Book Recommendation / Review - The Bias that Divides Us by Keith E. Stanovich
Introduction
I have been puzzling about the Red / Blue divide in our nation since the 2016 election. This book, The Bias that Divides Us by Keith E. Stanovich has given me some very helpful insights into what is going on in my own brain - and some idea of what might be going on in the “other” side. Given that significant benefit - I would urge everyone I know to read the book. I am writing this to help me better understand and retain what I learned, and to try to persuade you to pick up the book.
That said, the book is a bit of a burden, as 80% of it covers a great deal of research by the author and many others. The author’s command of the language and science is excellent. But I would have profited from a somewhat more succinct explanation of the research foundations.
Since any reader might be similarly challenged, my suggestion is to start with the preface,skip to the last chapter. That will help you understand the goal of all of the research which is presented up front. Then go back to chapter 4 and 5.
To further entice you, these are a few of the insights I gained - I trust you may have some similar ones. If so, please share them. Thanks.
Cognitive elites
I discovered that I am a “cognitive elite,” and that this is not a positive description. If you are actually reading this, you probably are one too! So pay attention. A cognitive elite has relatively high intelligence, good executive functioning, other positive psychological cognitive skills and usually some advanced education. The problem is that folk like me feel a certain “superiority” to the problems that beset “normal” folk. For example, I think I am resistant to biases that might cloud my judgment, simply because I have studied them, done some personal reflection, etc. The research says that this is generally true. But it turns out that being a member of this “caste” makes me even more likely to be prone to the “myside bias.”
MySide Bias
“What our society is really suffering from is myside bias: we evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward our own prior beliefs, opinions, and attitudes.” (Stanovich, Keith E.. The Bias That Divides Us (p. ix). MIT Press. Kindle Edition.)
Just a note, I will only cite the page number in the rest of this piece.
The important thing here is that this bias comes from beliefs, experiences, opinions, attitudes, values which we hold dear. It is not based on information or ideas or reasoning. There is a sense or feeling of identity, of belonging to a community or tribe, that colors everything we look at. It is not subject to logic or information. In my parlance, this is part of our “gut”, our emotional brain which drives most of our thinking and actions. And the research shows that no level of intelligence or education is protective against this bias. A logical argument will not overcome it.
“But because myside bias is an exception, an outlier, it is the bias where the cognitive elites most often think they are unbiased when in fact they are just as biased as everyone else.” p xi.
In fact,”more cognitively skilled subjects were more likely to have a bias blind spot.” p. 96.
This is hard work because this bias from our history, family, faith, upbringing is very powerful. It gives our lives meaning and purpose. It gives us our community, our sense of identity. It is difficult if not impossible for most people to even consider that those core values are not correct.
Bear with me a bit, and I will show you some examples that the author pointed out to me.
The Great Divide
Since the 2016 election, we have seen a large split between our ideological political parties. The purpose of this book is to help us understand some of the causes of this division, and work out ways to overcome it. That seems a worthwhile enterprise - so let’s be about it.
Most people are not consistent
This is not news, but it is based on good research. It is a lot of work to align all of your ideas and beliefs, and most of us really do not spend much time doing that. We have a working set, and that is it. I have had the good fortune to spend a bit of time thinking and teaching about some aspects of life issues. That helped me work out a few things - but most people do not get that kind of opportunity. And I know I still have a lot of inconsistencies in my values and judgments.
Recognize That, within Yourself, You Have Conflicting Values
For one example, the global warming issue.
“Most conservatives do care about the state of the environment and about the implications of global warming. Most liberals do understand that economic growth reduces poverty as well as hardship. Often both groups do know the facts—they just give different weightings to the value trade-offs.” p. 130
Abortion is another topic where values and beliefs dominate any rational thought or argument. For myself, I have always done my best to not take sides on this one, even as a political candidate. Being ambivalent on this is generally not a popular stance.
Recognize that “You did not think your way to that”
You are the product of a life of experiences and relationships, not abstract thoughts. Most of our information processing occurs without any awareness on our part. It becomes part of the fabric of who we are - our world view, our basic values.
Our resident beliefs are the result of interacting with the ideas of others. They are the products of our lifetime of experience. But decades of research in cognitive science have taught us that much of our information processing occurs beyond our awareness. This is particularly true when new information melds well with preexisting biological substrates in our brains. We tend to overestimate how much we have consciously thought our way to our beliefs. Like successful business people who overestimate how much of their wealth was due to their own unique creativity and efforts, most of us tend to overestimate how much conscious thought we have used to arrive at our strongest opinions and convictions. P. 134
Most people are not concerned / aware / tuned in
You may be fascinated by a topic or area of life - like politics or economics - but most of us really are not. A Personal Story: The morning after the 2016 election I went to the local hospital for my normal Wednesday volunteer work in the chemo infusion lab. There were two other volunteers there, and their first topic of conversation was: “Why is the news so upset about the outcome of the election.” I was kind of stunned. They simply did not think it was that big a deal.
Many people do not vote, and do not care about the outcomes. The data is hard to get, but a decent estimate is that only about 2/3 of eligible voters are registered, and about 1/3 of that group does not vote. My math skills are not great, but I think that means that only about 45% of the population actually vote. And of that number, based purely on my personal observation in years as an election judge, only about 25% of them have any detailed information about the candidates and issues. In a primary election, I have had more than one voter return for a new ballot because the voting machine rejected a ballot where every candidate for a specific party was selected. The voter honestly did not understand the problem. Some would ask me to tell them who their party was supporting.
All News Sources are biased
Recognize that your news source is biased. It may be more truthful (mine tend to not repeat falsehoods :-) but they are NOT evenhanded. Most selectively promote a political agenda because they must cater to their audience. News is a business, not a public service. If they do not alter the facts, at the very least they focus on the stance of their audience. PBS and NPR might be exceptions, but their impact is small. If you want to see a good attempt at a truly balanced news source, I suggest Improve the News.
Some topics are not amenable to rational discussion
The author makes the point that we have made great progress in many areas of human life that are solvable with rational abilities - like poverty and violence.
But other problems on this list—such as climate change, pollution, terrorism, income inequality, and a divided society—are of an altogether different kind from poverty and violence. For some of these, we may be looking not at problems we would expect to solve with greater intelligence, rationality, or knowledge, but rather at problems that arise from conflicting values in a society with diverse worldviews. P. 128
The case of income inequality provides another illustration of the trade-offs involved in solving some societal problems. Political disputes about income inequality are conflicts between those who have differing values—not between those who are knowledgeable and those who are not. There is no optimal level of income inequality. P. 130
In short, the “problem” of income inequality does not have a unique solution. Disagreements about income inequality arise from differences in values—not because one segment of the population has knowledge that the other lacks. P 130
Politicized Issues
This myside bias is very strong when issues are politicized. The author’s prime example is climate change. Conservatives are saying that they do not like the way the liberals are using the science of climate change to force greater government control of the economy. They are expressing a value, not a fact. An equivalent one is the HPV vaccine. I will let you look that one up.
Political Parties focus on fear issues
Just because the major political parties are widely separated, that does not mean that all of their members are supporters of all of their issues. People can be very selective in their allegiance..
Most of the increase in polarization, it is important to note, came from an increase in “negative partisanship”—from subjects increasing their negative feelings toward the opposing party rather than from increasing their positive feelings toward their own party.
Based on the findings of a wide range of studies, most American voters can’t articulate a principle behind their stance on a particular issue and often don’t know their stance on many issues until they hear the stance supported by their own partisan group. P ?
Most people are not ideologs
Most people are not as ideologically driven as the political system. The political parties on both sides promote extreme views in order to firm up their membership. They are appealing to our tribal need to belong and our fear of the other.
“This suggests a model where a relatively unideological population, through identification with parties controlled by cognitive elites, is being led to support positions on issues they would not otherwise have held.”
“Based on the findings of a wide range of studies, most American voters can’t articulate a principle behind their stance on a particular issue and often don’t know their stance on many issues until they hear the stance supported by their own partisan group.” P ??
Do Not Assume Motives
There is a lot of discussion about how Republicans vote against their own interests when they vote for candidates that do not support programs that would actually benefit them. The assumption is that they should be more focused on their own monetary returns. When someone casts a vote, it generally involves much more than their monetary return on investment. The liberal assumption is that their motive has to be self interest and monetary gain - an insulting opinion to say the least. In fact, people will often vote against their own self interest in the name of a larger value, one accruing to the larger society.
Values dominate character and fitness for office
We also assume that the character and fitness for office should prevail over values and convictions. People generally do not operate that way. That is not a rational approach to choosing a political candidate. It is really about the party that stands with them, that represents their basic beliefs and values. The details are really not that important. Chapter 6 in the book gives many examples and research that supports this.
I call myself an independent and I am critical of both parties. I have on occasion voted for the independent candidate, and even for a GOP candidate - like Dave Durenberger. But most of the time, I go along with the Democratic offering, even when they are far from perfect. Those of us of the progressive faction often think that the members of the conservative one are bereft of reason for supporting candidates that are extreme or unqualified just to stay in the party line.
Try this thought experiment the author suggests. The next presidential race has these two candidates: Ted Cruz and Al Sharpton. There is no way Al Sharpton is qualified to be president, but most liberals would feel compelled to vote for him. Their fear of Mr. Cruz would be too great.
Common Humanity vs Common Enemy
The author credits Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff with creating this distinction. Martin Luther King was focused on our common humanity, where we should all have equal access to all parts of human life. Common enemy politics creates a win / lose scenario, where our side must oppose the enemy in order to hold to our status. People are more motivated by fear than opportunity, especially those with a conservative tendency. In a society with an implicit “caste” structure, according benefits to those on the bottom means taking them from others on the top.
Liberal “blind” spots.
Here are some of the author’s critiques of liberal myside biases.
Intelligence is largely inheritable
(I do not share this one for some reason) Liberals tend to deny the overwhelming consensus in psychological science that intelligence is moderately inheritable and that there is no strong evidence that intelligence tests are biased against minority groups. We are “science” deniers. P. 117Women are underpaid.
Liberals are very reluctant to accept the consensus view that women are not underpaid for the same work when studies are controlled for occupational choice and work history.Phonics works.
(Another one I do not share) Liberals tend to deny the strong scientific consensus that phonics-based helps most readers, especially those that are struggling the most.Rent Control is a positive thing.
It is a fact that rent control causes housing shortages and reduction in the quality of housing.Charter Schools are bad.
(Again, not one I hold to.) “The expansion of charter schools is opposed by the Democratic Party and a majority of its white voters (Barnum 2019). However, a bundling conflict arises around this issue position because the party purports to be the advocate of minorities—but in fact a much greater percentage of African Americans and Hispanics than of white Democrats support the expansion of charter schools. Of course, the electoral calculus here is no secret. The Democratic Party wants to placate the teacher unions who are part of its coalition.” P. 145Creationism Taint.
I tend to discount people who believe in creationism as opposed to the evolution of life. But in that one part of their mental model, they are operating on faith and belief, not reason. From Pew Research: Religious Beliefs and Practices Affect Views on Evolution, Big Bang, but Elsewhere Have a Limited Influence on Americans’ Views.They are Uninformed.
The liberal elite tend to think that the other side is totally uninformed. There is no proof of that. The Pew Research NewsIQ survey of 2015 reported that results are typical across both groups. The 2013 survey had similar results. For economics, the science says that people calling themselves “libertarian” or “very conservative” scored higher on economic knowledge than those calling themselves “liberal” or “progressive.” Of course, the survey results are often skewed by how the questions are posed.Conspiracy Theories
Liberals tend to think that conspiracy theories are more prevalent on the right. But that is primarily because those are the ones that have been studied and publicized. There are as many conspiracy theories on the left which has been confirmed by formal scientific studies. (See the references in the book, page 119) This is a tough one for me, but here’s some objective data: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307120/
“ . . . some studies even suggest that the left is more prone to conspiracy theorizing than the right.“ . . .
And many conspiracies are kept alive by small and vocal groups on social media.
In a related note, in 2015, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 2,000 adults which concluded about 12 percent of liberals and 10 percent of conservatives believed that childhood vaccines are unsafe.Selective Filters
It is relatively easy to search for and selectively find facts that support one’s perspective. A good friend of mine put about 10 of these together for me in defense of the 45th President’s accomplishments in office. I had to check, and they were all true.Misinformation
This does seem to be rampant on both sides - but the ratio of truth to lies seems to me to be conservative biased.Prejudice.
I tend to think that more intelligent people are less prejudiced, but the research shows that is not the case. It is true that more intelligent people are less prejudiced against blacks and Hispanics, and illegal immigrants. But they are more prejudiced against fundamentalist Christians, big business, the military and working class people. P. 123
Enough Already
There is a lot more information in the book - please read it.
What To Do About All This?
The author is an academic, and he levies a great deal of blame and calls for change on our universities. The liberal universities seem to be trying to shut down all debate, to sideline issues discussion in favor of ideology.
Personally, just reading the book has given me a fresh perspective on the “other side.” But I still find it difficult to actually engage a “different minded” person in discussion on any of these sensitive topics. I know the right way to go about this - to focus on shared values, to ask for assistance in understanding their view, etc. But it just does not overcome my personal fear of conflict. I am sorry about that.
My Personal Fear Problem
If you have heard of the Braver Angels, it is a national movement to advocate more civility and discussion between our Blue people and our Red people. I have researched this group a bit, and communicated with some of the local leadership. One of the cochairs is an old acquaintance. They have invited me to take an active role, but I have found it difficult to get myself to engage the “other” side, even in this kind of structured and safe environmen, with someone I know and respectt.
That is probably the biggest lesson I have learned from this book and research. I am very conflict adverse, as I have learned at some great personal cost. I am not sure if I am afraid of the potential conflict, or just think it will be a waste of time. We shall see.
----------------------------------------
References
Drummond, Caitlin and Baruch Fischhoff, Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics, August 21, 2017
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1704882114
I found this study was helpful in this context. It is probably more than you ever want to know about how more education, or one’s sense of having more education, creates a bias. The interesting thing is that the bias seems to be much stronger in areas where faith and belief conflict with the information. It is just further confirmation that those “other” folk are not stupid, not evil - they are just normal humans with strong value and faith commitments that override any other type of information. As the article points out, this tendency has the potential to cause real harm when the belief commitment has real impacts.
For example, individuals who self-identify as political conservatives and endorse free-market capitalism are less likely to believe in climate change and express concern about its impacts (1–9). Individuals who report stronger religious beliefs are less likely to support technologies that they view as interfering with divine creation, such as nanotechnology (10), or to accept the science of evolution, if they view it as contradicting the biblical account of creation (11).
In some cases, individuals can affirm their identity by rejecting the scientific consensus with few practical consequences. The Big Bang, as an example, has little role in everyday life. In other cases, though, actions guided by political or religious identity can be costly. Refusing to immunize children creates risk for them as well as for individuals who are medically unable to be vaccinated, such as the elderly or chronically ill; it has caused recent outbreaks of preventable diseases, such as measles and mumps (12). Rejecting the scientific consensus on evolution may lead parents to advocate for school curricula that omit key scientific concepts, adversely affecting science education and support for scientific research. Societies that ignore climate change contribute to global risks, including food insecurity, political instability, and environmental degradation (13).
