Decisive strike in the "asymmetry" debate?!
Dan Kahan Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 at 7:06AM 
I've been underwater & unable to post with my normal frequency (indeed, I'm underwater b/c of posting with my normal frequency, and thus falling behind on other things!)
But here is something to consider: a new paper from Nam, Jost & van Bavel on whether "conservatives" are more prone to "cognitive dissonance avoidance" than "liberals."
But the question: does the result bear on the "asymmetry thesis" (AT)?
AT asserts that conservatives should be more disposed to ideologically motivated reasoning than liberals.
The basis for this hypothesis is the finding of Jost and other scholars who correlate ideology with self-report measures of critical thinking -- Need for Cognition, Need for Closure, Dogmatic thinking, and other scales assessing attitudes toward complexity & uncertainty etc. -- that "conservatives" display a more closed-minded cognitive style.
I've posted 913 entries on the asymmetry thesis ( here, here, here, for examples) & also done my own study that tries to test it.
But maybe it's game over? This paper is the decisive strike?
"Cognitive dissonance avoidance" is very much related to motivated reasoning (itself a tendency to adjust one's assessments of facts to avoid disappointing one's predispositions). And here NJV-B report data that they see as demonstrating asymmetry -- conservatives are more disposed to "cognitive dissonance avoidance," they say, than liberals.
Chris Mooney, who has done an admirable job in synthesizing the relevant literature and making it publicly accessible in his book "The Republican Brain" sees this as compelling proof in favor of AT.
Obviously, I have views. But not time to express them right now. And besides, my views are not usually nearly so interesting as the ones that emerge in the discussion that they are the occasion for.
So let's do an experiment: can we have an interesting discussion w/o my saying anything (other than "hey-- what about this?")?
So what do others think of this study? Game over?
Be a relief to have the debate on AT resolve, I suppose, since researchers could then turn all their attention to more important questions, like what the American public thinks of the NSA's policy on collecting metadata!
Dan Kahan
Reader Comments (57)
@Joshua:
You were obviously aware that "some are of the opinion that libz are effete" -- what you apparently couldn't see was the possibility that they might be correct, and that was my point, or the basis of it. My opinion about whether they actually are correct is, like yours, irrelevant to that. There are lots of other blogs where commenters can get involved in interminable back and forth over such matters, including whether Kerry was or is effete, whether terrorism is a "nuanced topic", whether Congressional Republicans are "uniform", etc., etc. but I'm grateful this doesn't appear to be one of them.
...what you apparently couldn't see was the possibility that they might be correct, and that was my point, or the basis of it.
I don't think so, Larry. I admit that is a possibility - in the world of all things are possible. I am absolutely certain about very little in life.
I never thought, nor stated, that it wasn't a possibility.
What I said was.... " but I have some observations that need to be reconciled with that view."
So I was speaking to my observations. I have observed certain behaviors among conz and I'm trying to reconcile those observations with my hypothesis that thinking and brain physiology don't correlate with political orientation. My observations about conz does not imply that libz have to be or not be effete.
As a separate issue, are libz effete? Could be, however, it doesn't fit with my observations or experiences. I have seen the claim made when I felt it was demonstrably false. I've never seen it made where I felt it was valid (with reference to libz as a group.)
If you could provide some evidence of it being something worth serious consideration, I'm all ears.
No, but you can't think or state that something is not a possibility if you can't see or imagine that it is a possibility in the first place. Remember this?: "OK, I get it now. So differently than conz, libz are effete, wishy-washy, and ruled by emotions. But it doesn't have anything to do with how they think or their brain physiology" (emphasis added). It took a couple of comments, in other words, before even the possibility seemed to become apparent to you that libz too might have been socialized to express their ideas in ways as characteristic for them as nuance-aversion supposedly is for conz. And the only reason for going on about it now is that it displays just how powerfully identity protection operates to block even the idea of identity-threatening possibilities. Beyond that, I'm content to leave you with your observations as they are.
Another study demonstrating the actual diversity of a lumped together group, this one on atheists:
http://www.atheismresearch.com/ This study divides atheist types into 6 categories ranging from the activist, new atheist types to seeker-agnostics with strong spiritual interest, and ritual atheists, who find utility in traditional practices. These sound as if they would fit in all 4 quadrants of Dan's grid.
Larry -
Oy - this is getting a bit repetitive. But I'll repeat the same answers a few more times in response to your comments - in hopes that one of these times something might stick?
Here is how I responded at first:
Sure, Larry - that could be the case (although it doesn't fit with my observations - observer bias?), but then I'd have to scrap my hypothesis: that the way that people think, or their brain physiology, don't correlated with political ideology. If what you say about libz is true, then I guess we may as well accept that conz can't deal with cognitive dissonance.
So I immediately responded by saying that what you suggested could be the case. I didn't indicate, in any way, that I thought it wasn't a possibility. I said that I thought it was a possibility. Why would I say it could be the case if I didn't think it was possible?
But I don't see evidence to confirm that possibility. If I did, I'd have to reconcile that evidence or scrap my hypothesis.
Whereas I do see evidence to confirm the possibility that conz are cognitive dissonance avoidant. So I either need to reconcile that evidence or scrap my hypothesis. I think I have a way to reconcile that evidence. (Similarly, if there were evidence of libz being effect as a group, then maybe that evidence might be reconciled in more or less the same way?)
Now if you think that there is valid evidence that libz are effete (as a group), then why don't you present it? I wouldn't be asking you to present that evidence, as I have all along, if I thought it wasn't a possibility. If I thought it wasn't possible, I'd say that it isn't possible that you'd have evidence.
Or you might explain why the evidence that I said I need to reconcile w/r/t conz, in fact, is not evidence that needs to be reconciled. That might be useful also.
But insisting that I couldn't imagine a possibility of something that I've seen stated by conz many times, and that actually I said I I think might be possible (more than once - although I also said I haven't seen evidence) seems a bit illogical to me.
No, but you can't think or state that something is not a possibility if you can't see or imagine that it is a possibility in the first place.
You are making assumptions about what I could or could not have done...based on assumptions about what I could or could not imagine? I absolutely could imagine that conz are right when they call libz effete. I could before we started this exchange, and I still can now. I don't think that conz are right when they say that, but that doesn't mean that I reject the possibility that they are right.
When I've seen the claim made I have had reason to think the claim was false. Libz being effete (as a group) does not fit with my observations or my experiences. That, absolutely, does not mean that I couldn't imagine it being true.
As another example, it is possible that the way that conz think, or their brain physiology, is correlated with their political ideology. I could imagine that also. And in fact, I do see evidence w/r/t conz that I need to reconcile, however, in order to not reject my hypothesis that the way conz think, or their brain physiology, is not correlated to their political views. I suppose that there might be some similar evidence for libz that I might need to reconcile to not reject my hypothesis. Do you have some? I can think of many possible examples of such evidence. It is possible that Jesus came down from the heavens and issued a press release to everyone who isn't a lib, to say that God affirms that libz are effete and that their effete-ness is related to how they think and/or their brain physiology.. It could be possible. And it being the word of god might make it hard to reconcile, but I might try. Or, I could say to you that yes, that could be possible, but I don't see evidence to support that possibility.
Of course I remember. I remember saying that "now" I understood what it was that you were saying w/r/t the implications to my hypothesis. There is a difference between reaching an understanding of what you were saying and accepting the possibility that libz as a group are effete. They aren't one and the same. I wasn't saying that "now" I understood that you were saying that libz might actually be (as a group) effete, and that previously I couldn't imagine that might be possible. You are the one who tacked on that second clause. In fact, I have seen that possibility (that libz as a group are effete) suggested many times. Since I have seen it said many times, this wasn't the first time that I've seen that offered as a possibility. It wasn't difficult, in the least, for me to understand that concept. And I can't rule it out as a possibility. But I can say that I don't see confirming evidence. Do you have some? Perhaps I overlooked something?
It took a couple of comments, in other words, before even the possibility seemed to become apparent to you that libz too might have been socialized to express their ideas in ways as characteristic for them as nuance-aversion supposedly is for conz.
Larry - I saw it as a possibility then. I see it as a possibility now. It isn't such a deep or profound concept. I see it offered quite regularly by conz. It is commonplace. But again, it doesn't fit with my experiences or my observations. I'm not saying it isn't possible. It is certainly not a hard concept to conceive as being possible. Maybe it's true. Show me some evidence and it starts moving into something that is more plausible rather than something that is just possible.
This horse passed over a long time ago. Maybe we should just agree to disagree as to what I could or could not have imagined as a possibility? I guess it is possible that you are right - but I have to say, when it comes to discussing what I might or might not have been able to imagine, I happen to think I have the inside track (observer bias?). I will say, however, that if you do have a gift that enables you to understand what other people could or could not imagine, you should consider switching fields and perhaps contribute your skills to the study of human psychology.
I think that most often it is the case that in all of these groups (including the quadrants of Dan's grid) there is more diversity within groups than there is across groups. I think that we know that from basic human nature. IMV, when we try to create these groups, we are mostly using superficial attributes as qualifiers. We create groups because we need to find patterns (as a basic feature of our reasoning), and we need to define "us" and "them" (as a basic feature of our psychology).
Okay, Joshua! I wasn't exercising my mystic powers of mind reading, but just going from what you said or omitted to say. In my view you seem to be missing the point, but more repetitions won't help either of us, so I'll stop. And this I can agree with, esp. in the context of the libz and the conz: "We create groups because we need to find patterns (as a basic feature of our reasoning), and we need to define "us" and "them" (as a basic feature of our psychology)."
Thanks to Gaythia too for the example of the atheist groups, which maybe show you don't need religion to have sects.