the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.
The study to which he refers finds that partisans over-estimate the extremism of the other side. This study was put together by the same people who produced the suspect “Hidden Tribes” report, but it seems to me that what they are doing in this study is more straightforward and less likely to produce manufactured results.
In any case, is there any doubt that highly-educated partisans tend to think that the other side are all extremists?
I think that the psychology, familiar to readers of my book, would explain it. If you believe that the other side holds reasonable views, then you cannot dismiss them as nuts. But that creates cognitive dissonance, because it raises the possibility that you are wrong. It’s much easier to go about life dismissing people with different points of view as hopeless extremists, so you don’t have to engage with them.
UPDATE: Nicholas Grossman thinks this is another methodologically flawed study, or interpretation thereof.
Politically engaged people are more likely to be reading articles and blog posts that portray this or that nutcase as representative of the opposition’s mainstream. Perspective is a casualty of the media’s war for attention.
It is still very likely to produce manufactured results, as I suspect it was designed to do. One narrative is that Americans from different parties are pretty close to each other and ought to be more friendly, but have been manipulated by the dynamics of our current information environment – with its incentives for focusing upon and amplifying extremes – into adopting ‘tribal’ social psychology mindsets, and so erroneously believe all kinds of incorrect and exaggerated horrible slanders about the other side. That’s obviously the story this group is trying to push. “Can’t we all just get along? If it weren’t for those nasty manipulations and mistakes, we would!”
The alternative narrative is that the national political distribution is no longer a bell curve and has been segregating and bifurcating for some time – the Dromedary to Bactrian transition – with increasing distance between the modal viewpoints in each camp. The reason for the heat and tension is thus not error, but accuracy regarding our sharpening polarization, both regarding viewpoints, and the real threat posed by the other side’s desire to implement those views in the form of policy as soon as they get their hands on power, and impose them on the other camp over their objections.
The latter narrative is more accurate, but the group is trying to put their thumb on the scale to make the former narrative seem more correct. (Whether the lie is a noble one in trying to bootstrap perceptions that might generate more peace and compromise is a different question from whether it is a lie.)
Notice, for instance, that for the online quiz at least, there is no overlap, and they don’t do the usual thing which is to ask everybody the same questions so we can see how far apart we are on those controversies. Instead, they ask very different questions, sometimes with some overlap on the same subject matter (e.g., open borders vs immigration benefits).
One way to test that is to see if party elites or representatives – especially those trying to appeal to marginal ‘centrists’, respond to polls like this trying to clear the waters by, say, conspicuously rejecting high-gap positions. My impression is that it is mostly the GOP establishment elites that do this, and that they are mostly misrepresenting or deviating from the average views of their own voters when they do.
There are also those infamous ‘family thanksgiving dinner political arguments’. If people were closer together, they would quickly figure out that their views weren’t that different after all. Instead, it seems that people are projecting too much and assuming too much commonality, and that the more exposure we have to each other to learn what the other side really thinks, the more we have to update our priors in shock, and the more we dislike each other. As a general rule of human nature, it’s ignorance that begets charitability, and familiarity which breeds contempt.
Another way to test would to look for whether results like this are consistent with other polls, or whether typical questions appearing in other polls have been tweaked to bias the results in a predictable direction. The qualification of the American Pride question with “though I acknowledge my country’s flaws” sticks out like a sore thumb. That’s doesn’t square up at all with, e.g., this latest gallup poll on the subject. I smell a fish, and it stinks.
The phrasing of extreme absolutist questions that allow only a binary agree/disagree answer seems clearly very loaded to me. It nudges the ordinary respondent in the direction of giving what seems to be ‘moderation’, but is really just an expression of basic common sense reasonableness that certain bad things are unlikely to have been permanently eradicated 100%, or that it’s possible to take anything to the point of excess (i.e., by doing them ‘completely’).
Admittedly, one humorous point against that is that the result for whether Donald Trump is a flawed person, which 50% of Republicans disagree with. Oh come on, everybody is flawed. But I suspect even that number has been nudged significantly in the direction of 100% (again, to show that Democrats are wrong about Republicans all loving Trump so much – “See, they dislike him too – common ground!”), and if it it were rephrased, “too flawed to be President” it would have dropped substantially, while the same question posed to Democrats would have nearly 100% agree.
Here are statements from the quiz.
For Republicans: (approx %Reps who favor/agree)
1. Properly controlled immigration can be good for America (85%)
2. Racism still exists in America (80%)
3. Many Muslims are good Americans (70%)
4. Sexism still exists in America (65%)
5. The government should do more to stop guns getting into the hands of bad people (65%)
6. Donald Trump is a flawed person (50%)
7. People are right to be concerned about how climate change might affect us. (45%)
For Democrats: (approx %Dems who favor/agree)
1. Most police are bad people (15%)
2. I am proud to be American, though I acknowledge my country’s flaws (80%)
3. It is important that men are protected from false accusations pertaining to sexual assault (75%)
4. The US should have completely open borders (30%)
5. Law abiding citizens should have the right to bear firearms (65%)
6. America should be a socialist country (40%)
7. The US should abolish ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) (50%)
Both extremes are nuts.
The Federal government is effectively bankrupt as a result. We will be having a Nixon Shock which we do every generation, for one reason, both sides are nuts.
Simple example, the CBO report on debt. The CBO report on debt reports that federal interest charges will reach 5% of GDP. Yet, since the Nixon Shock, the federal interest charges never go above 3.5% of GDP before government shut down, a hard barrier in the charts.
So, the CBO report is impossible, impossible within two years. That means another Nixon Shock, a devaluation, partial default. We have nearly proved the existence of a monetary regime change within two years, thus making invalid all the new banking rules set up since 2008. That is nuts, the CEOs who sling our 22 trillion in debt know setting up compliance is nuts, and they are not doing it. Our entire banking system is moving toward shadow banking, outside of the Fed until the shock.
“The great secret of morals is Love; or a going out of our own nature, and an identification of ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own.”
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
In other posts, Kling points out the asymmetry that the political right listens to and understands the left, but the reverse is not true. In this post, Kling takes a neutral, non-partisan tone and suggests that both sides avoid engaging with people on the other side. The asymmetry Kling points to in other posts is real and I suspect the right is often more eager to engage with the left than vice versa.
On the hot issue of immigration, the book Whiteshift summarizes this asymmetry in UK and US:
“Repressing” people with rival viewpoints is at odds with “engaging” them. You can see the asymmetry here.
is there any doubt that highly-educated partisans tend to think that the other side are all extremists?
Hmm. And in your next post you are saying that Will Wilkinson “sounds like” he is engaged in a project to overthrow the Constitution and replace it with the administrative state. Merely because he likes urban hipsters and wishes for “effective governance in the public interest”.
Hazel Meade is mocking Kling and sarcastically suggesting that he dislikes Wilkinson’s viewpoint:
But her main point is completely right. Kling does characterize Wilkinson as an extremist. This isn’t an isolated scenario. In Feb 2019, Kling posted “Tomorrow belongs to whom?” and quite dramatically characterized the progressive left as extremists.
Personally, I am on the right, I think Wilkinson and much of the progressive left are unreasonable extremists. I completely agree with Kling in that sense. However, I would stress that I’ve always been open to honest dialog and discussion and spent lots of time listening to rival viewpoints, understanding them, and seeking honest discussion, and I see that as entirely asymmetrical and non-reciprocated. Not just personally with me, broadly, the right generally listens to the left and is eager for honest discussion and debate, and the reverse is generally not true.
Well, my intent wasn’t to “mock” just to point out an inconsistency. It was meant more as gently humorous chiding.