The problem with corporations is that they are motivated by profit, not the good of the world.

 

[Gul Dukat]

Libertarians aren't really about class, they are about freedom and the rest derives from it.

I think that the inevitable result of libertarianism would be an extreme divide between the rich and poor-- the governments have been giving the banks and the corporations more freedoms for the past 30 years and look at where it's gotten us.

And I take issue with the word 'freedom'-- you could argue that the rich are 'free' to oppress the poor, or that small businesses are 'free' to compete with multinational corporations who deliberately undercut them at every turn… it still doesn't make it fair.

I really don't think that the government has a monopoly on anything except force, which is probably a good thing. The government isn't making smartphones or iPads or cars… in some cases they're redistributing funds to businesses that probably wouldn't otherwise be funded… but the main function of a government in a liberal democracy isn't to control all the means of production-- it's to stimulate growth, encourage fairness, and prevent exploitation or victimization. The problem isn't that they're all corrupt (they accept money from businesses sure, but that doesn't mean that once they're elected they become 'puppets'-- I really don't think that powerful people would accept that about themselves)... the problem is that the banks and corporations have been allowed to get so big that it's impossible to go after them without destroying the entire economy. All of the manufacturing has moved elsewhere so without the banks and huge multinationals there won't be anything left. But I also think that capitalism is a runaway train that's bound to crash unless there's a global effort to come together and establish some ground rules for consumption and distribution, etc. But of course, that idea is way too scary for people to ever accept.

Still, there are degrees between the extremes of a centralized state-owned economy and a completely unregulated market that are probably best for everyone… and taxation and wealth redistribution is absolutely necessary if you want to maximize everyone's potential… there is no valid reason why each and every person can't be given everything they need to prosper and develop themselves to the best of their potential. Personally, I think that unregulated corporations would result in even further deterioration of food, even stupider entertainment, even more slanted news, even more wars, etc… they would start building their own private armies (or hiring other people's private armies) and the whole world would eventually fall into a lot of feudal states and break apart.

At least if the government is involved you have a slight chance of there being pressure to actually produce ethically responsible products, despite the fact that such products might not be profitable.