The best lack all conviction

MyDD points us to the latest from The Washington Post's Shankar Vedantam, "Disagree About Iraq? You're Not Just Wrong -- You're Evil."

Here's the nut grafs of the article (which, as usual, Vedantam buries after several introductory paragraphs of misleading "examples"):

"We are really bad about putting ourselves in other people's places and looking at the world the way they look at it," said Glenn D. Reeder, a social psychologist at Illinois State University who recently conducted a study into how supporters and critics of the Iraq war have come to believe entirely different narratives about the war -- and about each other. "We find it difficult to grant that other people come to their conclusions in good faith if they reach a conclusion that is different than ours," he said.

When Reeder and his colleagues asked pro-war and antiwar Americans how they would describe the other side's motives, the researchers found that the groups suffered from an identical bias: People described others who agreed with them as motivated by ethics and principle, but felt that the people who disagreed with them were motivated by narrow self-interest.

This is something we've been talking about here quite a bit recently: the presumption of good faith.

That presumption, like the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in our legal system, is terribly important for civil society and democracy. If we start, instead, with a presumption of bad faith, then we will be unable to discuss the things about which we disagree. If we can't talk, then we can only fight -- with bullets or ballots.

The presumption of good faith is sometimes referred to as the presumption of charity -- a reference to the cardinal virtue, love. But it's also an expression of a different virtue: justice. It is unjust, unfair to presume before-the-fact that those who disagree with you have evil intent. This, again, is why we have a similar principle -- innocent until proven guilty -- in our justice system. Justice demands a presumption of innocence.

But note that this presumption of innocence in our justice system does not mean that no one is ever convicted of a crime. The standard is innocent until proven guilty. Prosecutors do not violate the presumption of innocence when they produce evidence and testimony proving that a suspect is guilty of a crime. Such evidence can lead to a conviction, the conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect is not innocent.

Convictions based on evidence do not violate the presumption of innocence.

Here's where Vedantam and Dr. Reeder lose the plot. We've discussed Vedantam before (see "Behindsight and bias"). He covers the "Human Behavior" beat and as such is concerned mainly with people's attitudes. This tends to make his column weirdly abstract. He's curiously incurious about the real-world facts and conditions that may be the basis for those attitudes. In this case, in this article, he notes that people have drawn conclusions, but he is uninterested in whether or not these conclusions -- these convictions, to use the word in both senses -- are based on evidence:

It is important to note that the experiment does not establish which version of Bush's motives is true. It is possible, in other words, that everything you believe about Bush's motives is true and everything that your opponents believe is false. But a number of studies suggest people ought to be cautious about such conclusions. Studies have found, for example, that people believe that those who disagree with them are less informed and that those who agree with them are better informed.

Vedantam is arguing for a version of civility in which there is no such thing as evidence, in which, as he puts it, it does not matter "which version ... is true." We "ought to be cautious," Vedantam says, about even thinking that it's possible to "establish which version ... is true," because "studies have found" that we all approach such questions with biases and presuppositions about "those who disagree."

One wonders what basis Vedantam has for giving credence to the findings of such studies. If we accept his premise that all evidence is invalid due to bias, then the same must be said of the studies he (vaguely) cites as evidence of that bias.

What Vedantam fails to recognize is that the purpose of civil discourse is to allow us to find the truth together. Facts matter. Matter matters. Believing, or presuming, "the worst about those who disagree" should be avoided because it is uncharitable and unjust, but it also should be avoided because it is a distraction from the consideration of the facts of the matter. The motives, feelings and attitudes of those who disagree with me are not, to begin with, the substance of our disagreement.

Analogies are dangerous, but let's consider a hypothetical scenario so that we can be sure of agreeing on the facts in question.

Imagine there arises a health-craze for a new children's vitamin supplement containing large amounts of lead. Your friend has begun buying this supplement for his kids, and you have pleaded with him to stop. It's entirely possible, in this scenario, that you are both acting out of good faith, with the purest of motives. You both want what is best, and healthiest, for the children. Because you are friends, you are able to set aside bias and suspicion and the presumption of bad faith and you are able to discuss the evidence, the facts of the matter: lead is poisonous. In such a scenario, you would be able to persuade your friend not to poison the children with the lead supplements.

When talking to your next-door neighbor, however, you do not have this same basis of friendship and so your attempt at conversation quickly devolves into a shouting match in which each of you is presuming bad faith, bad motives. Your neighbor wants what is best for his children, so he insists that, as the ad says, they "Start the day the heavy, healthy way with new Pb for Kids!" He takes your disagreement with this practice to mean that you, for some twisted reason, don't want his kids to benefit from the best that medical science has to offer. This accusation leads you, unfortunately, to accuse him of wanting to poison his children, an approach that fails to persuade him. Eventually, you calm down and try to explain that lead is dangerous, but he's no longer listening. You may think lead is poisonous, but you also think he hates his children, and he knows you're wrong about that, so why should he listen to you?

The presumption of bad faith is a distraction from a consideration of the facts. And, because an invalid accusation of bad motive undermines your credibility, it prohibits the consideration of the facts.

But again, contra Vedantam, the facts matter. The relative sincerity or insincerity of the opposing parties' concern for the children's health is nowhere near as relevant as the fact that "Pb for Kids" is highly toxic. "Which version ... is true" is all that really matters.

Now imagine a conversation with a different neighbor. You have been the model of civility, politeness and magnanimity. "I realize that you only want what is best for your children," you say, "so I ask you to reconsider giving them this supplement." You give them a copy of this pamphlet on the dangers of lead poisoning and calmly, patiently explain -- without ever once questioning their motives -- why it is terribly important not to expose children to this toxin. This neighbor thanks you, but continues giving his children the supplement.

At this point, you begin to question his motives. You begin to wonder if maybe he is intentionally poisoning his children, or if he's crazy, or deliberately ignorant.

Tsk, tsk! says Vedantam Shankar, wagging a disapproving finger. Concluding bad faith based on evidence is just the same as presuming it beforehand. And where do you get off handing out pamphlets? That's just an example of the biased preconception "that people believe that those who disagree with them are less informed and that those who agree with them are better informed."

Vedantam seems to think that the only way to avoid prejudice is to avoid judgment -- that consideration of the evidence is dangerous because it can lead to bias. He seems to think that any conviction is a rejection of the presumption of innocence. That it's impossible to believe another is wrong without accusing them of being evil, an thus that we should never accuse others of being (or risk being ourselves) wrong.

Here's the conclusion of Vedantam's article:

Reeder said he has very strong beliefs about the Iraq war, but reminds himself when he gets too heated that he might be falling victim to the very biases he studies. I asked the psychologist where he stands on the war. He declined to say. "I have done my job," he said, "if partisans on both sides think I disagree with them."

This is Broderian cowardice. Reeder and Vedantam are drowning in their ceremony of innocence, so intent on avoiding passionate intensity that they lack all conviction. Such a center cannot hold.

Comments

[opoponax]

i think this is exactly the crux of the matter.

once you spend any time organizing as a political activist (especially on the "raising awareness" front of activism), you quickly discover that simply informing your opponents isn't going to work. no matter how clean and perfect and dry your data is. the only way to win support via "raising awareness" is if you happen to find a group of people who really have no particular conviction on the matter and are open to being informed on the topic.

of course, at the end of the day, there is ultimately a fact-based right or wrong answer, or at least a more logical course of action. either Bush did or did lie about our motives in attacking Iraq. and since it's easy to show that Bush did in fact lie, and all of us except those who are openly fascist believe that the president has no business lying to the american people about something like that, well, the conclusions are obvious.

except that somehow, they're not. i've decided to stop talking politics with my family (i mean real politics, not "who do you think's going to be the democratic nominee?") because no matter how plain the facts seem to me, they all somehow amazingly refuse to accept it and have their own conflicting version of "facts" which are so blatantly incorrect as to be laughable. it's like they live in an alternate universe. where do they get this stuff? is it a regional thing? are they having these same thoughts about me? how can i know i'm right, that my facts are real, if they apparently believe their erroneous ones as strongly as i do my obviously correct ones?

it's enough to bring on a kind of paranoid schizophrenia. also to help me understand how so many members of the far left in the 60's quite literally went insane.

[Bugmaster]

Well, most people treat politics as a religion; I know my friends do. So, it doesn't really matter what the current political candidate is saying; we know he's a Democrat (or a Republican), and therefore he's evil, selfish, and wants to raise taxes and surrender to the Iraqi terrorists (or bankrupt the country and destroy our troops). There's no room for facts or evidence, because these basic political postulates are pre-determined and set in stone, just like the Ten Commandments. Democrats (or Republicans) are evil, and that's that, what more can you say ?

[LL]

Why do facts hate America?

[peasant]

Cognitive dissonance: The Belief-Disconfirmation Paradigm
Dissonance is aroused when people are exposed to information inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can lead to misperception or misinterpretation of the information, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from those who agree with one's belief, and attempting to persuade others to accept one's belief. In a study of the effect of belief disconfirmation on proselytizing, Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter (1956) acted as participant observers in a group that had become committed to an important belief that was specific enough to be capable of unequivocal disconfirmation. The group believed a prophecy that a flood would engulf the continent. The prophecy was supposedly transmitted by beings from outer space to a woman in the group. The group members also believed that they had been chosen to be saved from the flood and would be evacuated in a flying saucer.

[Darryl Pearce]

Often, presenting the information and allowing someone to come to a conclusion once they have all the facts proves too much hard work and those of the population that:
--want to be fooled
--want to be protected
--want to be abused

Are we... as free-thinking, free-will human beings willing to ...hmm, manipulate that segment of the population? To view the lazy, scared, angry people as herd-animals to be corraled?

[peasant]

In my discussions with my 'literal-minded' friends, a major reason they swallow Creationist claptrap, is that the science is too hard, and the debates get too detailed for them to follow.

Their approach then regresses to "who do you believe?" Scientists who are clearly part of liberal academia, or that down-to-earth common-sense bible-believing preacher who makes everything seem so simple..?

[Rampaging Killbot]

I find this article's premise interesting. I've been an opponent of our adventure in Iraq since it was on the drawing-table, but I've never assumed that most of the war's supporters were pro-war in bad faith. I merely assumed that they were uninformed, or unintelligent, or both. Usually uninformed or ill-informed. I think my assumption has been bourne out by the fact that as people have become more aware that our justifications for going to war with Iraq were largely fictions, support for the war has declined.

Before the first bombs dropped, I remember reading a number of cogent articles in non-mainstream publications (both right wing and left wing) explaining why it was unlikely that Saddam had significant stocks of prohibited weapons, why we wouldn't garner the support of most of the int'l community, why we'd probably go ahead and prosecute an illegal war anyway, and why that war would probably end in guerrilla warfare against jihadis under the control of theocrats, civil war for Iraq, massive civilian casualties, etc.

I would like to believe, and I do believe, that if more Americans had had access to better information in the months preceeding the war, the antiwar movement would have been much larger. I doubt it would have averted the war, though. In conversations with people I knew who reflexively supported an invasion based on the poor information spilling out of cable news channels, I managed to convince several that starting a war with Iraq was wrong. It's a pity more people didn't come to that conclusion sooner.

[Jacob Davies]

Bugmaster: "most people treat politics as a religion; I know my friends do".

Isn't this exactly what the article was saying?

My experience is that my friends do not treat politics as a religion. They have informed beliefs based on experience, evidence, policy, morality, questions of social justice, the desire for security, and so on and so forth.

Now there are certainly some people who treat politics like either a team sport or a religion, in my opinion much more commonly on the right than the left (not surprisingly as the right tends more toward an authoritarian don't-think-for-yourself view, so the left would tend to attract people more inclined to evaluate evidence). But they exist on the left too, of course.

But even most of the right-wingers have those views for reasons based on some kind of evidence or understanding of the world. I radically disagree with them on that view & how to interpret evidence and even what the overall goal of politics is, but many of them aren't just picking sides at random.

For me, the key to understanding of the right-wing worldview are these two beliefs:

"Government should be responsible for defence and law & order and nothing else."

"I got everything I have today through my own hard work & virtue."

These lead them to a cascading series of mistakes and misapprehensions about how the world works. (Of course, this is just my subjective opinion about the objective correctness of their beliefs. Argh.) The first statement misses all the ways that government or other collective works created the world they live in, the social structures that let them exist in peace, their educational system, the economic stability of the country, and will keep them out of a retirement in grinding poverty, no matter how their life goes. And the second statement misses the random chances that had them born in a rich country, to parents not in poverty, and the role of chance in the way their life has progressed. Obviously, "hard work & virtue" do play a major role, sometimes the main role if you're dealt a particularly poor starting hand; but for most people, the belief that all of your current lifestyle comes from your hard work (or that of your parents) isn't all that accurate.

Mind you, it sounds like a really nice opinion to hold. I'd love to wake up every day and think "I DESERVE ALL THIS BECAUSE I AM A GOOD AND HARD-WORKING PERSON!!!"

[Jeff]

One very convincing reason for Cognative Dissonance I'ver read lies in the way that we learn things. As we repeat something (whether an action or a thought), it gets "ingrained" and the more ithat thing is repeated, the more ingrained it becomes until we really have no conscious knowledge of the thing.

The more things are repeated, especially when we're young, the harder it is to undo the "ingraining" (a new learner would have less trouble going from a stick-shift to an automatic and back than one who's driven for many years).

So it is with beliefs. The beliefs are repeated over and over, by family, friends, authority. Undoing the beliefs is really hard, and takes a conscious effort.

[David]

Bugmaster: "most people treat politics as a religion; I know my friends do".

Jacob: "Isn't this exactly what the article was saying?"

Not exactly -- the article is making the much more disturbing claim that this is how it should be, and that we should be careful not to express definite conclusions that disagree with other people's for that reason, since, after all, they are probably sincere about their opinion.

I'd agree with some of the other comments, though: I'm completely opposed to the war, but I know people who support it, support George Bush, and so on -- and though I've had little success debating this position with them, it never occurred to me to suggest their opinions were held in bad faith. I have concluded, after consideration of the evidence, that Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and various others are acting in bad faith (not in the sense that they believe they are doing the wrong thing, since few people believe that, but rather that they are being deliberately deceptive and other things that would widely be considered "wrong"). But in my personal experience the people who believe them are likely to be credulous and ideologically committed to conservative politics, but not (in most cases) out of malice. (I add "in most cases" because that isn't true if you consider common attitudes towards, for example, Muslims).

However, Fred is right: the important thing, in the end, is that however sincere the belief of the rank-and-file constituents, the war is still wrong.

[Kriz]

Have you read Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit? It's a cogent argument about the nature of exactly the phenomenon you're talking about - the privileging of sentiment over everything from facts to logic.

He's also written a sequel called On Truth, which concludes, similarly to your statements, that truth is indeed important: because non-truth is non-reality, and acting on belief in the not-real can easily lead to poor decision-making. Or disaster. Cf. "Iraq War."

[R. Mildred]

so the left would tend to attract people more inclined to evaluate evidence

Well, the more (ahem) "centrist" elements of the left are very choosy about what evidence they evaluate, largely concerning stuff that portrays them as either useless or part of the problem doesn't get evaluated at all (though they're a lot more honest about just ignoring any such evidence instead of weaving incredibly pathetic tissue of lies to make it seem like they're fair and taking everything on board.

One thing that has to be noted about presumptions of good faith is that while it's a good thing to presume good faith for another person, it's teh height of folly to continue presuming good faith past the point that it's been made clear the other person is acting out of a very bad sense of faith, and that anyone who still continues to unilaterally presume good faith is insulting your intelligence and should be treated as such.

The standard is innocent until proven guilty. Prosecutors do not violate the presumption of innocence when they produce evidence and testimony proving that a suspect is guilty of a crime.

to be fair, the standard for the court is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, the standard for the defence is that the accused is innocent - period - and the standard for the prosecution is that the accused is guilty - period.

The whole "Bias" thing is presenting the view point that we should at any given moment be the impartial court, the judge, the jury, even when we're trying to prove our beliefs - that, in short, no one should be taken seriously unless they don't have a viewpoint to express (hypocrisy tends to enter into things around here) or a point they are trying to get people to believe, and that anyone who does actually have a position that they want to convince others with, then their evidence is automatically biased.

It'd be like the neighbour taking one look at the leadfact sheet and saying that it's invalid because it doesn't mention anything good about lead - which undoubtably makes a certain sense if you're stuck within the court paradigm, because anyone who presents a viewpoint is also unable to hold any other view point because they're not allowed to, and discussing things with them therefore becomes pointless because there's no debate between the defense and the prosecution, and so everything is merely a process of avoiding those tediously pointless debates via whatever means neccesary.

However, we're not living within a court room, and people hold views because they actually have a reason for them, rather than because it's their job to hold a particular veiw point or opinion (male prostitutes are not neccesarily covered by that statement*) but because they ahve an actual reason, based on evidence usually, that the view point is valid.

Arguements should then be like those between two detectives with different views on a crime, and who actually have to build a case based on evidence to support their respective viewpoints.

* which is unfair beacuse it's entirely possible that Jeff Gannon wasn't primed and paid to throw easy questions during the WH press briefings, and that he really wanted to ask the questions he asked because he was curious. Similarly, it's entirely possible that he was allowed into the WH press brief for his journalistic skills rather htan because of any possible connections he had with certain republican politicians.

Who aren't neccesarily gay but just find that the totally platonic company of jeff gannon was worth paying for of an evening.

[Mabus]

Everybody here knows that I used to support the war...did so for several years, in fact. I hadn't heard any of the arguments Raging Killbot claims he'd heard, except in a few bits and pieces presented without evidence. I either didn't believe them, or in a few cases believed them based on my own preconceptions--for instance, it wasn't hard for me to believe that Europe would pay no attention to us, not because of bad diplomacy on our part but because I expected (and, given their subsequent behavior--eg, Darfur--still partly expect) Europeans to be blindly pacifistic.

When I changed my mind, it wasn't directly because the war was going badly, or even because we didn't find the WMDs (I was willing to allow for the possibility of bad intelligence, and I still expected a free Iraqi democracy). It was because he used a rhetorical tactic that I had been taught to regard as untruthful (or possibly a sign of insanity, which was worse). He began claiming divine authority--something that many theocons are willing to accept, but which my church teaches us to distrust. Once that happened (above a certain minimum background level, anyway--politicians are always using God-talk these days), I started re-evaluating what I had already seen.

Point is, if you want someone to do that, it's helpful, maybe even necessary, to undermine at least one thing they think they already know. Once I realized that Bush wasn't being even mostly truthful, but was pandering the whole time to people I don't even like, it changed my perception of the whole situation.

[the opoponax]

undermine at least one thing they think they already know

the problem there, though, is that so often, people just refuse to process when you get to that point. i've gone around and around with my family on basic facts that can be looked up easily in any library or even online. they just refuse to acknowledge that anything that is contrary to what they've already accepted as gospel truth. even when that "gospel truth" is nothing more than hearsay or popular wisdom (all black people are lazy and on welfare, women who have abortions are worthless sluts).

[hapax]

Re: Cognitive dissonance -- I was lucky enough to take a class from Leon Festinger, and he very strongly emphasized a point about his theories which is often glossed over. People who hold these worldviews don't cling to them despite disconfirmation because they are stupid. They do so because (and only if) they are seriously *invested* in that view. That investment can take material form -- "selling all they have to give to the poor" -- or social -- "leaving mother and father to come and follow me" -- or personal -- "deny thyself and take up thy cross."

It's very similar to the tendency of a gambler to "throw good money after bad" ; once you have put all that money in the game, to admit that you've lost, to give up and walk away, is psychologically very difficult. Indeed, cognitive dissonance also shares with the gambler the notion that the disconfirming information is actually confirmation: "if I keep on losing, my luck HAS to change"/"blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake."

(I think most of us have had the experience of forwarding an opinion that we are not quite committed to, and to have someone make a nasty personal attack on that basis; and instead of rejecting that belief, we think, "well, screw you asshole, I'm certain now that I must be right!")

This is the actual motivation behind so many, mmm, fringe religions (like the Jehovah's Witness's and the Mormons) sending out door to door missionaries. The point isn't to make converts (although that can be a nice side benefit.) The point is for these young men (usually men) to give up a year of their lives, ties with their friends and families, and material comforts -- and to be rejected. The more they are mocked and reviled, the better. It actually confirms them in their beliefs.

[R. Mildred]

who still continues to unilaterally presume good faith is insulting your intelligence and should be treated as such.

What's the line... "Don't change the subject, it alters the meaning of the sentence"... that should read "...anyone who is still expected to unilatreally presume good faith is insulting your intelligence"

[Andre]

This isn't a hypothetical example. Two traditional Mexican folk remedies for gastrointestinal illness, azarcon (lead tetroxide) and greta (lead oxide) are made out of lead.

I skimmed a bit, but the message of this is that my kids aren't getting enough lead in their diets. Is that right?

[dr ngo]

No problem. Just have them chew on the lead in their pencils. ;}

[hehe]

What is interesting is how a number of Germans have told me over the last 15 years or so how utterly vapid American discussions are - not only are Americans generally woefully uninformed (which is just another of those generally recognized American traits, like America first patriotism, or a lack of accepting any 'consensus' which doesn't have America's own interests at its core - climate change comes to mind), American generally refuse to take and defend a viewpoint, while saying something like 'everyone is entitled to their opinion.'

What has happened since roughly the Clinton era, though, is something Germans understand quite well - demonizing those who disagree with you in political discussions. Generally, politics are not a topic of polite discussion among people in Germany, as political beliefs here can be quite, quite deep. But at the same time, the fact that these divisions are so wide is accepted, and those who hold different beliefs may be 'wrong,' but they are not otherwise unacceptable human beings.

Germans can't grasp that any educated person can believe in creationism, for example - but if you are a creationist, you have nothing to lose by using any tactic in an attempt to force your beliefs on others, since you have already lost on an empirical basis (try telling a few hundred million Hindus that their creation myths are mythical, while your creation myths are truth - obviously, neither side cares about facts much).

America has long lost its mooring to the world around it - things like 40% of Americans thinking they will be among the richest 1% - and people living with delusions will fiercely defend them - until reality makes that unavoidable.

I think reality will not go away in the debate about Iraq, and unfortunately, I think a lot of those whose support was required to make the invasion politically possible will be given a new story to follow - it is called the 'Dolchstoss' in German, but in honor of Godwin, I'll stop there, except to note, that this narrative is absolutely based on bad faith being the reason why a nation lost a war it should have won.

To be honest, I think the future or political discourse in America is likely to improve any time soon, especially with major economic disruptions and growing military problems in regards to securing oil from the Middle East.

[bulbul]

For me, the key to understanding of the right-wing worldview are these two beliefs:
"Government should be responsible for defence and law & order and nothing else."
"I got everything I have today through my own hard work & virtue."
I almost agree. But the problem is that the first one is not a belief, definitely not a deeply ingrained one. It's more of an opinion that can be reasonably defended and, what's more important, it's just one of the manifestations of the deep underlying belief. Statements like "Social benefit programs encourage laziness" or "Minimum wage undermines competition" are another example. I think the belief you mentioned would be better phrased thusly: "Everything should be for my benefit".
The other one, now there's an article of faith if I've ever seen one.

I'd love to wake up every day and think "I DESERVE ALL THIS BECAUSE I AM A GOOD AND HARD-WORKING PERSON!!!"
My sleeping disorders nothwistanding, I sometimes wake up all fired up and feeling great. In those moments, I think of all the beautiful women who will throw themselves at my feet today, because I'm such a hot sexy piece of ass.
And then I walk into my bathroom to brush my teeth. One look in the mirror and suddenly all my illusions are gone and I see myself for what I really am - a fat ugly fuck.
My point is, how big a mirror do you think we need for all those right-wingers in our lives?

[Grey Duck]

This is the point in the debate where you read George Lakoff's excellent Don't Think of an Elephant and realize that not only do you need to create cognitive dissonance to get through, but to even generate the dissonance, you first need to activate the proper mental frames in your target.

And then you go on and read the bit in the link about the strict father model vs. the nurturant parent model, and you realize that you may both be talking about Iraq, but you're not talking about the same thing. Granted, not everybody falls neatly into one of these two categories, but they can serve as handy summaries of overarching world views.

Chances are, you'll never sway someone with just facts. Facts that don't fit get rejected out of hand as something that couldn't possibly be true. So you need to get at what the person's reasoning is and use arguements that fit within that framework. What exactly the best approach is on Iraq, I don't know. The few people I know who are likely to be supporting the operations in Iraq are people I stopped discussing politics with long before Iraq ever happened, so I haven't taken the time to work out a good arguement.

[Oglesby]

Allow me to address the psychological aspect of things briefly, in reference to this aspect of the posting:

"Vedantam is arguing for a version of civility in which there is no such thing as evidence, in which, as he puts it, it does not matter "which version ... is true." We "ought to be cautious," Vedantam says, about even thinking that it's possible to "establish which version ... is true," because "studies have found" that we all approach such questions with biases and presuppositions about "those who disagree."

One wonders what basis Vedantam has for giving credence to the findings of such studies. If we accept his premise that all evidence is invalid due to bias, then the same must be said of the studies he (vaguely) cites as evidence of that bias."

Don't make the mistake of criticizing an apple for not being an orange. This is in reference to a study about attitudes. Reeder (at least in his study) is not concerned with that Bush's motives actually are, but what people think they are. If we assume that Vendantam is correctly representing the substance of the research area (and from what I know of it, I believe he is), in no way can his premise be considered to be "all evidence is invalid due to bias" or "there's no such thing as evidence." To say that Vendantam is "incurious" or "uninterested" in whether there are factual bases for people's attitudes may or may not be true, but Vendantam is not talking about what he thinks, but rather what Reeder et al.'s article (and other social psychological articles) conclude about attitudes, not facts.

Your analogy has it almost right. Facts do matter, and I doubt Reeder or Vendantam would disagree. But, despite the fondest dreams of some philosophers and economists, people are not rational actors. People don't always give facts the weight they should have, and are surprisingly nimble when it comes to avoiding or explaining away (to borrow a phrase) an inconvenient truth. People can work to overcome these biases, but it is work, and people aren't always willing or able to do it. A good scientific education would do wonders for people; science is designed to try and minimize bias, after all.

Look back through your post, Fred. You take to task a researcher for not caring about the truth of Bush's motives when his study is not aimed at discerning the truth of Bush's motives. You further describe a writer discussing the research as uninterested in facts when he is in truth interested in facts; they just happen to be the facts of the Reeder et al. study and attitude research in social psychology that the story is about, not some broad notion of truth or reality. Ironically, it's hard not to believe that (by your own definition) you're acting in bad faith towards Reeder and Vendantam. I think your overall point(s) on civility is/are well-reasoned and compelling, however, and I will keep them in mind and suggest that you reconsider the articles for what they are, not what you want them to be.

p.s.: Vendantam is too vague in his citation, though I think some of his points are reflected in a 1985 study by Vallone, Ross, & Lepper titled "The Hostile Media Phenomenon: Biased Perception and Perceptions of Media Bias in Coverage of the Beirut Massacre." It's a good one.

[opoponax]

the bit in the link about the strict father model vs. the nurturant parent model

to be perfectly honest, any discussion tactic that involves reducing people into two broadly generalized categories is probably not going to help you communicate, but widen the distance.

[Steve]

to be perfectly honest, any discussion tactic that involves reducing people into two broadly generalized categories is probably not going to help you communicate, but widen the distance.

Oh, so you're one of those people.

(that was a joke)

[Steve]

I think as Fred has so eloquently point out previously on this blog, its not about truth or principle any more, its about power.

[opoponax]

If we assume that Vendantam is correctly representing the substance of the research area... in no way can his premise be considered to be "all evidence is invalid due to bias" or "there's no such thing as evidence." To say that Vendantam is "incurious" or "uninterested" in whether there are factual bases for people's attitudes may or may not be true, but Vendantam is not talking about what he thinks, but rather what Reeder et al.'s article... conclude about attitudes, not facts.

this is a HUGE problem with the way science, especially the social sciences, and psychology in particular, are reported in the media. distinctions between "this one study which looked at this one thing from this one perspective" and "there's no such thing as evidence!" get blurred very easily, mainly due to clumsy writing. it doesn't help that news sources generally choose to report on studies that will seem to confirm a certain social idea or push a certain political party line.

you see this all the time in mainstream reporting about gender and sexuality. somebody does a study on, say, attitudes of college age males towards older women. this is inevitably presented as some absolute truth. not "college guys see 50 year old women as desexualized and maternal" but "50 year old women are innately desexualized and maternal".

[opoponax]

@ steve -- sorry, didn't have time to read the link.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

There are 10 types of people on the world...

[Scott]

At this point, you begin to question his motives. You begin to wonder if maybe he is intentionally poisoning his children, or if he's crazy, or deliberately ignorant.

Since you get to create the hypothetical, you get to be right and make him wrong, but in the real world, his "deliberate ignorance" could be a perfectly reasonable argument refuting your pamphlet/study/etc.

Mind you, it sounds like a really nice opinion to hold. I'd love to wake up every day and think "I DESERVE ALL THIS BECAUSE I AM A GOOD AND HARD-WORKING PERSON!!!"

And of course, you'd love everyone waking up every morning thinking "ALL I HAVE COMES FROM THE HOLY AND SACRED GOVERNMENT!!!!" You offer a Devil's bargain: "you can choose to accept no responsibility whatsoever for anything, but you have to give me power in return". Passivity hurts them, but benefits you as a liberal, so that's what you'd choose for them.

And then I walk into my bathroom to brush my teeth. One look in the mirror and suddenly all my illusions are gone and I see myself for what I really am - a fat ugly fuck.

We clearly need a govt program to redistribute body fat - we can't ask you to take the responsibility to put down the Twinkies every now and then. That hurts your little liberal feelings.

[Scott]

Passivity hurts them, but benefits you as a liberal, so that's what you'd choose for them.

And now, a liberal will respond w/ a complaint about inherited wealth, and give it as a reason to have income redistributed by our political leaders, who have names like Bush and Kennedy, or who were married to previous presidents, because they 'earned' their political power.

[opoponax]

i love how scott assumes liberals like Bush and want to give him more power.

good one. yeah...

[opoponax would rather not feed the troll, but...]

oh, and say what you will about the Kennedies, but Hillary Clinton grew up fairly middle class. quite comfortably middle class/upper middle class, but it's not like daddy was a bank president or anything. and Bill was an illegitimate child who grew up poor in podunksville, USA. if there's any recent politician who we could all admit very much has acheived simply via hard work and natural intelligence, it's Bill Clinton.

[JMiller]

Fred: You spend way too much time defending the ritual of putting Reeder and Vedantam on trial for Broderian cowardice, as if it's not clear what the problem is. Seriously, do most instructions to a jury include "Murder is bad, mmm-kay?" No. It is, as they said in Futurama, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me seven or eight times, shame on me..." and if Reeder and Vedantam continue to believe, as the leadership apparently does, in opposition to tangible facts or claim that leadership can act simultaneously and continuously act both in good faith and in opposition to factual trends, then they're cowards (because they're using too many syllables per word to simply be terminally stupid).

Anyway, point is: Tighten it up, Fred! You're a journalist, you know this stuff. Rah rah.

[Steve]

Opo: I didn't read the link either. I was just being a wise ass.

[the opoponax]

oh, well then. i take that apology back.

[nc]

Since you get to create the hypothetical, you get to be right and make him wrong, but in the real world, his "deliberate ignorance" could be a perfectly reasonable argument refuting your pamphlet/study/etc.

How about a hypothetical case of someone supporting a government taking a country into an illegal war by making up evidence to distract the media, and ignoring massive public dissent (including around a million people marching on the capital)? Or perhaps we need something more 'real world'?

[Ethelred]

"And now, a liberal will respond w/ a complaint about inherited wealth, and give it as a reason to have income redistributed by our political leaders, who have names like Bush and Kennedy, or who were married to previous presidents, because they 'earned' their political power."

Waiter! I have a complaint: I distinctly asked for my double order of Jackass to be served cold, but this is lukewarm!

[Doctor Science]

I wonder if there's been a particular driving force behind how Americans have changed their minds about Iraq. It seems to me that both the media and our "leaders" have not altered their stance as radically as the public has -- almost as though people are making up their *own* minds. But on the basis of what information? Is it what they see on TV/ read in the paper? Is it due to conversations? Forwarded emails? People just thinking things over?

It's hard for me to judge, because my family, most of my friends, and I were against the war from the get-go, so there's been no process of change for me to observe first-hand. Also, we're probably weird.

[Mabus]

I think as Fred has so eloquently point out previously on this blog, its not about truth or principle any more, its about power.

Steve, government is involved. Of course it's about power.

i love how scott assumes liberals like Bush and want to give him more power.

Opo, I think it's fairly clear that liberals don't like Bush having power. But they do like having that power themselves. When, inevitably, someone whose politics they don't like uses that power, they grumble and complain--but they don't take any action to decrease that power when they regain it. At least, not in my experience. If liberals really want people like the Shrub not to wreck the country, the sensible thing to do is reduce the power of the federal government. But your whole ideology forbids that.

[bulbul]

you'd love everyone waking up every morning thinking "ALL I HAVE COMES FROM THE HOLY AND SACRED GOVERNMENT!!!!"
Now that's the Scott we all know and love! Here, have a Twinkie while we wait for Skyknight.

When, inevitably, someone whose politics they don't like uses that power, they grumble and complain
No, Mabus, we don't grumble or complain, we protest. And we do not protest against Shrub using the power vested in him. We protest when he MISUSES it. Do I really need to list all the high crimes and misdemeanors he and his administration have comitted since 2000*?

the sensible thing to do is reduce the power of the federal government
Sure it is. So why hasn't anyone done so yet? Because its something politicians have to do. And as we all know, politicians of all ideologies and creeds like power and they won't give it up that easily.

But your whole ideology forbids that.
Ideology? I didn't know we had one. Hey, did you guys discuss it at that last meeting while I was out taking a leak?

*Yes, I'm counting the stolen election, too.

[the opoponax]

But they do like having that power themselves. When, inevitably, someone whose politics they don't like uses that power, they grumble and complain--but they don't take any action to decrease that power when they regain it. At least, not in my experience.

examples?

also, i have to say that, aside from maybe a few socialists, i don't know of any particular subset of "liberalism" which has more government control as its ideology. of course it's true that most liberals don't have a stated goal of "shrinking government". but that's because we see a hell of a lot of things that need to be changed before we can get around to doing that. and also because most liberals don't see any way of shinking government in any meaningful way without, say, armed anarcho-syndicalist revolution. which most of us aren't really in favor of.

it's only conservatives who believe you can elect someone into office on the basis of "shrinking government" and actually expect that person to really do such a thing.

[cjmr]

Bulbul, no, I think you must have been brushing your teeth during the ideology discussion...

[Brandi]

Hi, Scott. Waiting for the patch glue to dry on your blow-up doll? Hint: don't use pins to attach the 8x10 of Ayn Rand's face to the head.

[Haukur]

as people have become more aware that our justifications for going to war with Iraq were largely fictions, support for the war has declined.

Maybe a bit but declining support for the war is probably much more closely tied to the fact that the war is going badly. If it wasn't for the continuing violence in Iraq most Americans would probably still be reasonably happy about the invasion.

[Steve]

mabus: Steve, government is involved. Of course it's about power.

What I meant was:
1. For those in power, there seems to be no principles, just a willinness to make and break rules to maintain power and obtain more power.
2. For the supposed watchdogs (the media), its not about evaluating claims against truth...and its not about evaluating actions for effectiveness and appropriateness, its about commenting on who is winning...who is doing the best spin job.

We're lies told about WMD to get us into Iraq? Who cares...want matters is how the story is managed by both sides. Damn the facts, we want to evaluate the storytellers.

Its like the media has gone from being the referee of the basketball game, to the color commentator. Inside of calling people on their rule breaking, they now just comment on what maybe happened.

[Fraser]

Scott, I don't want to start a flame war but you really are a great big silly-billy.

[Steve]

"Inside of calling people..." should have been "Instead..."

[Erick Oppeen]

What makes anybody think that Iraq is the only thing where "if you disagree, you're not just wrong, you're eee-ville?" I could name off about ten other questions where dissenting from the current Party Line will make people treat you like a known baby-eater...

[Steve]

Instead of calling people on their rule breaking, they now just comment on what maybe happened.

I didn't clarify my point very well here. Instead of being like a ref and blowing the whistle and assessing a foul, the media is more like "well, so and so may have crossed the line there, but we can't be sure"...then they turn to two commentators, one right wing "nope he didn't cross the line" and one left wing "yup, he crossed the line" and that settles it. There you go folks, something "maybe happened". Where are the cojones to call law-breaking law-breaking, to call a lie a lie. That is what I meant.