Cognitive Dissonance And The Paranoid Style

Jonah Lehrer, who bangs out one of the better blogs about neuroscience, writes today about how evidence against a core belief can, in partisans, reinforce that corps belief, like when conservatives are given data showing that supply tax cuts really don't boost government coffers, or when liberals tend to discount data showing the success of welfare reform.

Are liberals and conservatives equally prone to succomb to this cognitive distortion? Lehrer, a liberal says yes:

The researchers argue that conservatives are particularly vulnerable to this cognitive flaw, as their beliefs tend to be more rigid and immutable. But I'm not so sure. As a liberal partisan hack, I'm very aware of how my political biases distort my processing of information. I fixate on news that jives with my beliefs and tend to ignore those inconvenient facts that contradict my inner talking points. .

Richard Hofstader wrote before the age of Tversky and Kahneman, but his wonderful essay about the paranoid style in American politics anticipates this effect explicitly:

One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates :evidence." The difference between this "evidence" and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.

Tags: cognitive neuroscience | distortions | partisanship

Comments

Is this a post about Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan?

Posted by Petey | September 16, 2008 3:55 PM

Maybe the problem is that, when partisans are presented with evidence contradicting their corps [sic] beliefs, they are simultaneously presented with counter-[pseudo]-evidence affirming those beliefs. To wit, a typical lede:

Four new studies confirm what liberals have been saying for decades: cutting taxes actually reduces tax revenue. However, Joe Moran of the Cato Institute says, "those studies are simply wrong. Cutting taxes increases revenue. Yippee!"

In short, I don't blame "paranoid partisans", I blame useless hacks that insist on false equivalency so they don't appear to be biased in favor of the truth. Hacks like you, Marc.

Posted by Oracle | September 16, 2008 4:00 PM

Is this a post about Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan?

The difference of course is that Marshall and Sullivan aren't being provided any proof contrary to their position that Palin is a lying hack of a politician. Once someone provides evidence that Palin has not been lying her ass off these last couple of weeks, and Marshall and Sullivan deny that evidence, then perhaps you would have a point.

Posted by Craig | September 16, 2008 4:08 PM

"The difference of course is that Marshall and Sullivan aren't being provided any proof contrary to their position that Palin is a lying hack of a politician."

You need to reread the Hofstader quote that Marc provides a bit more closely...

Posted by Petey | September 16, 2008 4:16 PM

"You need to reread the Hofstader quote that Marc provides a bit more closely..."

Josh Marhsall and Andrew Sullivan write precisely the "respectable paranoid literature" that Hofstader is discussing.

Posted by Petey | September 16, 2008 4:19 PM

No, the real point of this post was to set Ambinder off as a morally superior being compared to anyone who takes a partisan, ideological or non-cynical view of our political process. To be accepted into the club of political reporter/geniuses, you have to take a snide, centrists, hyperbalancing perspective that views truth as something impossible to report and balance a sacred art, even if one campaign is arguing that the moon is made of green cheese and the blood of Venezuelan children can quench our energy needs. The rest of us are all imbalanced and paranoid, only the sacred high priests of Washington politics have the clear head to guide us through it all. Pray for these wise men.

Posted by Dan Conley | September 16, 2008 4:20 PM

Josh Marhsall and Andrew Sullivan write precisely the "respectable paranoid literature" that Hofstader is discussing.

(In Sarah Palin voice, with cocked head): In what regards, Petey?

Posted by Craig | September 16, 2008 4:31 PM

"The researchers argue that conservatives are particularly vulnerable to this cognitive flaw, as their beliefs tend to be more rigid and immutable."

End of story.

Posted by Billy | September 16, 2008 4:54 PM

It's a little disappointing that both Ambinder and Lehrer take as "evidence" Lehrer's belief that both sides do it and totally ignore the research they're discussing that provides actual evidence that conservatives are more likely to engage in this type of biased information processing (not not only conservatives do it, just that they are more likely to do so).

Once again, it's the artificial equivalence being made only on supposition. Saying, "but I think liberals do it too" is in no way a refutation of evidence than the study's findings that conservatives are more likely to do so.

Posted by Stlinquirer | September 16, 2008 4:58 PM

Simply put: Obama is a System Thinker while cCain et al. are Linear ones. See "Descartes' Error" by Dr. Antonio Damasio. You can also read other books about HOW TO THINK by Dr. Boehm, Dr. Senge, etc. It is about thinking and not about anything else. Republicans don't want us to think. It is enough to use (as Fascism and Communism does) SYMBOLIC ORDER such as "pins," flags, etc.

Posted by Joam Ritter | September 16, 2008 4:58 PM

...researchers argue that conservatives are particularly vulnerable to this cognitive flaw, as their beliefs tend to be more rigid and immutable...

So the data of the research indicates conservatives are more prone to ignoring the facts if the facts contradict their previously held beliefs, but Marc Ambinder prefers the opinon of a lone blogger who sees it as an equal opportunity bias.

Why am I not suprised?

Posted by Kate | September 16, 2008 5:13 PM

I was a teaching assistant for a class on scientific thinking. At the beginning of the semester the professor gave a quiz. First he asked, "Have extraterrestrials visited Earth?" Immediately after, he asked, "Has the government concealed the evidence that extraterrestrials have visited Earth?"

Every year, regular as clockwork, more people answer yes to the second question than the first.

Posted by Rick Heineman | September 16, 2008 5:15 PM

Kate, Billy, et al

If you read the article, you'd know that the researchers didn't study liberals' reactions to contradictory evidence, only conservatives' reactions. So their idea that conservatives may be more susceptible is evidence-free speculation. Its entirely appropriate for Lehrer to contrast it with his own evidence-free speculation.

The real question is why the researchers bothered to speculate instead of simply testing liberals as well as conservatives.

Posted by Alex | September 16, 2008 5:54 PM

It is not "corps belief." Please dont' rely on spell check alone. Use your brain, or get a competent editor.

Posted by jean deaux | September 16, 2008 5:59 PM

"(In Sarah Palin voice, with cocked head): In what regards, Petey?"

I'm sorry for hectoring you. I promise to be deferential in all future interviews with you.

Now can I get a ride in the seaplane, or what?

Posted by Petey | September 16, 2008 6:14 PM

Alex, from the WaPo article:

"Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research."

So... yeah. (This doesn't mean liberals don't deny evidence, just that contrary evidence doesn't cause liberals to redouble their belief as much as it causes conservatives to.)

Glad to see people calling Ambinder and the other blog out on the hypocrisy. It takes a lot of chutzpah to mock partisans and quote research that they ignore evidence in order to maintain their belief... and then ignore evidence in order to maintain your own belief.

Posted by Shock Mouse | September 16, 2008 6:31 PM

If I were a conservative, I would believe that Sarah Palin spent $24,000 of Wasilla taxpayer money on an SUV for herself while refusing to pay for rape kits for victims because she's a BIGTIME REFORMER who cares about ordinary citizens.

But since I'm a sane, rational human being, I think those two facts point to her being a pig, even before she puts her lipstick on.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 16, 2008 8:57 PM

A personal anecdote (Lehrer's) does not satisfy the burden of proof that cited literature does. The conclusion, that the data indicate that "conservatives are particularly vulnerable to this cognitive flaw" is thus a valid point and Lehrer's self-deprecation is merely an interesting story for him to tell at a cocktail party. Pulling that out shows that you, Ambinder, are succumbing to that knee jerk "I must have balance, even if there aren't two equally weighted sides" reaction of journalists.

Posted by Skullduggery | September 16, 2008 8:57 PM

Hysterical. Kate, Billy and the gang make Lehrer's point for him by quoting the part about conservatives and not even reading anything else, and consequently misrepresent what it says. The irony is almost unbearable.

Also ironic: people complaining about Marc trying to seem balanced, and then helpfully suggesting that he'd be more objective if he openly criticized the ticket they hate. Of course they'd think that would be the objective stance: because it's their own stance. Like, duh. It's just a roundabout way of restating your beliefs, people. Not any form of insight, observation, or constructive criticism.

Posted by Mr. F | September 16, 2008 9:57 PM

"If I were a conservative, I would believe that Sarah Palin spent $24,000 of Wasilla taxpayer money on an SUV for herself while refusing to pay for rape kits for victims because she's a BIGTIME REFORMER who cares about ordinary citizens."

Nah. If you were a rational conservative you'd be perturbed by a number of things about Palin, but far more concerned about the guy at the *top* of the other ticket, and all the bats**t insane things he's said and done.

You also wouldn't regularly confuse sarcasm with wit.

Posted by Toby Ziegler | September 16, 2008 10:01 PM

Toby Siegheil replies: "Nah. If you were a rational conservative you'd be perturbed by a number of things about Palin, but far more concerned about the guy at the *top* of the other ticket, and all the bats**t insane things he's said and done."

If I were a rational conservative I'd be applying for grants as a member of an endangered species. I'd also avoid a trip to Alaska out of concern that demented manicurist Sarah Palin would shoot me from a helicopter.

P.S. Don't worry, when Obama is elected you can change your name back to Kunte Kinte and stop pretending you worship Massa.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 16, 2008 10:45 PM

"If I were a rational conservative I'd be applying for grants as a member of an endangered species. I'd also avoid a trip to Alaska out of concern that demented manicurist Sarah Palin would shoot me from a helicopter."

My bad: you confuse sarcasm AND random schoolyard trash talk with wit. I see no genuine purpose behind the overwhelming bulk of your comments, so I'm left to assume that they fill some emotional need. So, uh, good luck with that.

By the by, the species themselves don't generally apply for the grants, I don't think. If you're going to try to be scathing, it helps to make sense.

"P.S. Don't worry, when Obama is elected you can change your name back to Kunte Kinte and stop pretending you worship Massa."

Hey, it's the Dennis Miller school of comedy: references are funny in and of themselves! And they don't even have to make sense!

That said, it's become painfully obvious that you find yourself really, really funny, so I wouldn't dream of getting in the way of it. Just try not to disturb the reasonable folks with whatever edifice to your own hilarity you're building.

Posted by Toby Ziegler | September 16, 2008 11:15 PM

Here's a conundrum. What if someone is like me and is very passionate about objective evidence and truth.
We have one side that has pretty much declared a War on Reality and the other that is somewhat at truce with reality. How do I support the Reality-based side without looking like a blind, left-wing partisan? Hah! Bet that blew your mind!

Posted by Krassen Dimitrov | September 17, 2008 7:41 AM

Toby Siegheil replies: "That said, it's become painfully obvious that you find yourself really, really funny, so I wouldn't dream of getting in the way of it. Just try not to disturb the reasonable folks with whatever edifice to your own hilarity you're building."

You're a whole lot funnier than I am, Toby. Not intentionally, but so it goes.

Meanwhile you "reasonable folks" can stay excited about your senile candidate and his backwoods manicurist sidekick. See where that gets you.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 17, 2008 10:30 AM

Wow, a second violation of Godwin's Law. And with a reference to how unreasonable someone ELSE is, to boot. The level of obliviousness required for combining the two would seem to demand a parade of some kind.

Have fun convincing no one and contributing nothing. I weep for the lost bandwidth.

Posted by Toby Ziegler | September 17, 2008 10:46 AM

Liberals are less devout in their beliefs than "conservatives."

"Conservative" snake-oil affects far more than what the liberals hang on to. Welfare even at its pre-1994 peak was $40 billion a year, and is now down to less than $15 billion. The effect of Bush's tax cut is a more than $200 billion a year and rising shift to the rich.

Conservatives have been winning the political battle and have vastly skewed this country to the rich, in the process destroying the purchasing power of the working and middle class.

Posted by DBX | September 17, 2008 11:52 AM

"The effect of Bush's tax cut is a more than $200 billion a year and rising shift to the rich."

The effect of Bush's tax cuts are far broader than that. This sort of analysis seems to assume that, when taxes are cut, people get the resulting money and stuff it under the mattress. But of course, virtually every individual with more more than they can spend has sense enough to invest it. And if we can't agree that investment is generally good...well, just let me know so I can move on to more productive discussions.

Even tossing it in a bank allows the bank to lend it out, for crying out loud. There are reasons not to like regressive tax cuts, but pretending they benefit the rich alone with no effect on the broader economy is simplistic, and false.

Posted by Punditish | September 17, 2008 12:36 PM

Wait a minute, there's TWO studies here.

One found that Democratic & Republican partisans both intensified their negative feelings about something they initially opposed when they heard misinformation--and that correcting this misinformation did not return about half the affected group to baseline disapproval rates. This fits the "all partisans are alike" argument.

But the other story found a shocking difference between Democratic and Republican partisans. That when you presented ideologically unappealing information impartially--a statement and its supporting evidence--Republicans disbelieved the information while Democrats believed it.

This is a huge deal. If supporting evidence makes assertions WEAKER to Republicans, while making them STRONGER for Democrats, people in the news business have a big problem. Democratic and Republican partisans are fundamentally different. One group is responsive to evidence, and the other is actively hostile to it.

That's a big deal. All partisanship is NOT alike.

Posted by anonymiss | September 17, 2008 2:39 PM

"But the other story found a shocking difference between Democratic and Republican partisans. That when you presented ideologically unappealing information impartially--a statement and its supporting evidence--Republicans disbelieved the information while Democrats believed it."

Not quite. The original Washington Post article says that Republicans had a "backfire effect," wherein having a claim rebutted may cause them to believe it more. Democrats didn't "believe it" -- they just didn't disbelieve it more then they originally did. This is in keeping with the idea that conservatives have an inherent distrust of the media, I think.

Of course, this doesn't seem to account for the fact that not all rebuttals are final or inarguable, but it's interesting anyway. I'd like to see more research on it, with better control.

Posted by Punditish | September 17, 2008 4:26 PM

As long as we're using personal impressions and anecdotes as evidence, I would point out that Lehrer's awareness of his own biases seems to work against his argument that we're all the same. It implies an introspection which might keep those biases under control. In my personal life, I've seen this as my liberal friends seem to argue endlessly about the "best way" to do something, but my conservative friends always have a dogmatic answer at hand. To the right, this is an example of "clear thinking," but I often find it to be, rather, a substitute for thinking.

What this study seems to suggest to me is that conservative "victimhood" has progressed to the point that members of the right feel besieged by facts and cling to the tiniest shreds of belief even harder when given evidence that refutes that belief. Consider:

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

In other words, the more truth they get, the more conservatives will believe the lie. This certainly seems to match my experience. Whenever I say "Did you hear that John McCain said x?", my liberal friends usually respond, "Where did you hear that?" They look for evidence.

However, I'm often surprised by how many of my extremely intelligent right-leaning friends are willing to believe thoroughly debunked falsehoods, leaving me sputtering, "You can't really believe that?!"

Anecdotal? Of course. But no more anecdotal than Lehrer's feeling that "everybody's doing it" and considerably less self-refuting.

Posted by nitpicker | September 18, 2008 9:26 AM