Study: Conservatives’ Are Loosing Trust In Science

Trust in science has dropped by 25% since 1970 among those who identified themselves as conservative. This is the conclusion of Gordon Gauchat’s paper that appears in American Sociological Review. According to the study: 

To summarize the main empirical findings, this study shows that public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church.

 

Interestingly, conservatives were far more likely to define science as knowledge that should conform to common sense and religious tradition. Relating to the second pattern, when examining a series of public attitudes toward science, conservatives’ unfavorable
attitudes are most acute in relation to government funding of science and the use of scientific knowledge to influence social policy. Conservatives thus appear especially averse to regulatory science, defined here as the mutual dependence of organized science and government policy.

Apparently there has been little or no shift in the trust of science among those who self-identify as moderate or liberal.

Do Stupid Voters Distort Elections?

In an article that appears in Slate Magazine, David Weigel says that yes, there really are stupid voters out there but that they really don’t change the elections.

And there is. When I’ve dug in with voters who are convinced that Barack Obama is a Muslim, they respond in one of two ways. They might know that an Indonesian school form listed his religion as Muslim. (True, just not something you’d use to extrapolate the next 40 years of his life.) More often, they offer evidence of him doing something that they think a Muslim would do, like scolding Israel, or pulling out of Afghanistan too quickly. If we climb a little deeper, we inevitably get to a discussion of how, at heart, Obama hates America and wants to destroy it.

 

It’s not healthy for voters to think those things. It’s just not new, either. Most voter ignorance, if it was cured by logic and reason and long sessions of NPR, would be replaced by the same voter preferences, justified in different ways. There are Mississippi Republicans who hate Obama because they think he’s a Muslim. Take that away, and they’ll hate him because they’re conservatives and he isn’t. Only 11 percent of Mississippi whites voted for Barack Obama, but only 14 percent voted for John Kerry. These aren’t people who’ll change their minds if they fully grokked the president’s bio.

Does Wealth Really Make You Unethical?

Tyler Cowen (Marginal Revolution) challenges a recent article that appeared in Wired, Greed Isn’t Good: Wealth Could Make People Unethical. The Wired article summarized research that supports a common belief, that upper class wealth puts you at risk of being more unethical than the rest of us.

As an individual’s wealth and status rise, so does their tendency to be unethical, concludes a new study of the relationship between socioeconomics and ethics.

The study included seven different experiments that spanned real-world and laboratory settings, from rude San Francisco drivers to test subjects given a chance to take candy from children.

Tyler Cowen argues that we need to be cautious in how we interpret the studies. He does concede the following initially:

Of the seven tests, two of them showed that people driving more expensive cars are more in a hurry and more likely to cut off others or not yield.  That’s not praiseworthy, but hardly a major moral condemnation.

But he also highlight the potential flaws in the remaining study. These studies are not, in fact, on upper class individuals. Rather it is on the projected feelings of people toward upper class individuals and that is a huge distinction.

Several of the tests involved people being asked to imagine they were high class, not actual “high class” people themselves.  To that extent we are testing the lower class view of the upper classes, noting that I would not use those terms as given.  One of the tests showed that social class did not matter once we adjust for a person’s attitude toward greed.   A positive attitude toward greed is positively correlated with social class, but it was also easy enough to “prime” the lower class individuals to feel the same way, suggesting that extreme context dependence will hold here.

He offers up alternative conclusions including, “…that high-status people cheat more at games and less at many other activities, including those of real life.  (They are also in more of a hurry on the road.)”

Chimps Have Cops Too!

An article posted in The Science Daily says that chimpanzee groups have members who basically act like police.

Anthropologists now reveal that chimpanzees mediate conflicts between other group members, not for their own direct benefit, but rather to preserve the peace within the group. Their impartial intervention in a conflict — so-called “policing” — can be regarded as an early evolutionary form of moral behavior.

It is probably still a bad idea to call a cop a “hairy ape” then next time you get pulled over, though.

Michael Huemer – The Irrationality of Politics

I watched this terrific TED video lecture by Michael Huemer. Why are we irrational when it comes to politics and what can we do about it.

I paraphrased the video here if you don’t feel like watching:

There is little disagreement that most people suffer from “irrational political beliefs.” That would be everyone else but me. So, seriously, how do you know if your political beliefs are irrational? You could start with this:

If you think that the community of experts are wrong, and if you think that while being unable to state their arguments, then you are probably wrong.

 The first task is to understand why we are politically irrational. Consider the following premises:

  • Political information is costly – especially in terms of time. It requires effort.
  • People accept the costs only when the expected rewards exceed he costs.
  • The expected rewards of political information are negligible. Their probability of affecting public policy is “0″ and that individual knowledge will not change policy.
  • Being rational puts your belief system at risk. Unpleasant and emotionally disturbing.

However, a lot of people thinking rationally can affect policy. For instance, one high mileage car on the road won’t really change US oil consumption meaningfully but 3 million such cars has a big impact.

Correcting your own irrationality is in the best interest of society. You cannot solve a problem if you have irrational beliefs about it.

Identifying your self as having irrational political beliefs.

  1. Are you becoming angry during political discussions.
  2. Do you have strong opinions about a subject before aquiring relevant information?
  3. Does new information change your opinion. (If not, you are suffering from dogmatism.)
  4. Do you seek information only from sources you agree with? A sign that you are trying to reinforce your existing beliefs.
  5. Do you think that people who disagree with you are evil. (Still suffering from dogmatism)