How denial gets between science and politics

I read this article the other day which made me think a bit about Tim's previous post on polarization. It's a bit of a long read for an article, but it deals with the psychology behind the interesting phenomenon of denial of fact, even under overwhelming evidence supporting said fact—also known as "motivated reasoning" or confirmation bias. This is a counter-intuitive, yet very familiar aspect of human nature.

It's a good read, for me it was most interesting for some ideas that touches on briefly, which is what made me think of Tim's post. First it touches on the widely held perception that the country is becoming more partisan, or polarized. Given that this is an easy scapegoat for anyone wanting to decry American politics, I'm a little skeptical about how much truth there is to this, although the last few years have seemed awfully polarized, It's not getting any better at any rate. The strange part is that this might be happening because of the democratization of information and the media, not just in spite of it. As Mooney writes:

Okay, so people gravitate toward information that confirms what they believe, and they select sources that deliver it. Same as it ever was, right? Maybe, but the problem is arguably growing more acute, given the way we now consume information—through the Facebook links of friends, or tweets that lack nuance or context, or "narrowcast" and often highly ideological media that have relatively small, like-minded audiences. Those basic human survival skills of ours, says Michigan's Arthur Lupia, are "not well-adapted to our information age."

Of course it get's worse. He also cites a study that shows that people tend to judge the trustworthiness of a source of information based on whether their findings agreed with their own values, rather than the source's expertise. So people can essentially write off any information that contradicts their worldview.


This got me thinking about what sources people would find trustworthy, and the obvious answer is their friends, but maybe not just friends but anyone with whom they've had a real, face-to-face, personal relationship. Most people tend to have friends whose ideologies are fairly similar to theirs. And while social pressures are probably a big obstacle to changing someone's mind, it's not like this is new. So if polarization is getting worse, it's probably not because of the way we interact with our friends, but how we interact with acquaintances or strangers. Most people seem to be pretty uncomfortable discussing politics in person with someone they don't very well. But just as the internet has enabled the socially shy, it has also enabled the politically shy, who have no problem excoriating the other end of the political spectrum through anonymous comments online. At the same time the internet, ad mass media in general, has made it less necessary to learn through traditional teachers. It is much easier to dismiss someone as disingenuous or flat out wrong when we only know them through our computer screens.

No one is incapable of changing their worldview. Children are naturally inquisitive, but at some point most people stop asking "Why?" and just go with whatever worldview they've been conditioned to use. There are some people whose jobs encourage them to rationally evaluate facts and change their beliefs accordingly, i.e. scientists and investigative journalists. But most people don't have to worry about objectively evaluating new facts (at least not on topics like global warming), and there are still plenty of examples of scientists, whose discipline is built on objectivity, suffering from confirmation bias as well.

Given how motivated reasoning is an entrenched psychological process, it is unlikely to be going anywhere anytime soon. However, I'm hopeful that it's effects can be mitigated, even if the facts alone will never be enough. I see the internet becoming much more personal in the future. Some people might still prefer anonymity, but for most the internet will become a place where they can have conversations that are as real as a face-to-face conversation. The technology isn't really that far off. As communications become more real, people will find it easier to empathize with a reliable source, and they may be persuaded. Of course, this isn't happening yet, and their are still cases, such as cults, where even social pressure from family and friends aren't enough to change their minds.

In the meantime, science communicators will have to become more effective. I think many scientists assume that by simply giving the public the facts they will generally come to the right conclusion, because this is the way that scientists operate. Luckily, scientists are receptive to new ideas, so I'm confident they can learn that to convince the public you first have to connect with their values.

Anyway, the main lesson is that everyone has a tendency towards denial when confronted with new ideas that contradict with their own. We ought to be more aware that our brains will try to do this to us, and at least attempt to be open minded whenever we come across information that we don't want to believe.