☆ Psychology expert: How common cognitive biases deceive Silicon Valley's policymakers—and voters (1/2)
Giovanni Domenico Tipeolo: Procession of the Trojan Horse in Troy, 1760. Image in Public Domain
Benjamin Radford—esteemed writer and research fellow in skeptical inquiry—also has a degree in psychology. Below, he analyzes mental shortcuts that, we think, might explain why SJ Council voted “yes” on unpopular Prop 5: tribalism, the representativeness fallacy, and more. An Opp Now exclusive.
Opportunity Now: How do cognitive biases show up for us when evaluating political matters?
Benjamin Radford: Lots of ways. One of them, especially these days, is the tendency to frame politics in tribalistic (us vs. them) terms. And that can lead to policy matters being over-politicized—making some people believe they're the only ones who, for instance, care about the elderly. When in reality, we all (regardless of political affiliation) want the elderly to be taken care of; we just disagree on methods.
We also observe that in social media, for instance, people like and share content that they haven't thought through. They may not even understand it. And their reasoning may be as simple as “Well, Trump sucks, so I'm sure I agree with this article criticizing him.”
Some studies estimate that for two-thirds of things shared online, the person sharing hasn't read past the headline. In psychology, this is called “symbolic endorsement”: something comes across the person's social media feed (probably from someone they like), and they assume they agree with it and like/repost it.
ON: There's got to be a ripple effect of people sharing—and symbolically validating—news articles they haven't read.
BR: That's the danger of increasingly insular social media bubbles. It creates the false consensus effect, the illusion that everyone has X opinion or is talking about Y.
ON: Do we ever see a similar illusion with out-of-touch politicians?
BR: Yes, they've got a lot of people in their ear claiming that “They Say” this or that. And this touches upon the bandwagon effect and availability heuristic, too—because it's easy to then conclude, “Oh, everyone thinks this, or wants this.” That's why politicians must double-check and look into what they're hearing is the people's consensus. Just because an idea is more accessible or memorable doesn't mean it's the truth.
Or maybe it's a case of people surrounding themselves with yes men. I'd say that about Hollywood, too. Saying "yes" to some project that fails, whereas just saying "no" to all but the safest bets, helps secure your job. It also means that independent, riskier, and more interesting projects and films don't get greenlit because the safe studio default is "no, no, no."
ON: Many folks are concerned that there are “no's,” there are dissenting opinions and accessible counterpoints; but local government's ignoring them.
BR: When your “tribe” is demonizing the other group, it's hard to subject yourself to contrary points of view. Or take them seriously. It's the echo effect in action.
ON: How else do cognitive shortcuts change how we view local policymakers?
BR: We tend to attribute things that don't go right for us to external circumstances, but blame others for what goes wrong in their lives.
Say some government initiative for Silicon Valley fails. When the politician you like is in power, you'll say, “It's other factors. It's not their fault.” But with anyone else, you'll point the finger at them. Say they're doing a bad job as a councilmember, mayor, etc. This sounds ridiculous but is something a lot of us do unconsciously.
ON: So you're saying it's easier to scapegoat someone than analyze the complex factors affecting an issue.
BR: It's very easy to misattribute the causes of policy failure (and, in some cases, even success). Politics isn't a petri dish experiment where we can control all compounding factors. It's in constant flux. The world is constantly changing.
We have to remember that policy's often guided from input from various stakeholders. It's rarely a unilateral decision on one person's part. It's like reading about a jury decision on the news and deciding—without sitting through the days or weeks of evidence—that the outcome's bad. Maybe you're correct. But you aren't looking at all the information. So you don't know.
ON: And that turns into confirmation bias, no? Once you've decided you can't be swayed from your viewpoint, you'll only seek out information validating you. And dismiss everything else.
BR: Right, and the representativeness fallacy tells us that some folks pick and choose which experts they want to believe. In the medical industry, it manifests in doctor shopping: say you want a specific medication or therapy, your PCP says it's not right for you, so you keep going to doctors until you find someone who'll prescribe it. In politics, we see it in cherry-picking facts, quoting experts only when they support one's viewpoint.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.