What’s Our Problem - Book Review and Comments

 What’s Our Problem - Book Review and Comments

This is about this book: What's Our Problem?: A Self-Help Book for Societies by Tim Urban. He is the author of this popular blog: Wait But Why  The latest blog entry at this date is his experience of his first child’s birth - also worth a read.

If you just want an overview of the book, go to the Amazon link above. He wrote the summary there. He spent 6 years writing the book. At one point, it had twice the number of pages published. With a lot of research and a lot of help, he got it pared down a bit.

I really encourage you to read the book. Jude says that I say this about every new book I pick up - but THIS ONE is really important, interesting, life changing, and could help save our democracy. Superlatives abound. It is also a lot of fun, and “graphically illustrated” - kind of. The last few chapters are the best part - but if you skip to those you will not quite get what is going on. 

I write these blog entries for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I retain things better if I write them down. It forces me to organize ideas, form connections, etc. The other motive is that I really want to share them, and discuss them with someone - anyone. If this one strikes you, send me a note, an email, a comment. 

So, how to entice you to read it? I am your standard progressive, liberal kind of male octogenarian. In the course of reading this book I learned a ton of new things about our culture, our democracy and myself. Let me lay out a few of my “strange” ideas that you might also be suffering from. 

Short List of My New Learnings

This is a list of things which I discovered I had not understood correctly.

• Critical Race Theory 

• White Privilege

• Transgender persuasion or education

• JK Rowling’s transphobic opinions

• Diversity is always a good goal.

• Google Memo on gender differences in IT

• Police are killing blacks disproportionately 

• Racism in the U.S. has gotten worse

• Women are paid less than men for comparable work

• Trans women of color have a shorter life expectancy.

• Most people of the “other political persuasion” are not thinking rationally.

• The extreme left are a small and insignificant part of the Democratic party.

• Universities support open idea exchange

I want to assure you that there are many more insights in the book - this is just to whet your appetite. And I am willing to bet that my grandkids have no idea about the origin of that expression: “whet your appetite” - just as they have no clue what “prime the pump” comes from. But  . . . 

Expanded List of My New Learnings

• Critical Race Theory.
  My prior view of this topic was that it was a tempest in a teapot. The ultra conservatives are resisting it for no good reason. Turns out, there are two manifestations of this thing. The “liberal” one - my view - is that this is a fair and accurate examination of our history as a nation, and the history of slavery as a human institution. Slavery was perverse, and universal, and the fact that we finally understood that and outlawed it is a huge accomplishment. We should teach and celebrate that. This is the view of the “Social Justice Liberals”, or “Progressives” in my vocabulary. See Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire's Slaves. by Adam Hochschild 
  Turns out, what the conservatives are opposed to is a totally different program supported by the far left, the group the author calls  “Social Justice Fundamentalism”, or SJF proponents. These folk are pushing Critical Race Theory as a kind or racist teaching curriculum, not a descriptive history term. They are basically teaching people how to be racist, in a perverse fashion. They are committed to removing the social negatives that are embedded in our world view by pushing an extreme, contrary racism. This is not history - this is not based on any science or fact. This is a biased, hateful approach to all humans. The author describes these classes and curriculums in great detail - it would make me ill to think that my children would be exposed to this kind of craziness in school, and our family is multiracial! 

• White Privilege.
  I read a whole book on this topic, and agreed wholeheartedly with the author’s understanding of the problem. By the good fortune of being born with fair skin, from a European heritage, my current world accords me many advantages that have nothing to do with my skill, ability, or hard work. This was especially true when I was growing up during the 40s and 50s. That is simply an undeniable fact.
  But this term, “White Privilege” has been cast by the extreme left, the SJF, as a blanket condemnation of all individuals of fair complexion. It could be called “white guilt” - and there is a book by that title that I have also read. This book and this approach has not a scintilla of research or evidence supporting the view - just opinions and condemnations. Those white folk are not accorded any room for discussion or debate. That white group is told to be quiet. Anyone of a darker hue who protests that they are not affected by this syndrome or atmosphere is considered to be non rational, a traitor, or worse. This is reverse racism. This is a non rational approach to a significantly complex social problem - and it is not helping. People of a conservative bent are rightly upset about that kind of stupidity, as should we all.

• Transgender persuasion or education.
  I thought the extreme right were simply opposed to all transgender support efforts. Many of them are, but the more moderate folk are focused on a very different beast. There is a decent amount of data that indicates that many more young women are now questioning their gender as a result of all of the publicity and discussion about gender identity. The number of young men going through this seems stable. The concern is that the simple fact of being a woman in today’s still male dominated world is enough to cause some questions in any young woman. We should not rush to introduce biological therapies, some of which are irreversible, when young people are still highly persuadable and impressionable. See JK Rowling’s concern below.

• JK Rowling as transphobic.
  I saw a whole flurry of articles in the media about JK Rowling being somehow transphobic - upset about the push for recognizing trans teens or some such. I figured she had some quirk in that area, and it was not my problem. After reading some of this book, I decided to go check. I did a Google search on the topic. The first few hits were popular magazine articles exploring how terrible this was and lamenting the damage to her reputation, etc. Even articles defending her assumed that she was transphobic.
  Looking further down the search list, I found her website, and a lengthy piece that she penned there to explain her concerns. You might also read it (see below) - and then tell me how this concern could have possibly given her the reputation of being transphobic. I know she is wealthy and she will survive this, but she has suffered enormous loss to her public image and probably some income to a totally trumped up case with no basis. What she describes is a very real concern based on her own experience as a woman and the data that is available about the numbers of trans teens. It seems likely that many young women are being persuaded to undertake biological therapy without need. It is a well balanced, careful argument that our society and government need to be careful here. I have to admit that Twitter and her tweets there have not helped this perspective at all, but the criticism is way over the top. I am NOT a fan of Twitter.
  https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
  https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/my-article-for-the-sunday-times-scotland-on-why-i-oppose-gender-recognition-act-reform/ 

• Diversity is always a good goal.
  At first glance, that seems like a commendable thing. Any group is better if it represents our full population - be it “race”, “gender”, conservative, liberal, etc.
  But the far left see it very differently. It has to be a mathematical precision, with no other values considered. Blind auditions is one good example that shows how ridiculous this is. Major orchestras introduced this blind audition method to ensure that a racial or gender bias was not affecting their decisions for promoting and hiring capable musicians. The candidate performs behind a screen, and they are judged based solely on their performance.  Page 591 
  “In 2020, The New York Times published an article arguing that orchestras should end blind auditions, because they produced orchestras that were not diverse enough, with too many Asian and white musicians. The writer was adhering to Kendi’s definition of an antiracist. The policy of auditioning musicians without seeing who they were was producing an outcome with a racial disparity—and was therefore a racist policy.”
  The extremists are unhappy with this because the results are not as diverse numerically as the general population of candidates. A disproportionate number of “asians” are excellent musicians, and we have disproportionately less representation from “people of color.”  The extreme folk want to fix the problem by juggling the numbers. What we should be doing is working to understand why there is this difference, and determine how we want to attack the cause of that disparity to resolve the problem. Just adjusting the numbers is NOT solving the problem, but rather hiding it, and it is also “reverse racism” against those folks with better abilities. 

• Google Memo on gender differences in IT.
  In this case, a Google employee wrote a very balanced and critical memo to Google management about their diversity programs. He had many suggestions about how to improve things for correcting their male / female disparity in hiring and promotion. All I ever saw of that initially was that he was a biased antifeminist, complaining that his male gender was not being treated fairly for unscientific reasons. He was criticized in the press, in the public, and he was fired by Google.
  Having read the actual memo, it is a wonderfully crafted document, based on research and statistics, and is very supportive of diversity and inclusion. It recommends practical methods for Google to improve their gender balance. You can see this discussion on page 502 of the book. Read the actual memo here:
  https://web.archive.org/web/20170809021151/https://diversitymemo.com/
  (That link should download it. If it stops working, drop me a note - I have a copy.)
  So what happened? The media and the SJF attached a “straw man” memo that the author never wrote. They characterized the attack as a biased, negative reaction to their efforts to achieve gender balance. Within Google and “The Media”, virtually no one defended the author and the actual memo - and he was terminated. When good folk say nothing,  bad things happen. You can read more about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber 

• Police are killing blacks disproportionately
  I do my best to stay up on the news. It was my impression that police kill many more blacks than whites in any set of circumstances - armed, crime, traffic stop, etc. In a sense, I put some of this down to a higher crime rate in black populations. None of that is supported by any factual basis.
  “A 2019 survey asked 980 people from across the political spectrum how many unarmed Black men they believed were killed by police (by shooting or any other means) in 2019. That year, 31 unarmed Black men were killed by police. All groups overestimated the number, with those on the political left being the farthest off. Fifty-four percent of the “very liberal” group were off by a factor of over 30X, while 22% of that group were off by a factor of over 300X.” Page 562
  So, we had 31 unarmed black men killed by police. Estimates from liberal folk ranged from 300 to 9,000. The problem is in the news coverage.
  “Between 2016 and 2022, 326 unarmed white men and 232 unarmed Black men were killed (by any means) by police in the U.S. Media coverage of these incidents has been highly skewed, with the median story about a Black victim receiving nine times the coverage as the median story about a white victim.”
  In actual fact, more unarmed white men were killed by police than unarmed black men. The truly terrible crimes committed against people like George Floyd and others made those much more newsworthy. On the other side of that, we really do not know whether the killing of white men had some similarly shocking circumstances. 

• Racism in the U.S. has gotten worse
  Prior to the election of 2016, I thought we were making decent progress against racism. After that election and the clearly racist support of many I thought perhaps it had just gone undercover, and was waiting for a spokesperson to make it legitimate to voice those opinions again.
  But the facts indicate that racism is declining in our opinion and in fact. Sources are cited in the text.
  “A Pew question asks Americans whether they believe “racial discrimination is the main reason why many Blacks can’t get ahead.” The percentage of Black respondents answering “yes” steadily decreased starting in the mid-1990s, suggesting that Black Americans’ feeling of agency was on the rise. This makes sense, given the amount of promising data pointing to improving conditions for Black Americans—both the Black poverty rate and the Black unemployment rate have dropped to all-time lows, while both the Black incarceration rate and the disparity between the Black and white incarceration rate have been steadily declining over the past 20 years. But the SJF narrative tells the opposite kind of story, and this could be contributing to a sharp reversal in Black Americans’ sense of empowerment in recent years.”  Page 584                            
  The SJF, extreme left, are preaching a totally different story, which makes black Americans feel even worse about our problems, and less trusting of the police.

• Women are paid less than men for comparable work
  This one is interesting, as you see these numbers cited everywhere, all the time. I have regularly seen estimates of 30 to 40% less for “comparable” work. But it is simply not true. If you take the data and break it down by age, profession, etc. the actual documented difference is about 1%.
  “According to the website Payscale, when controlling for “all compensable variables”—i.e., when comparing apples to apples—the gender wage gap drops dramatically, from 18% to 1%. Women earn 99 cents—not 77 or 80 or 83 cents—for every dollar a man makes, for the same work.” Page 585
  Hmmm. Looking at the Payscale website and their recent press releases, one would get the impression that this statement in the book is not exactly true. See: https://www.payscale.com/press-releases/women-stand-to-lose-900000-in-lifetime-earnings-payscales-gender-pay-gap-report-shows/
  Payscale has good data, but it is also pushing an agenda for selling its expertise. Numbers are flexible things if you have an agenda. I guess the simplest thing to say here that this is NOT a simple problem, and is not going away in a hurry. I did find this interesting:
  “The gender pay gap is also closing in some locations. Women are paid the same as men overall for coastal metros that include Los Angeles, San Diego, ​San ​Jose, Portland, and Washington, D.C. The metros with the largest controlled and uncontrolled gender pay gaps are situated across America’s heartland, such as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City.”

• Trans women of color have a shorter life expectancy
  The number cited most often is 35 years, less than half of the normal female lifespan. This was cited in a recent Emmy Awards program, and repeated in virtually all of the leading news outlets.This was news to me. As cited in the book there are many articles describing this "fact," but none of them cited a legitimate source, or any data supporting the claim. Best case the news media is incredibly sloppy for some topics. Worst case our more ardent progressives are not above simply making things up to advance the cause. That never turns out well. See: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/09/23/41471629/is-the-life-expectancy-of-trans-women-in-the-us-just-35-no 

• Most people of the “other political persuasion” are not thinking rationally.
  I have to confess that I am prone to this one. Jordan Klepper would provide all the data I need about the folks on the right. Turns out though, exactly the same is true of most of us - left or right. And the extreme left may have a larger vocabulary, but their thought police as even worse than non rational - they are downright fascist. 

• The extreme left are a small and insignificant part of the Democratic party.
  They may be small in number, but the extreme left are now dominating our educational and research institutions in an incredible fashion. The author offers many, many examples where more moderate liberals cannot voice a concern about any “woke” issue without literally losing their jobs and reputation to the “liberal” media and protests. I do not see a huge funded conspiracy here as has been alleged about the Koch brothers on the right. But the fact is that “diversity goals” and “safe speech” are now coloring every type of university research and education. This is even true in purely physical science fields where they have no place. In many institutions the majority of liberal faculty are too afraid to even voice a concern, as their colleagues have been similarly dismissed for doing the same. This is a HUGE problem. This is the whole focus of the book - how can we possibly counter the impact of this tiny, extreme view of racist ideas?

• Universities support open idea exchange
  There is a spectrum of conservative and liberal universities, and the liberal are more numerous. The number of faculty members who identify as conservatives in any survey has rapidly declined. In the top 5 schools, no faculty member was brave enough to indicate that they were conservative or Republican.
  That is one problem, but well beyond that, every moderate liberal faculty member must now defend themselves against the cultural diversity police. Universities have diversity boards, focused on purity and numbers. These groups call out any faculty or students who simply voice a more moderate opinion of the problems facing our society. The author cites many instances where moderate faculty have been roundly condemned by students and fired for expressing their opinions. The result is that no one can even mention that they might disagree with these extreme “thought police.” Things like “speech codes,” “free speech zones,” and “safe areas,” are the new code for “you cannot even express those ideas here.” This is really bad news.

Point of Disagreement

I have one area of disagreement with the author, and I intend to raise that to him in some fashion. He has a quote from Isabel Wilklerson and her book Caste. He cites her statement as another example of this extreme left view. I think he is taking too simplistic a cast on that one - intentional play on words. What Caste describes is not an enforced view that is not amenable to rational discussion of the problem. It is rather a carefully researched and nuanced evaluation that we are all impacted by an unconscious, unaware mental bias about our position in our society. The problem is that this tendency is so far below our normal awareness that it is not amenable to rational discussion. Ms. Wilkerson has done us the service of bringing it to our attention. And she is not forcing us to believe that - it is simply a matter of looking at the evidence.  I wrote a lengthy piece on that which you can read here if you are so inclined.
https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2021/04/finally-i-understand-what-is-wrong-with.html 

Steps To Take

This is a shorthand note of the steps he recommends for us to take to try to counter this extreme left, and to better communicate with the moderate right. Page 659 ff.

1. Courage level 1: Stop saying stuff you don’t believe.
   To really do this, we all need to spend some time THINKING about what we do believe - not just where we happen to be following along.
   I think I have this one in hand - how about you? I used to let people think I was a believing Catholic. When I was accidentally outed, I decided to let it ride. I think going public with my unbelief would have cost me a city council election . I know of a few local politicians who claim membership in the “christian” church called Universalist Unitarianism. That group of folk are not overtly atheistic, but you do not need to believe in any deity to be a formal member. In my case, my “coming out” to our most recent clerical pastor resulted in my being banned from reading during liturgy, or holding any leadership position in our church’s volunteer activities. I am hopeful that my visibility may help a few others be more open to their religious questions.
   On the political scene, I always felt that I was an independent. Running for office at the local level never required any identified political party. I was significantly honored when a local group of active Republicans tried to recruit me to run for our State Legislature. I considered it a high compliment - but I assured them that my mother would turn over in her grave if I did that.
   
   

2. Courage level 2: Start saying what you really think, in private, with people you know well
   I feel pretty good about this one. I do my very best to never mislead anyone about anything. But I have to confess that in a mixed group, I will keep my opinions to myself just to avoid conflict. If people know me at all, our family’s multi-racial makeup pretty much keeps people from engaging in racist discussions. That generally impacts political topics as well. But I have to admit, that even in a private family discussion, I will not raise my voice if I think it will just upset people. I am pretty sure I would object if I felt someone else was being harmed by an erroneous opinion - but I do not travel much in circles where that occurs.
   
   

3. Courage level 3: Go public
   And here we are - a public blog stating strong political views, etc. But this thing has zero impact - well almost zero. Did not mean to malign you personally now that you have read all the way to the bottom. My Apologies.

SO?

So - what do you think? What can you do to help us out here? Thanks.

Stay safe out there. 

Book Recommendation / Review - The Bias that Divides Us by Keith E. Stanovich

 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. 117

• Women 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. 145

• Creationism 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).