
Study finds political bias skews perceptions of verifiable fact - headalgorithm
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/06/study-finds-political-bias-skews-perceptions-of-verifiable-fact/
======
rayiner
The problem is that “verifiable fact” is actually very complicated in any
context where you’re talking about politics. Two of the questions on the first
graphic are about income mobility for people born in the bottom quantile. The
graphic is correct, as far as it goes, but overlooks huge differences by race.
While the average American born in the bottom 20% has a 7.8% chance of
reaching the top 20%, that number is actually 25% for Asians.

Or, take the fact that the US lags Denmark in inter generational income
mobility. Which is true, but it’s also true that the difference is due mainly
to taxes and transfers flattening the whole distribution instead of
fundamental structural differences that enable more movement:
[https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-
memos/2016/09...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-
memos/2016/09/23/denmerica-why-denmark-plus-america-could-be-the-mobility-
utopia/amp). Put differently, it’s not that the welfare system allows the son
of a gardener to become an engineer, but that massive income redistribution
reduces the disparity between gardeners and engineers. (For many Americans,
that distinction could be dispositive in whether you support an expanded
welfare system.)

So take these facts the next step. The authors studied these things in the
context of support for reducing income inequality. Isn’t there a very
plausible argument here that the experience of poor Asians shows that there
isn’t a systemic structural problem keeping people in the bottom 20%? Or,
isn’t it plausible that the generous welfare state doesn’t really
fundamentally change people’s’ trajectories, but just reduces the divergence
between those trajectories? And if you teach people the first set of
statistics but not the second, are you educating them to make up their own
minds, or feeding them facts to support a preconceived notion?

Stepping back: experts should certainly understand these facts. But what do we
expect ordinary people to take away from them? Consider the work done by
Piketty and Saez on income inequality: [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/1/10/16850050/i...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/1/10/16850050/inequality-tax-return-data-saez-piketty). Defining
"income equality" actually is quite a quagmire. For example, in their 2003
work, P&S excluded the effect of tax transfers (such as the earned income tax
credit) which significantly overstated the degree of inequality. Or, they
mention that marginal tax rates were higher in the 1960s, but exclude the fact
that the tax bases were narrower, such that the actual average tax rate on the
top 1% hasn't changed dramatically over the decades:
[https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-
high](https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high). And there
are so many other confounding variables to account for. The immigrant
population today is almost triple what it was in 1960. Because immigrants
often start at the bottom of the ladder, an increasing immigrant share could
make incomes seem stagnant even though they’re growing within each different
demographic. You also need to account for household sizes, major differences
in marriage rates, etc. There are an enormous number of variables.

I'm not trying to take a side on this issue, I'm just using it as an example.
These are issues of vast complexity. The facts are things experts can fight
over. But do we really expect people to make political choices based on this
information? Invocation of "facts" and "experts" have an intuitive appeal, but
the "fact" is that for almost any disputed political issue, the facts are far
from clear. So people use heuristics: ideologies, knee-jerk reactions, general
principles, values. It's not clear to me that's wrong.

~~~
noetic_techy
> While the average American born in the bottom 20% has a 7.8% chance of
> reaching the top 20%, that number is actually 25% for Asians.

Exactly. Amy Chau wrote a great book called The Triple Package that points
this out and the fact that its not just Asians (which broadly lumps Indians
and all other Asian cultures together): Nigerian immigrants, Cuban exiles,
Lebonese, Mormons, Iranians, Jews, all see roughly the same phenomena of
surpassing average American household income. Its considered taboo to point
out that income inequality is largely cultural.

~~~
rayiner
> Its considered taboo to point out that income inequality is largely
> cultural.

I wouldn't say "cultural" because that's pretty loaded. My point is more that
if there were something structural about the economy that kept people in their
class (big banks, bad public education, etc.) you wouldn't see high mobility
in certain sub-groups. There has to be other factors in play--who knows what
they are. But I wouldn't assume they're necessarily "cultural."

~~~
skeletor_999
> I wouldn't say "cultural" because that's pretty loaded.

It may be loaded, but our cultural differences need to be considered. On
average Asian and Indian cultures place a stronger emphasis on grades. This
plays a large role in why they have been very successful by some metrics. If
certain questions are taboo, then we might overlook factors that are setting
them back. That doesn't mean that external factors aren't relevant, but we
need to consider everything.

We need to ask uncomfortable questions. That's not bigoted in itself. Look at
the gay community. A lot of gay men engage in very risky behaviour that can
lead to the spread of STIs. As an LGBT person myself, I can tell you that it
is still quite common. We need to be able to ask if they are doing self harm.
In fact, we have asked these questions, which has led to measurable progress
(STI prevention strategies have helped significantly).

------
Leary
What share of US immigrants receive unemployment?

Democrats: 25.6% Republicans: 27.1% Reality: 5.5%

It seems the bigger bias comes from the general media than any particular
party political bias.

~~~
autokad
I can't believe they thought it was that high. I mean general unemployment is
no where near 27% and you'd suspect that with threat of losing visa status,
immigrants are more likelier to take a job they dont exactly grok.

~~~
riskable
When arguing about immigrants and unemployment I always wondered why people
get so upset over it. If the immigrant is even able to collect unemployment
that means _they paid for it_.

So they're literally just getting the money back that they paid into it.
Probably considerably less, even!

So why should anyone care that they're collecting a benefit that they paid
for? I don't get it.

~~~
codeddesign
Unfortunately all media is biased, with most primarily taking a far left
stance. This is likely just due to $$$ as we live in a capitalist society. If
I owned a news station the questions I would ask is “what demographic is the
most profitable to us?” and “what content brings in the most money?”

~~~
caseyohara
You are gravely mistaken if you think news stations slant "far left".

~~~
HeroOfAges
Are you referring to local news stations or national networks? I've also
suspected CNN and MSNBC have a bias toward the "far left". What would you,
caseyohara, accept as proof of left-leaning bias from CNN or MSNBC?

~~~
bobwaycott
There is a _significant_ difference between being _left-leaning_ , and being
_far-left_.

~~~
codeddesign
You are right on this point. However, everything is so politicized that you
aren’t allowed to be leaning in any direction. You are force to choose..which
is ridiculous. To give an example, why is it unacceptable to many on HN to
like policies from both Obama and Trump? Having been on here for a while, you
will get applauded for 1 and spit at for the other.

------
floren
When asking "What percentage of US immigrants are Muslim", they saw 21% (D)
and 25% (R). Not close to the actual number, but surprisingly close to the
24.1% of the world population who are Muslims. I guess both parties would be
approximately correct if immigration was uniform across the entire world
population!

(I don't mean to imply anything _meaningful_ by this, just that the answers
for that question tickled a memory of world demographics)

------
skeletor_999
I think that the results of these types of surveys can be misleading, as they
don't always ask if the respondent is unsure. Wouldn't it be better to ask
them how knowledgeable they believe they are on a given topic before asking
them about the exact numbers? Similarly, wouldn't it be better to ask them
first about their support for a given policy change?

Many of these answers will simply be guesses. I think it would be far more
informing if these answers were broken down by people who believe they are
knowledgeable or who support certain policies.

------
jacobwilliamroy
What's with all these articles stating obvious stuff everyone already knows? I
remember a month ago there was an article about how breathing can affect
health, like that was news or something. It was on the front page.

~~~
sdenton4
One of the big human problems in social science is that people are VERY happy
to make explanatory narratives instantaneously on hearing a result... Which
makes most results seem 'obvious' once reported.

One trick to circumvent this is to report the OPPOSITE conclusion first, and
then say, 'actually, it was the opposite' after the listener says 'well, duh.'

In our own reading, it can be helpful to invert the conclusion and ask how
surprising that would seem...

In reality, we don't know until we test... We have a lot of stories and biases
that we carry all over the place, some are useful, most are shorthand, and
many will lead us to wrong conclusions.

~~~
luckylion
> One trick to circumvent this is to report the OPPOSITE conclusion first, and
> then say, 'actually, it was the opposite' after the listener says 'well,
> duh.'

 _Study finds political bias improves perception of verifiable facts._

I don't think I heard a lot of "well, duh".

> In reality, we don't know until we test... We have a lot of stories and
> biases that we carry all over the place, some are useful, most are
> shorthand, and many will lead us to wrong conclusions.

And even when we test, we don't really know, because we don't know whether
we're talking about the same thing. What does "immigrant" mean? Are you still
an immigrant after having lived in the US for 30 years? Is a naturalized
citizen still an immigrant, or does he cease to be an immigrant when he
becomes a citizen? Do you consider the children of an immigrant to be an
immigrant? If so, for how many generations? Are you absolutely sure that
everybody you talk to answers these questions the same way you do?

I'm often surprised how vague these political surveys are and how loose they
play with language. And I'm even more surprised when they then use the data to
make strong calls.

I'm pretty sure if you define the words, you get different results, e.g. ask
about "immigrants in the last 10 years", or say "immigrants who have not
become citizens that immigrated in the last 80 years". When you only use vague
terms, you're not really asking what people believe the numbers to be, you're
asking what people understand the term to mean AND what they believe the
numbers to be for that understanding.

A current example is asking about racism, where it's no longer just academia
where you might encounter something like "systemic effects disadvantaging
local minority populations" as the working definition, while the average
person might understand it closer to "discrimination based on race". You'll
get very different responses based on what definition the person is working
with, even when you ask about the same metric, e.g. "how often do you witness
racism in your work place?"

~~~
klyrs
> Study finds political bias improves perception of verifiable facts.

This is one way of flipping it.

What if we go with

 _Study finds conservative bias improves perception of verifiable facts._

and

 _Study finds liberal bias improves perception of verifiable facts._

showing each to people who respectively identify with those labels? Then, I
think we would see a lot of people going "well duh"

~~~
luckylion
Sure, but that's just giving people compliments or confirming their world
view, isn't it? I did understand the comment to mean that we find things
obvious after we hear about them presented as the result of a study. I don't
believe that at all, but I'm very much with you that it's correct with a
modification: we find them obvious after hearing about them _if_ they agree
with our world view.

I don't think that "ideology lessens your ability to perceive reality" falls
under worldview, though, and I cannot imagine that anybody was surprised by
the result itself. That doesn't make the study useless, it's interesting and
important to know how strong the effect is, whether it changes over time or
can be negated etc. But other than that? Study finds that people shot with
guns die more often than control group. I don't think you need to be an anti-
gun-activist to say "well, duh".

More importantly: how did independents and apolitical people guess? Were they
closer to the "real" numbers?

------
tomp
Clickbait title.

Better title: _political bias skews guesstimates that COULD be verified._

Are we _really_ surprised that people don't know by heart the percentages of
income mobility statistics? Also, although the questions, as posed, are
technically _verifiable_ , that's not what people really care about - do I
care about a statistic of income mobility that includes my parents (soon to be
pensioners)? Not really; I care about future projections - the income mobility
of myself, and my future kids. _That 's_ what policy bickering is about.

Edit: the _actual_ (not HN) title of the article is even more clickbait-y:
_When we can’t even agree on what is real_

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
> One experiment showed that even when given an opportunity to learn the facts
> about immigrants in the U.S. for a nominal sum, those holding the most
> negative and most inaccurate perceptions were the least willing to pay.

There's more to it than just what you pulled out.

------
libbyc5
So much for the wisdom of the crowds. Danes look like they have more accurate
perceptions about immigration, but I'm not sure if that's actually an
improvement for society.

[https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/2/29](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/2/29)

Sometimes it's better to have uninformed priors if you want to give everyone
an equal chance.

------
Ididntdothis
From what I can see the real problem is that most people don’t care about
facts anymore. They just want to hear what they think anyway and the political
parties are too happy to feed that.

When you talk to left wingers and right wingers about the economy of the last
ten years the left guys will tell you it was paradise until 2016 and then
everything went to hell. The right wingers will tell you it was misery until
2016 and then the boom started. When you look at stock indices, unemployment
or other charts you will see a steady rise over ten years. You won’t even see
that the president has changed. But pointing that out is futile. Most people
don’t want facts.

~~~
bytedude
Looks like the stock market was flat-lining by the end of Obama's term.

[https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-
averag...](https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-
last-10-years)

You may not care about facts, but don't generalize too quickly.

~~~
Ididntdothis
When I look at this chart I see ups and downs but overall a pretty steady
upward trend. I don’t see eights years of Obama misery and then triumph under
Trump. That was my point.

~~~
bytedude
Your point was that people don't care about facts, which you are proving in
ironic fashion. Even when presented with evidence and facts, you fail to
acknowledge it.

~~~
Ididntdothis
What facts and evidence for what did you present?

------
scythmic_waves
I'm sorry, is this showing a _causal_ relationship between political bias and
perceptions of reality? The headline and article make it sound like that, but
it could just as easily be that your perception of reality causes your
political bias. Or that some other thing causes both of them.

I can't see the paper to be sure because it's behind a paywall.

~~~
sonofgod
[https://sci-hub.tw/10.3386/w26675](https://sci-hub.tw/10.3386/w26675)

------
djohnston
this is why zuck is right

------
dfxm12
It turns out those polled are not good at knowing verifiable facts like:

 _What share of U.S. immigrants receive unemployment?_ _What share of U.S.
immigrants are Muslim?_

Why do people even hazard a guess at this stuff? Does your average Joe
registered voter really think they have such a handle on immigration in their
country that they think they know the religion of everyone coming in and who
is receiving exactly what benefits?

Talk about the Dunning–Kruger effect...

~~~
sonofgod
Because they've been asked to. And I expect that if there's hesitation, the
survey runners ask them to give their best guess.

And if they don't guess, and move onto the next question, then they're
eliminated from the aggregated results.

------
cjbenedikt
Is that news to anyone?

------
cycomanic
What I don't quite understand is the article is arguing that left and right
can't even agree on the facts and both are wrong. But when I look at the
examples they are both wrong, but way "to the right" on the facts.

------
growlist
I suppose you could turn it round and ask: why are certain groups so obsessed
with forcing immigration on people that don't want it? Don't those people have
a right not to have their minds changed by people with an agenda? Who decides
what opinions are palatable or otherwise, and why are they seeking to subvert
commonly held beliefs for their own benefit?

~~~
gowld
>certain groups so obsessed with forcing immigration on people that don't want
it?

Are you referring to human traffickers?

~~~
growlist
I was thinking more the ideologues prevalent throughout virtually every major
global institution and goverment. But there does seem to be evidence of NGOs
and traffickers collaborating in the Mediterranean for example.

