A lot of sites have been linking to a blog post from Daniel Kahan, a law professor at Yale because it contains a very surprising confession. To appreciate both what Kahan said (which was good) and what he refused to do (which was very, very bad), you need to know a little more about Kahan’s specialty. According to the Wikipedia entry about Kahan, he’s a “leading scholar in the fields of criminal law and evidence and is known for his theory of Cultural cognition.” (Emphasis mine.)
For the Luddites among us (and I proudly include myself in that number), “cultural cognition” is defined as follows:
The Cultural Cognition Project is a group of scholars interested in studying how cultural values shape public risk perceptions and related policy beliefs. Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities. Project members are using the methods of various disciplines — including social psychology, anthropology, communications, and political science — to chart the impact of this phenomenon and to identify the mechanisms through which it operates. The Project also has an explicit normative objective: to identify processes of democratic decisionmaking [sic] by which society can resolve culturally grounded differences in belief in a manner that is both congenial to persons of diverse cultural outlooks and consistent with sound public policymaking [sic].
In English: the good professor thinks that people use their preexisting values and data to analyze new information. If you can get people to think the right way (I believe the Chinese communists called it “reeducation”), then you can get them to agree to Progressive policies. (If you read on, you’ll understand why I translate “sound public policymaking” to mean “Leftist policies.”)
As an aside, shouldn’t Yale professors know that “policy making” and “decision making” are two words, rather than each being one portmanteau word? Yeah, yeah. Just call me fussy.
For those wondering about the value of a modern Ivy League education that little paragraph pretty much tells you what you need to know: The Ivy League needs a guy with an expensive Harvard J.D. (and you know how highly I value those pieces of paper) and an even more valuable Yale job to figure out that people operate from their biases, both in collecting and analyzing data.
And speaking of people operating from their biases, Kahan has now confessed that his biases just received a stunning blow. In the next few paragraphs, I’ll give him some credit for being honest about his recent discovery, but I’ll then explain why he only gets a small nod from me, not a big one. For the most part, his post leaves me both disdainful and depressed.
Oh, I didn’t tell you what his discovery is. It turns out that Tea Partiers, the ones who think that AlBore is a scam artist; that humans can pollute but that they lack the power to change the climate, something the sun has been doing fine on its own for several billion years; and that a country that insists on spending money it doesn’t have will soon go broke, are actually more scientifically knowledgeable than the Progressives who worship at the altars of global warming and Keynesian economics. Yes, really. Buried in a sea of really awesomely impressive statistical jargon, that’s exactly what Kahan says:
In this dataset, I found that there is a small correlation (r = -0.05, p = 0.03) between the science comprehension measure and a left-right political outlook measure, Conservrepub, which aggregates liberal-conservative ideology and party self-identification. The sign of the correlation indicates that science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction–i.e., the more “liberal” and “Democrat,” the more science comprehending.
Do you think this helps explain conflicts over climate change or other forms of decision-relevant science? I don’t.
But if you do, then maybe you’ll find this interesting. The dataset happened to have an item in it that asked respondents if they considered themselves “part of the Tea Party movement.” Nineteen percent said yes.
It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub.
Except that it has the opposite sign: that is, identifying with the Tea Party correlates positively (r = 0.05, p = 0.05) with scores on the science comprehension measure:
Again, the relationship is trivially small, and can’t possibly be contributing in any way to the ferocious conflicts over decision-relevant science that we are experiencing.
(I must confess that reading the above made me just ecstatically happy that I no longer practice law. Think how much academic writing that spares me.)
You’ve probably seen the above quotation everywhere over the last two days. It certainly makes sense to conservatives, because people who pay attention to actual facts are more likely to conclude that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax. (If you’re a data junkie, I recommend Watts Up With That.) It’s the believers who are stuck in the epistemic closure loop. Climate warmer? AGW!! Climate cooler? AGW!! No climate movement at all? AGW. Models wrong? Still AGW! That’s faith, my friends, not science.
But getting back to Professor Kahan. What’s really fascinating is what comes after his confession regarding what is, to him, a counter-intuitive statistical anomaly.
May I take a moment here to remind you what Professor Kahan’s specialty is? It’s “cultural cognition,” an expensive sounding theory that posits what your grandmother could have told you for free: Our biases predispose us to interpret information in certain ways. This obviously includes as a subset the fact that people look to certain authorities for information. I can guarantee you that Obama reads the New York Times, and not National Review. In this way, of course, he is distinct from conservatives, who read both.
Kahan believes that, if he can render cultural cognition into set data points, he can drag people into “sound public policymaking.” (I believe George Orwell called it “groupthink.”) Lift their blinders, and they will see the light.
But what about Kahan’s own blinders? And that’s where his little post gets really interesting. If you want to see a closed intellectual universe, Kahan invites you right into his:
I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.
But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party. All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the “paper” (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico).
I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.
Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments–all very negative– of what I understand the “Tea Party movement” to stand for. I just no longer assume that the people who happen to hold those values are less likely than people who share my political outlooks to have acquired the sorts of knowledge and dispositions that a decent science comprehension scale measures.
I’ll now be much less surprised, too, if it turns out that someone I meet at, say, the Museum of Science in Boston, or the Chabot Space and Science Museum in Oakland, or the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is part of the 20% (geez– I must know some of them) who would answer “yes” when asked if he or she identifies with the Tea Party. If the person is there, then it will almost certainly be the case that that he or she & I will agree on how cool the stuff is at the museum, even if we don’t agree about many other matters of consequence.
What a charming confession. It even includes an embarrassed moue, along the lines of “I’m so embarrassed that I assumed Tea Partiers were dumb.” That almost hides a rather spectacular omission. Kahan fails to include the logical follow-up that any intelligent person invested in cultural cognition should make. What he should say after his little confession is “Maybe I should check out what these surprisingly intelligent people believe and argue.”
Instead, what Kahan says after admitting to his intellectual bubble is that he’s just fine with it. He has no interest in actual data. Instead, based solely on his predefined values, he will continue “to subscribe to [his] various political and moral assessments — all very negative — of what I understand the ‘Tea Party movement’ to stand for.” Or as I translate that, “Please, people! I’m a Yale genius who’s looking for ways to re-educate you. Don’t bother me with facts and, to the extent that I inadvertently stumbled onto some facts myself, be assured that I will assiduously ignore them.”
I have said for years that, while I’ve never met a post-1984 Harvard Law grad who wasn’t arrogant and ill-informed,* I’ve been impressed with Yale grads. After my little insight into the thought process of a current Yale professor, I fear that, should any recent Yale grads pop up on my legal radar, I’m going to discover that Yale has gone all Harvard. Clearly, you’re getting what you pay for at the premier law schools only if you desire social and professional cachet layered upon close-mindedness, chronic epistemic closure, arrogance, and ignorance.
We can all guess, of course, why the Ivy League crowd is so incurious. They’re afraid that, if they look beyond the narrow confines of their own Progressive cultural cognition, they might follow David Mamet’s path. Next thing you know, they’ll be cranking up the air conditioner, using excess amounts of toilet paper, and listening to Rush Limbaugh, while muttering “Ditto!”
*And yes, I know Ted Cruz is a post-1984 Harvard Law, but I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting him. I’m just basing my “Harvard lawyers are not people I’d ever hire for myself” attitude on the people I have worked with and opposite. And of course, if Cruz is a Harvard anomaly, Obama, serenely enveloped in his ignorance and arrogance, is a Harvard poster child.