Knowledge

Here's a fascinating result via Henry Farrell and Larry Bartels' book, Unequal Democracy. As you can see, among people with low levels of political information (as measured by knowing things like which party had more members in the House or which party was more conservative) liberals and conservatives alike are aware that inequality between rich and poor has grown in recent decades.

When you shift from low-information liberals to high information liberals, the proportion of liberals getting the inequality facts right goes up. But when you shift from low-information conservatives to high information conservatives, you see evidence not of growing awareness of the facts but of growing familiarity with conservative talking points and thus a decreasing proclivity to answer the question correctly. And I seriously doubt things would turn out any differently if you found a question where the shoe was on the other foot.

This relates to the skepticism I expressed last week that the "flip-flopper" allegation really hurt John Kerry quite as much as it sometimes appears. There's a lot of evidence from various sources that what happens when people pay attention to politics is they better align self-reports of their beliefs with the talking points associated with "their side." So you can get a lot of people claiming to dislike John Kerry because he's a flip-flopper when more likely they think Kerry's a flip-flopper because they don't like John Kerry and that's what Kerry's enemies were saying. If conservatives had decided to say that Kerry was stubborn, huge numbers of people would have believed that instead.

Comments

So you can get a lot of people claiming to dislike John Kerry because he's a flip-flopper when more likely they think Kerry's a flip-flopper because they don't like John Kerry and that's what Kerry's enemies were saying.

I.e., pretending to have a rational reason to vote against the guy who is not of your tribe.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 9, 2008 1:25 PM

I.e., pretending to have a rational reason to vote against the guy who is not of your tribe.

To be fair, Kerry's affect is of a fairly exclusive tribe.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 9, 2008 1:36 PM

I think this is true of a lot of things. People state their beliefs as if they are both facts and clearly stated, with no hidden motivations, when much of the time they are neither. This is so ingrained that people are often not even aware of these hidden agendas, which only come out after a bit more prodding.

So, you might say "I hate John Kerry because he's a flip flopper" and believe it, but when faced with other, more congenial folks who have also flip flopped, it becomes apparent that it's not so much the flip flopping per se, but something else that's problematic and the flip flopping either has nothing to do with it or is just symptomatic of the actual problem. It might be that in the end, you just prefer Kerry to APPEAR more dicisive--or maybe you don't like the way he looks, or speaks, or he reminds you of someone you don't like, or you just don't like him because he's a Democrat.

Posted by JMS | July 9, 2008 1:36 PM

"As you can see, among people with low levels of political information..."

Judging by Matthew's weird contention that Obama is more liberal than the Democratic nominees of the recent past when Obama is actually the most conservative Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter, I'd say that people with a low level of political information is a topic Matthew is intimately knowledgeable about.

Of course, when dealing with an American monarchist, I'm not much of anything would be a surprise...

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 1:40 PM

And I seriously doubt things would turn out any differently if you found a question where the shoe was on the other foot.

Well that's why political scientists do studies, to see if things turn out differently. First you have to find a question where the shoe is unambiguously on the other foot, though -- any suggestions?

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 9, 2008 1:44 PM

To hell with your tourette's, Petey, what do you think of the Elton Brand signing?

Posted by Curly | July 9, 2008 1:44 PM

Should've clicked through first, but this example that Henry cites doesn't quite fill the bill -- as one of the commenters points out, all the result shows is that Democrats were more likely to be wrong about this issue, not that high-information Democrats were more likely to be wrong than low-information Democrats.

Also, given the way information dissemination has changed, you'd like to find an example that's less than twenty years old (I'm not sure how old the inequality example is).

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 9, 2008 1:50 PM

Matt, this makes sense to me. So I wonder: what variables can cause people to actually change their vote from one candidate to another? If people mostly seek reinforcement for preferences they already hold, you'd think that really large shifts in the polls (where a lot of people break this habit) would be rare. But it just happened in both primaries; last year Clinton and Giuliani each had 20+ point leads, and they lost.

Posted by C | July 9, 2008 1:52 PM

"To hell with your tourette's, Petey, what do you think of the Elton Brand signing?"

Crazy stuff.

Philly gets interesting, although not title-worthy. David Falk seems to be the story here. Boom Dizzle cries. And ClipperBlog was relevant for a week, which was nice. Also worth mentioning that Tim Kawakami has shown himself to be the rare blogger who can write about the cap in a coherent manner.

And with Maggette continuing his irrelevance in Oakland, a big bullet got dodged for everyone. If he'd gone to San Antonio, I think the Spurs would've approached lock status. If he'd gone to Salt Lake City or Detroit, waves would've been made.

The whole fun of the offseason was going to be seeing which contender Maggette was going to put over the top in exchange for the MLE. Now we'll have to content ourselves with the Olympics and seeing what Joe Dumars does. (I assume Tayshaun is the one who goes. He hasn't exactly acquitted himself well during the past two post-seasons.)

And the full MLE for Air France? Either Otis Smith is crazy or Nellie doesn't know how to manage a roster.

Personally, I think the rumors that OKC is going to name the team the Trust-Fund Scumbags seem unlikely. I don't think it'd work well with corporate sponsorship.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 1:59 PM

Shorter Matt: Die-hard Republicans are willfully stupid.

Posted by LFC | July 9, 2008 2:02 PM

Keep in mind that the culture of conservatism rewards "familiarity with talking points" more than it rewards "being knowledgeable." The social consequences of not knowing economic facts are very low among conservatives: you are rewarded for being able to repeat the correct talking point at the correct time (it displays the fact that you consume the same media at the same time and are familiar with the message of the day). Not only is there little reward for being knowledgeable, but those who correct the facts of other conservatives will face public repuke or, more commonly, a dismissal of "how amazing it is that people are able to forge statistics like that."

I don't know whether this is an element of human nature and that those who display those characteristics naturally gravitate to the same political party, or whether the party actively nurtures and encourages this culture of ignorance.

Posted by Tyro | July 9, 2008 2:12 PM

Tyro: "I don't know whether this is an element of human nature and that those who display those characteristics naturally gravitate to the same political party, or whether the party actively nurtures and encourages this culture of ignorance."

no doubt both--a feedback loop, if you will. i'd say there's also an idealogical element. People who think for themselves really do not fit well with conservatism.

Posted by raft | July 9, 2008 2:27 PM

"And I seriously doubt things would turn out any differently if you found a question where the shoe was on the other foot."

Bet it's weaker. For the non-ideological, high information will correlate to getting it right. And I'd guess that when confronted by the need to identify themselves, the non-ideological are more likely to shrug and call themselves "liberal". At least these days, since they other label has been hijacked by delusional nutcases.

Posted by Gordon | July 9, 2008 2:28 PM

I haven't read the book, so I don't know if this was brought up in the discussion of the findings. It seems, however, that political information might correlate with higher levels of income, either because of increased leisure time to follow the news or because of higher levels of education.

Among higher income liberals, greater awareness about income inequality comes from college or time spent reading the NYT. Richer conservatives, however, probably spent their college years resisting their lefty economics professors and steeping themselves in Goldwater speeches and Fox News.

Your mechanism (higher pol info (liberals) --> awareness//higher pol info (cons) --> talking points) is still possible. But if income correlates with political awareness it suggests that poorer conservatives consistently vote against their economic self-interest in favor of a class of rich, educated leaders who spend their days telling them that the reality they experience is a lie. In which case, isn't it time for liberals to remind lower income people who's really looking out for them?

Posted by Brian | July 9, 2008 2:29 PM

And the full MLE for Air France? Either Otis Smith is crazy or Nellie doesn't know how to manage a roster.

That's not an either-or.

Posted by right | July 9, 2008 3:00 PM

When you shift from low-information liberals to high information liberals, the proportion of liberals getting the inequality facts right goes up. But when you shift from low-information conservatives to high information conservatives, you see evidence not of growing awareness of the facts but of growing familiarity with conservative talking points and thus a decreasing proclivity to answer the question correctly.

This seems like a tautology. You are defining "inequality facts" such that they are equal to the liberal point-of-view. Higher-knowledge liberals are more likely to have the same point-of-view, while higher-knowledge conservatives are more likely to have an opposing view. One would expect them to converge at the low-end.

Posted by right | July 9, 2008 3:04 PM

Personally, I think the rumors that OKC is going to name the team the Trust-Fund Scumbags seem unlikely. I don't think it'd work well with corporate sponsorship.

Maybe a health insurance company will sponsor them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | July 9, 2008 3:07 PM

"Maybe a health insurance company will sponsor them."

General Electric seems to have cornered the market on political propaganda these days.

GE Healthcare is a helluva lot more powerful than any insurance company.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 3:21 PM

I seriously doubt things would turn out any differently if you found a question where the shoe was on the other foot.

Are you saying there are issues where liberals prefer to turn their backs on reality in favor of talking points, ceding the position of being correct to conservatives?

Good god, man, what issue could that possibly be? What, in the past 8 years, have liberals been wrong about and conservatives right?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 9, 2008 3:31 PM

Stupid effing Warriorns. Maggette is a terrible choice. First, he plays the same position as Capt Jack. I think Maggette would make a fine back-up, but they're not playing him back-up money. Second, he'll totally screw up the pace of the offense, because he loves to stand there and hold the ball. He can't shoot from 3, but playing for Nellie, you know he'll be throwing them up from out there. And he's a bad defender, and the Warriors don't need any more bad defenders.

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 4:37 PM

"Stupid effing Warriorns. Maggette is a terrible choice."

While I certainly understand the emotion, I don't feel the tragedy for the Warriors this time. The loss of B-Diddy already created a numbness.

But I do feel bad for Maggette. As a MLE pickup on an already good team, he had a chance to be the difference-maker and shine during the prime time Show.

But given that he could only make $32m off the MLE, if the Warriors really did offer $50m guaranteed, I can understand the decision on his part.

But it's still kinda sad. He coulda been a contender.

-----

As to the Warriors, sure it seems stupid, but plug scorers into Nellie's system and he can make them sing. They could win 45 games. They could be entertaining.

In other words, Mullin reverts to previous form.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 4:59 PM

Sadly, true. They were well on their way to being a perennial 50-win team and a team to be reckoned with in the playoffs every year. If they had resigned Baron, or replaced him with anything approaching similar value, just the continued improvement of their young guys would have at least gotten them past the Nuggets this year. Now they're back to a .500ish team, no hope of the playoffs as long as the West stays as crazy strong as it is now.

I would feel less bad for Maggette if it looked like he cared a little more about being a better player. Then again, basketball IQ isn't something you can just learn -- maybe "athletic, but clueless, scorer" is as good as he's going to be.

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 5:09 PM

Rather, I would feel more bad for Maggette...

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 5:12 PM

"maybe "athletic, but clueless, scorer" is as good as he's going to be."

Y'see, that's exactly why I feel bad for Maggette. On the Warriors, that's exactly how good he's going to be.

But if he had ended up on the Spurs or another well-balanced contender, as seemed very possible, he coudla been much, much more.

He gave up glory for $18m, which is hard to quibble with.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 5:26 PM

"Now they're back to a .500ish team"

Think of it this way, if you want to be a deeply sad Warriors' fan:

They traded Davis for Maggette and $3m extra to spend a year. That'll get you three quarters of a Rony Turiaf.

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 5:33 PM

It works both ways. I would assume that high-school educated liberals in Brownsville, Providence or Detroit would be more likely than trendy, well educated liberals in Northwest DC or Manhattan to be aware of the obvious truths that men and women are essentially different, and that human life begins, at most, very shortly after conception.

Posted by Hector | July 9, 2008 5:45 PM

But what about the obvious truth that the Warriors overpaid for Corey Maggette?

Look, I'm not saying they should have resigned Baron. He's got an injury history and I don't know if I'd want him under contract 3 or 4 years from now. But they should have saved the money for something good, instead of panicking and wasting it on Corey Maggette.

There's also the fact that Baron, as awesome as he is, is worth more to the Warriors than he is to most teams. I'm afraid it's going to be a long year for him in Clipperland, with Dunleavy (ugh, I shudder at the name, even though its Junior that I hate) yelling at him to pound it to Kaman in the post, and the team losing 50 games, minimum.

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 5:55 PM

The Clippers and Warriors are both losers. That's part of why the whole thing is so crazy.

-----

The calculus behind signing Maggette for the Warriors is complex.

It's obviously a poor decision from the POV of a Warriors' fan who wants to win a title. But there are two complicating factors:

- I think management would rather win 44 games than 34 games next year, even if it doesn't really help their progress long-term. Similarly, the Sixers and Wizards just put a ceiling on themselves as slightly above average teams. Good is more fun than bad for owners and GM's, unless you're thinking long-term.

- If my understanding of capology is true, the money spent on Maggette was a use it or lose it type of situation. With the Monta (mind my corrected spelling?) and Biedrins contracts coming up, they're not going to have any cap space next summer. So they spent the dough on the best guy out there, and Maggette was the only one to choose among, unless you want to go wild goose chasing after Josh Smith. Or put another way, if the cap space wouldn't have been there next year, who would you rather them have spent it on than Maggette?

And didn't we all understand EB to be a movie producer who really wanted to stay in the Great Southland no matter what? And didn't we all understand that EB wanted to hang with fellow movie producer The Black Zohan while doing so?

Posted by Petey | July 9, 2008 6:13 PM

I'd expect that part of this trend is due to the face that lower informormation conservatives tend to be poorer (middle America, etc.), and so have actual experience with inequality. They'd probably blame Clinton for it, but I'd say there's a good bit of this that's based on economic class rather than familiarity with the talking points.

Posted by Reuben | July 10, 2008 10:11 AM

I'd expect that part of this trend is due to the face that lower informormation conservatives tend to be poorer (middle America, etc.), and so have actual experience with inequality. They'd probably blame Clinton for it, but I'd say there's a good bit of this that's based on economic class rather than familiarity with the talking points.

Posted by Reuben | July 10, 2008 10:12 AM

"Well that's why political scientists do studies, to see if things turn out differently. First you have to find a question where the shoe is unambiguously on the other foot, though -- any suggestions?"

Sure:

Ask about ethanol subsidies being good for energy conservation.

Ask about whether third trimester abortions have enforced/enforceable restrictions nationwide.

"liberals and conservatives alike are aware that inequality between rich and poor has grown in recent decades."

Also this is rather loaded. To my knowledge you won't hear this on Rush as a talking point, but almost all of the inequality growth occurred when we changed the government survey system in the 1990s (which could be why Clinton looks like one of the worst Presidents for inequality).

Posted by Sebastian | July 10, 2008 1:09 PM

So you can get a lot of people claiming to dislike John Kerry because he's a flip-flopper when more likely they think Kerry's a flip-flopper because they don't like John Kerry and that's what Kerry's enemies were saying.

You are so misguided ... Most of the people I know, in contradiction to not liking John Kerry because of his flip-flopping, don't like John Kerry because ... He is a Treasonous, Blue-Blooded ignoramous that tried to put himself on a "JFK" fast track to power. Even when he attempts to speak above people, he only shows his pure ignorance of true life in the United States of America.

There is a difference between being intelligent and being educated ... You cannot train someone to be intelligent, you can however educate anyone that has rudimentary skills at memorization. The problem with that being, that as new facts are introduced, they are unable to successfully navigate those fact and reach reasonable, objective conclusions. Face it, when it comes to better than half of the United States Senate and United States House of Representative, I could train a primate to do the same thing! At least then, they'd have a 50% chance at placing logical votes for policies that promote productivity, trade and liberty while providing for the Common Defense.

Nuff Said!

Posted by Tx Rancher | July 10, 2008 5:56 PM