Is Democracy Possible? Part 1

Let's not be naïve. Obviously, the political system we have now is more a plutocracy than a democracy. Our government has been captured by corporations and the people who own them. But suppose, by some miracle, we were able to enact effective campaign reform laws and politicians became responsive to public opinion. Are American citizens capable of making rational decisions based on scientific information?

Before we go any further, please take a look at this problem.

Table 1

The problem requires correctly interpreting a contingency table. Even bright college students often get it wrong. When deciding whether the skin cream works, some people only compare the numbers in the top row—the number of people who used the skin cream who get better or worse. But this ignores important information from the control group that didn't take the skin cream. Other people only compare the numbers in the left column—the number of people getting better who took the skin cream or didn't. But this ignores the fact that many more people took the skin cream than didn't. To correctly answer this question, you have to consider all four cells of the table. You must compare the percentage of people who used the skin cream who got better to the percentage of people who didn't use the skin cream who got better. Of the 298 people who used the skin cream, 223, or 75% of them, got better. Of the 128 people who didn't use it, 107, or 84% of them, got better. The correct answer is that the skin cream is ineffective.

Why is this problem so difficult? In part, it's because Dan Kahan and his colleagues—who did the study I'm about to report—put their thumb on the scales. They chose data such that, if you use either of the two shortcuts I mentioned—comparing only the numbers in the top row or the left column—you'll get the wrong answer. Fifty-nine percent of the participants in this study answered the problem incorrectly.

This problem illustrates the difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking, the central metaphor of this blog. According to Daniel Kahnemann, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, we have two cognitive systems. System 1 is automatic and effortless. We simply say and do what feels right. The System 1 response to this problem is to say that the skin cream works, because that's what it looks like at first glance. System 2 is deliberate and effortful. It comes into play when we take the time to analyze a situation carefully. It can be used to correct the errors that System 1 is prone to making. In this case, System 2 requires that you do the math.

As difficult as this problem is, it has one thing going for it. We don't have any emotional investment in whether this skin cream works. But what if the issue were one about which we had a prior hypothesis? In this case, System 1 could lead us to a second source of error, confirmatory bias—the tendency the interpret new information in a way that is consistent with our prior beliefs and ideological biases. Compare the problem in Table 1 to these three other problems.

Table 2

Does a city-wide ban on concealed weapons increase or decrease crime? Conservatives would probably expect crime to increase (since people can no longer use their concealed weapons to shoot bad guys), and would be resistant to information suggesting that gun control actually works. Of course, the opposite is true for liberals. Kahan expected political ideology to affect participants' responses to the gun control questions, but not the skin cream questions.

Now let's introduce another variable into the mix—numeracy. (I realize this is getting complicated, but please bear with me. It's worth it.) Numeracy—analogous to literacy—refers to mathematical competence and a tendency to use quantitative reasoning in appropriate ways. You would expect numerate people to do better when making judgments of contingency, at least when evaluating skin creams. But what happens when numerate people encounter data contradict that their political views?

We know that liberals and conservatives clash over scientific issues such as gun control and global warming. Kahan suggests two theories to explain these political impasses. The science-comprehension thesis suggests that people don't have enough training in science and math. With better education, people would be capable of correctly interpreting the results of empirical studies. The identity-protective cognition thesis is more pessimistic. It argues that our ideological polarization is so great that it cancels out even the ability of well-educated people to utilize their math and science skills. If the confirmatory bias trumps numeracy, Kahan believes that this raises serious questions about whether Americans are capable of enlightened self-government. We may have to turn over important decisions to committees of experts. (But who will choose the experts?)

What do you think? The answer provided by Kahan's research comes in Part 2.

You may also be interested in reading:

Is Democracy Possible?  Part 2

Is Democracy Possible?  Appendix

Climate of Mistrust

The Open and Closed Mind

Motivated Reasoning