On Biased Research and Enlightenment

Last spring, researchers published the results of a study in which 5,000 Americans were asked to choose one of five responses—strongly agree, somewhat agree, strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, or not sure—to the following statements:

1. Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable.
2. Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services.
3. Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago.
4. Rent control leads to housing shortages.
5. A company with the largest market share is a monopoly.
6. Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited.
7. Free trade leads to unemployment.
8. Minimum wage laws raise unemployment.

Every "correct" answer was taken as a sign of "economic enlightenment," which, I'm sorry, is a ludicrous term, and I'm going to insist on using scare quotes. Even if we go along with the premise that each of these statements is either undeniably true or undeniably false, there's nothing especially enlightened about acing a multiple-choice quiz where three of the five possibilities—including, in all cases, "not sure"—are considered correct.^[1]

The researchers were caught entirely by surprise, I'm sure, to find that respondents who claimed to be conservative or libertarian were more "enlightened" than those who claimed to be liberal or progressive, with moderates, as is their wont, landing somewhere in between. They also found no correlation between attending college and being "enlightened," for which four possible explanations are suggested:

1. The liberal-dominated academic environment makes students "not only unreceptive to economic enlightenment, but actually unfriendly to it."
2. The college experience generally shelters students from economic realities.
3. The college admissions process, with its emphasis on abominable Marxist concepts like community service, is inherently biased in favor of liberals.
4. The "enlightened" are less likely to go to college in the first place, possibly due to concerns about the factors above.

I have no major complaints with the theories (which isn't to say I agree or disagree, just that they do seem logically connected to the data). In fact, for a study clearly designed to reach a pre-determined, ideologically-driven outcome, the authors do a pretty good job of acknowledging the flaws. Among other caveats, right at the top they concede the "asymmetry in sometimes challenging leftist mentalities without ever specifically challenging conservative and libertarian mentalities."

Still, I'd like to posit a hypothesis of my own: People are disinclined to acknowledge the negative aspects of views they support, or the positive aspects of views they oppose.

I say this, in part, because if I had taken the quiz myself I would've gotten seven of eight "correct,"^[2] making me more economically "enlightened" than even the average conservative or libertarian, and more than twice as "enlightened" as the average liberal or progressive. So, great for me, except that I don't know anything about economics. On the comprehensive list of my areas of expertise, economics ranks somewhere above particle physics and below Australian rules football, which I believe is played on a field shaped like an oval.

On the "rent control leads to housing shortages" question, for example, my thought process went something like this: "Rent control restricts natural market forces; natural market forces are generally good—therefore, rent control is bad. Housing shortages are also bad. Is the latter causally related to the former? I don't know, probably." And with that, I patiently await my letter from the Nobel Committee.

———————

Everything above this line was written several months ago. The plan was to illustrate my point by creating a similar quiz where the "correct" answers favored liberal views, but I never got around to it. I should've known if I waited long enough someone would do it for me. Specifically, I'm thinking of that study I ranted about back in January—the one that found Fox News viewers to be "misinformed" by asking questions like this:

• Is it your impression that economists believe the economic stimulus (a) caused job losses, (b) saved or created a few jobs, or (c) saved or created several million jobs?
• Is it your impression that among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, (a) more think it will increase the deficit, (b) more think it will not increase the deficit, or (c) views are evenly divided?
• Do you think that most scientists believe that (a) climate change is occurring, (b) climate change is not occurring, or (c) views are evenly divided?

Asking for the opinions of experts, rather than the respondents themselves, allowed the researchers to plausibly (but not indisputably) say that the questions have objective answers, but this study has exactly the same problem as the other one, with the ideologies reversed.

For both questionnaires, there are two groups of people likely to give the "correct" answers—those who actually know the answers, and those whose thought processes haven't evolved past "MY SIDE RIGHT, OTHER SIDE WRONG." When no attempt is made to distinguish one group from the other, the data probably won't tell us anything we don't already know, and it certainly won't support a conclusion that conservatives are in some way superior to liberals, or vice versa.

Being enlightened, or well-informed, or whatever you want to call it, and being a close-minded ideologue aren't the same thing—in fact, they're diametrically opposed. It really seems like that should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't.

1. That's not to disparage those who answered "not sure." In fact, I'd argue "not sure" is the only truly enlightened answer. In the translated words of Socrates:

And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know?

2. The exception? Number six: "Third-world workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited."
    Dictionary.com defines "exploit" as (1) to utilize, esp. for profit; (2) to use selfishly for one's own ends. How it can be said that overseas workers are not utilized as part of a larger scheme to generate profit, or that the managers of such a scheme are not motivated at least in part by their own selfish interests (providing for their family, buying a nicer car, funding an army to overthrow the local dictator, etc.), is beyond me. But I guess that's why I'm unenlightened.

Rush Limbaugh Knows Liberals (So You Don't Have To)

Say you're a budding conservative (having somehow resisted the influence of public schools, unions, the media, and New England), and you're also open-minded. You'll want to challenge your beliefs to make sure you're on the right track. You'll want to talk to some people who are decidedly not conservative. Get to know them, find out where they're coming from, learn about the circumstances that led them to reject conservatism. Because that's what open-minded people do.

Or, you could just let Rush Limbaugh be open-minded for you.

I know the kind of person he is because of what he believes. I know liberals. I know socialists. I know Marxists. I know exactly how they do things.

—————

They were and are intended to be destructive. I knew this was his intention, because I know liberals, and I know his kind of radical.

—————

See, for me, this is very simple, because I know liberals. I know how they go about achieving their aims. I know what the purpose of their aims are, and I know that climate science, global warming, whatever, is just a cover for liberalism in action.

—————

I got a note: "Do you really believe this about [John] Edwards?" I believe this and more…See, I know liberals. None of this is a shock to me.

—————

See, I know liberals—I know these cockroaches—and I'm telling you, this just has them boiling today.

You get the point. This could go on for a surprisingly long time, but I'll jump to the best one. And there's a lot going on here, so I'll break it up.

I know liberals. I know the premise of liberalism. It's a tough thing to accept it, but once you do, everything after that is easy. Liberalism is a lie. I know many of you know liberals and you think they're nice people, maybe just wrong. You don't want to think of them as liars. You prefer to think of them as just "misguided" or "wrong."

That's certainly how I prefer to think of them. It's also how I think of conservatives. And a fair number of libertarians. Who isn't misguided or wrong, really? We all are—none more so than those who say they aren't.

But I guess I'm misguided. So how am I supposed to think of them?

They're liars!

Liars!

Many of the rank-and-file liberals are dupes. They're well-intentioned and have no idea what they're actually supporting. They fall into this, "I feel good about myself. I see a homeless person and I say, 'Oh, why don't we do something?' I'm a good person." You haven't done anything! You just thought something and made you feel like you're a good person.

Ok, first, I'm pretty sure the concept of a lying dupe is an oxymoron. Second, even the liberaliest liberal doesn't believe a positive thought alone counts as "doing something." And third, what has Limbaugh ever done to make the world a better place?^[1]

Conservatism solves problems. Liberalism blows 'em up and amplifies 'em in the name of fixing them.

Ha ha, those liberals and their obsession with well-intentioned-but-fundamentally-flawed government intervention. When will they learn? Oh, by the way, I don't know why I just thought of this, but here's what Rush says about legalizing pot:

I listen to all these people say, "I don't know. Legalizing pot? Ehhhhh, I don't know. I don't know the American people are ready." If the American people are ready for the destruction of capitalism, if the American people are ready for the destruction of the opportunity for the American dream, if the American people are ready to vote for an end to their chance to be prosperous…where is the logical conclusion that they would oppose the legalization of marijuana?

Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah, liberals—and only liberals—destroy everything they mess with.

So once you accept that every liberal politician in Washington or your state capital or on your city town council is a liberal and therefore is a liar, then the rest is easy. You simply don't believe anything they say and you will be right.

Holy crap, really? Don't believe anything they say? That sounds like a miserable existence. What if you don't want to go through life that way?

"But, Rush, I don't want to go through life that way." Well, okay. If you don't want to, I'll handle it for you.

There you go. Rush has it all taken care of.

1. According to Wikipedia, he's given millions of dollars to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (and helped raise millions more), and he's raised another few million for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which is a lot more than I've done. You win this round, Limbaugh.

Open Minds

According to Conservapedia,^[1] a true conservative engages in "a never-ending quest for the truth," and is characterized by "a willingness to debate openly on all aspects of an issue or problem, without being tramelled by ideological preconceptions."^[2] This is in stark contrast to your typical liberal, who "refuses to admit the truth in debate" and "ignore[s] any evidence that shows their position to be false."

In other words, if you value being open-minded, conservatism is the ideology for you. Sure, it's an ideology better known for its resistance to change, but the two concepts aren't necessarily incompatible. Respect for tradition is a great thing—as long as it doesn't reach the point where tradition is blindly adhered to in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Conservatives understand this, and they firmly believe they never reach that point, which is why they're so eager to proclaim that they—not liberals—are the ones who are truly open-minded.

As a matter of fact, an excellent illustration of this happened just recently. Charlie Crist, as part of his ongoing effort to swap one Florida statewide elected office for another, declared his support for a number of gay rights issues he once opposed. No one would expect Crist's announcement to immediately inspire hordes of conservatives to follow suit, but, in keeping with their stated principles, they've at least been respectful of Crist's positions and interested to learn more about what led him to this change of heart. Right?

Charlie Crist needs Democrats. Badly. So he is going through his entire inventory of “beliefs” and changing whatever principles he needs to in order to appeal to the left.

Ok, maybe that's not the best example, but Crist didn't exactly have a surplus of credibility among conservatives to begin with. What if a similar reversal came from a more revered source? Say, a life-long Republican who served in the Reagan and Bush II administrations. An early member of the Federalist Society. A prominent lawyer who has not only argued in support of numerous conservative causes, but once played a major role, as counsel for the Republican candidate, in deciding a presidential election.

Yeah, you know where I'm going with this. Here's Rush Limbaugh:

I don't know what's happened to Ted Olson…Ted Olson used to be one of us. He used to be anti-judicial activism.

And, as usual, Rush is not alone:

I am sad to report that Ted Olson is no longer worth listening to on legal matters or worth hiring by anyone who respects the Constitution.

[T]he position that the Constitution can and should be interpreted to invalidate traditional marriage laws can’t possibly be reconciled with the conservative legal principles that Olson used to purport to stand for.

I'm not saying conservatives should join Olson on the gay marriage bandwagon.^[3] I'm saying the backlash against Olson (and, to a lesser extent, Crist) shows that a lot of conservatives see their belief system not as a broad philosophy, but as a simple list of opinions. Once someone un-checks an item on the list, that's it—they're out.

The obvious question, then, is this: When these people claim that theirs is the ideology of open-minded debate, why the hell should anyone take them seriously?

1. In terms of establishing a foundation for a legitimate point, is there a worse way to start than "According to Conservapedia..."? At least I didn't go with "According to the deranged wall-scribblings in my local gas station's bathroom..."

2. Trammel: a hindrance or impediment to free action; restraint. The double-m spelling seems to be more accepted, but, in keeping with my anything-goes liberal attitude, I see nothing wrong with "tramelled." Anyway, this footnote is here primarily because Conservapedia forced me to look up a word, and I think that's funny.

3. They totally should, though.