The Perception Gap: US Party Politics and Belief vs. Reality

[TheGlyphstone]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Without offering direct commentary of my own (yet), I'm curious how people feel about this study and the conclusions that the writer reaches. We are a fairly educated community here, with a cultural impetus to be reading news for sourcing claims.


The study linked directly, since it's only summarized in The Atlantic but goes into a fair bit more detail:
https://perceptiongap.us/

[Remiel]

Doesn't surprise me at all.  It's an impetus that's evolutionarily wired deeply into our brains: when someone doesn't act the way we do, or think the way we do, it must be because there is something wrong with them.  Or perhaps it's because they're simply bad people.

In psychology, it's called the Fundamental Attribution Error.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm confused. ???

The study is about how 1) Americans of both political parties have exaggerated views of the other party members' positions, seeing them as more extreme than they are, and 2) that increased education and media exposure increase this tendency towards caricaturized beliefs about the other party.

Fundamental attribution or who is 'good' or 'bad' doesn't tie into this at all, unless there is a correlation I am missing.

[Tolvo]

This seems like a very stacked deck. They refer to those who aren't in the "progressive activist tribe" or "devoted conservative tribe" and "traditional conservative tribe" as the exhausted majority.  This is using pretty loaded language and they use some rather small survey numbers to make some big assertions. This group refers to progressives as the most ideological and devoted group that are a part of the Democrats. But many progressive do not identify with the Democratic party. The far right tended to not identify much with the Republican party until recent years when they've been centered in it more. I am trying to find more on this organization though the name is making googling a bit difficult since it's a common phrase used a lot in media. That is not to say that Democrats and Republicans do deeply understand each other or even care to. Many like to just put people in boxes similar to what this organization does. The language used is pretty charged. While trying to depict

"One proviso should be added. While it may be tempting to compare the absolute
differences between the parties and to draw conclusions about the relative accuracy or
inaccuracy of each party’s views about the other, the value of this approach is limited by
the fact that each party responded to different question sets. Of course the Perception
Gap measures the difference between the perceptions of partisans and their opponents'
actual beliefs. Nevertheless, the choice of questions will influence differences in the
Perception Gap between Democrats and Republicans. Caution should therefore be
exercised in interpreting these results as an objective measure of differences in each
party's perceptions of the other"

This also is fairly worrying. Going off of their charts they conclude that both Democrats and Republicans overestimate how extreme their political opponents are, but the different forms of questions and topics actually matter. In some of the graphs it shows that Democrats were more likely to underestimate how extreme the Republicans were, and Republicans were more likely to overestimate how extreme the Democrats were. In regards to racism Democrats overestimated the Republicans surveyed, but in regards to immigration under estimated them. On top of that the phrasing they show allows for a lot of different ways for one to answer.

For instance the following, "Properly controlled immigration can be good for America" was asked about Republicans. This can mean slight regulation, this can mean Trump's concentration camps. "Properly controlled" means very different things to different people. The only people who couldn't really respond to this in the affirmative are those who want zero immigration period or who want pure open borders without any checks. These questions in general seem really poorly formulated and leave a lot of wiggle room for people to more easily respond in a moderate sounding way when they may hold more extreme views. The questions are vague and not specific in most cases.

[Remiel]

I'm confused. ???

The study is about how 1) Americans of both political parties have exaggerated views of the other party members' positions, seeing them as more extreme than they are, and 2) that increased education and media exposure increase this tendency towards caricaturized beliefs about the other party.

Fundamental attribution or who is 'good' or 'bad' doesn't tie into this at all, unless there is a correlation I am missing.

Simply put, it means that we allow ourselves (and people who think and speak like us) greater freedom to be nuanced than we do other people (or people who don't think and speak like us).  If a Republican opposes undocumented immigration it must be because he's racist.  If a Democrat supports illegal immigration it must be because she hates America.

The finding that this tendency to caricature the other side becomes more pronounced as a function of education level also doesn't surprise me, as the more education we have, and the more exposure to the media outlet of our choice we have (whether that is MSNBC or FOX News) the more sure we are that our opinion is the "right" one and thus, anyone who doesn't agree with us must be, willfully or otherwise, ignorant.

[ReijiTabibito]

Working off Remiel's premise, that actually doesn't surprise me a great deal, either.  Consider the following, if you will.  Academia has had, for at least the last half-century, a decidedly left-wing bent.  I'm not one of those people who is absolutely convinced that colleges and universities are 'indoctrination centers' where they brainwash kids into believing certain things (unless you happen to have had the ill fortune to decide to be a Studies Major, if you're an Engineer you're fine).  More importantly, however, academia - and this is an accurate assessment - is an ivory tower where the people who live in it don't engage with the outside world; an insular environment where one political viewpoint dominates conversation.

If you ascribe to that viewpoint, and you do nothing but talk to people who think like you, then gradually, over time, that viewpoint becomes calcified in your brain because you have no one around to challenge your notions of society, government, and civilization in general.  What if, however, you are one of those rare individuals that does not believe the campus orthodoxy?  You're up to your neck in hearing this day-in, day-out, for years on end, and given that campuses are generally the place that new philosophies start before they move out of academia and into the public square, you're probably hearing all the craziest theories and insane ramblings of the left wing, which just makes you think worse of them because you can't actually believe that someone would think like this.

Contrast that with the guy who, after high school, can't go to college and has to start working right away.  You're likely working some low-no-profile service job - McDonalds or WalMart or an analogue - where you encounter a wide variety of people.  (Contrary to popular belief, progressives aren't all kombucha-drinking vegan urbanites who turn up their nose at the sight of a Whopper, and conservatives aren't good ol' boys who swill beer and think any dish without meat is 'for wussies.')  More importantly, your job is more important than your political affiliation - you need this job to keep the lights on and food coming across the table, even if that food is cheap crap.  Continuing forward, you have employment aspirations - you're not planning on being here twenty-five years from now doing the same job, or even possibly five years from now.  You're looking into trade school, or an apprenticeship, or something, ANYTHING, than being where you are now.

Let's say that an opportunity in being a plumber comes through.  Plumbers are one of those professions that ignore economic strata - IE, a rich person's toilet is just as likely to need work as someone who is working class.  Most of the 'higher education' professions don't cut across strata like that.  If you're a college professor, considered one of the jobs which is mostly left-wing, you're interacting with other people who think like you the majority of the time.  The right-wing equivalent is being something like a hedge fund manager, or global businessman, where, again, you're mostly interacting with people like you.  Being a plumber, or most types of tradesmen, however, avoid this trap, simply by dint of doing their job.


One final thing.  A study published in the NYT revealed that...I'm probably getting the specific numbers wrong, but the general idea of it is correct - almost three-quarters of all political online traffic from the left comes from the segment of their wing that is farthest left, which constitutes single-digit percentages of people who describe themselves on the political left.  Similar proportions for those on the right wing.  However, if you look at the legacy media - CNN, MSNBC, Fox - they're always constantly pulling up tweets and posts on Facebook, which amplifies the voice of those individuals, and then those statements become the basis for which the other side's understanding of their philosophy and policy is measured.  Bill Maher talked about this in one of his 'New Rule' segments - basically saying that anytime the media reports that 'the Internet,' or 'people,' or 'Twitter,' goes apeshit over something, it's not really any of those things, it's 'three guys on Twitter with a collective following of their mom."

But, as the old saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and thanks to modern tech, it turns out squeaky wheels now have a megaphone attached to their hip 24-7-365.

[Twisted Crow]

More information for me on this subject? I have to say that some of this isn't shocking to me, but I will read into it when I have the chance.

[HannibalBarca]

Consider the following, if you will.  Academia has had, for at least the last half-century, a decidedly left-wing bent.

I'm a student of history, since a young age.  If you look back--as far back as the beginnings of higher education, say, in the late Medieval in France--you'll see that there has always been a slant towards liberalism among the more highly educated.  Higher education, in itself, does not lead to liberalism.  It leads to the ability to think about the world in different ways, and introduces you to different perspectives and hopefully different kinds of people, and teaches you how to evaluate arguments in new ways.  All of this can allow you to put yourself in the shoes of people you never even knew existed before you invested in the higher education, and empathy for the “other” tends to increase liberal thought (or at least decrease social conservatism).  Many college educated people are conservative as well, because we're not dealing with a monolith.  You made that mistake yourself in describing college educators as ivory tower-types.  That's a tried and true stereotype.  Of course there are some like that.  The problem is, most college professors don't live on campus.  None of the many professors I studied under did, and I'm willing to bet that most around the world don't, either.

I was raised in the military by two conservative Catholic parents.  I was christian for almost half of my life.  Now I'm leftist and atheist, but neither of those came about because of my time spent in college.  They came about after careful study and consideration.  I'm nothing if not a deliberate, rational, plodding thinker.  I also love cheeseburgers and drive an old, gas-guzzling car.

I've also never belonged to a political party.  I think that too many people describe most Americans as 'Republican' and 'Democrat' when they mean conservative and liberal.  You can be either and not belong to a party.  I tend to agree with George Washington's perspective on political parties--he saw them taking away people's loyalty to the nation as a whole, and centering it around a much smaller, closer-knit tribal identity.

I don't care about party affiliation.  I care about the truth...believing as many true things and as few false things as possible.  In my perspective, the left has more truths than the right.

[Twisted Crow]

I have always been of the belief that a good teacher will challenge their students to think for themselves while critically analyzing the world around them. It is a reason why I deal in vague responses when faced with questions or opposition regarding various controversial issues. I won't deny that I lack a sense of maturity in this. Sometimes I am a little bit too amused with myself in how easy I can slap around the Super Paritsan Bros. Even when I am trying, I do not consider myself a very affluent or capable orator. And I barely consider my very meager talents in writing to be only slightly better than my ability to debate.

And yet... I can somehow Yoda myself around (apparently) some of the best and the brightest, sometimes. I mean, even freaking college professors (albeit, one was extremely young and the other was barely senile by those two accounts). I am sometimes a little too amused with my own eccentric behavior, this isn't a good quality for what makes for a good teacher of the world. But I do believe that even my jerkass challenges I pose to today's youth have considerable merit. Especially when people need to arm themselves against those that are... well, 'better assholes' than myself.  ^-^

My doubts come with the perception of what liberalism is by today's standards. One key reason of why I am so critical of the left wing is that I have found more people among them to be somewhat more correct in some moral issues we face today. Unfortunately, I then find myself taken aback by how left field the spoken (or unspoken) conclusions might be without regard to future consequences. A lot of them tend to be social. A very generalized theme I often find myself challenging is the notion of "offensive speech" and the unspoken message of essentially meddling with my Freedom of Speech. Here is where the good/bad teacher aspects come into play for this one; if I am precise, I run the risk of pressuring people what to think (as opposed to allowing others to think freely). On the other hand, if I am too vague when I go into Parable Mode? I endanger my position in the discussion or the integrity of whatever lesson I had originally intended to impart. The left wing frustrates me because of both how splintered it is and how... 'unliberal' it can seem with it's liberalism, sometimes.

If I were more than a useless fool that knows next to nothing, I wonder if I would know a better way to challenge/encourage people in this way? Yet, would I still think freely or simply what my educators had told me to think? The disadvantages of not knowing what the other side of the pasture looks like and not knowing for certain if people have honest eyes when they walk upon them.  -_-

[Tolvo]

Are you talking about left wing people or liberals? Do you mean Democrats or the left wing? I'm a little confused, do you mean your criticisms of Antifascism? If a professor was outsmarted by very simple challenges which are basically internet memes you were probably dealing with some people who knew nothing of the subject being discussed. Were they professors on sociology, any events relating to politics, history, etc?

Liberalism is generally despised by the left wing, who see it as very center and often leaning right more than left on matters like economics and imperialism. Keep in mind if this is related to discussions on safe spaces at universities that when people come who are often protested for their violent speech which incites people to stalk, attack, and kill, are not people worth defending. Doxxing trans people on stage and putting their address and deadame on screen during a speech is not something that should be protected or accepted, such as when Milo did that during a campus visit and speech. With these people often comes real harm and physical violence to people and communities.

For a simple one that is even a meme at this point itself, we don't need to be tolerant of intolerance. The paradox of the intolerant. By allowing in those who wish to kill use explicitly and see us destroyed, we are simply destroying ourselves.

[Twisted Crow]

I should clarify and say that I have found many democratic supporters that I have found agreement with in some areas. The tricky thing for me being is that some refer (to themselves) generally as "leftists" while others brand themselves as "liberal" or "liberal-thinking". Again, my confusion in what liberal even means as a label anymore isn't made any easier given how broadly I have personally seen it used in my neck of the woods. And these encounters are both with and without going into details on where we (the people I meet) stand on various topics. :-\

Regarding the two Professors, one was basically new-ish (I think) at his job given his youth. Or perhaps he just simply appeared young. I met that one at a friend's party. Nice guy, really. But he was drinking. Like many intellectuals I have had to fend myself against with what little wits I have, he got a bit vain and tried to stretch his Masters in whatever he had into more than what it was. I forgot what 'gambit' I had stuck him with. It wasn't so much a debate to tear his logic down, it was meant to challenge an alternative and merely address that he was straw-manning a problem that had more intricate complexities to it than originally presented. He was good sport about it, though. It was years ago, so I can't quite remember it to every last detail. It was related to veterans and how our country perceived/treated them. I'll admit that I had a bit of leverage given my military background. Plus again, he was young, I think.

The second was a man older than my grandfather that taught economics... I think? Or something economics related? But we were arguing about (what I strongly felt was) something else. That one was more exhausting, because it went all over the place with things that could have been barely been associated with economics (and dangerous to imply that they were directly under the umbrella completely) but it painted with such a large brush that it seemed as if he thought he could turn everything and somehow make it work with his subject of mastery. I can't say I honestly 'foiled' him, though. It was more along the lines of accusing him of overextending credited expertise and using his age and anecdotal experience as equal to his formal education. Which frustrated me, as I am of the belief that experience with the world is important... but there are reasons why this shouldn't always be in the same bed as formal education when the knowledge doesn't adequately cover it. My uncle both taught English and ran a comic book/game store on the side, and I met this guy there. Mentioning these two wasn't so much to boast any ability but to stack on to my "problems with teaching" theme. Sometimes, people should stick to teaching what they know and take greater care and responsibility in not getting carried away. A fascinating observation is how easily even the smartest of us can get caught in our own mental traps like "Oh, they're a master chef! Well, since it's about food that means they must know everything about farming!"

For a simple one that is even a meme at this point itself, we don't need to be tolerant of intolerance. The paradox of the intolerant. By allowing in those who wish to kill use explicitly and see us destroyed, we are simply destroying ourselves.

I can give a nod to this, though without much to elaborate on that what was already said here.  :-)

[Tolvo]

Those incidents sound more like the pratfalls of those individuals, Most professors that actually focus on such topics would be really hard to deal with, even at times just due to how stubborn they are. Though many also likely would not even get to that point in the first place. To many it is a thing for their work and in the classroom, not outside of it. Depending on where the work it can actually be a bit dangerous to talk about such matters publicly outside of work or with the wrong people.  I am an activist and outside of activist spaces when presented with those sorts of serious matters that require a lot of focus and attention I often just feel like going "Whatever. I really just want to eat this grilled cheese and look at my phone, I really don't feel like going through my database of sources to explain the history of the Colonization of America/Etc right now."  Though I am not a professors I merely know professors in certain fields. Academia has a lot of problems, the way that people are taught is a major problem, but I don't really find how allegedly left wing those in academia are to be a problem. Though many I'd say are not left wing. Left wing views are very explicitly anti-capitalist. Progressive is actually something different, but many left wing people are progressive and liberals can be progressives. In general the media just tosses around terms willy nilly and many people get confused and use labels incorrectly. Similar to how many people have no idea what fascism is and use it and authoritarianism interchangeably, when fascism is instead a typically authoritarian system. But for instance Stalin was not Fascist, he was Authoritarian. Fascism is heavily linked to race based nationalism, without that aspect present calling something fascist isn't really that accurate.

[Twisted Crow]

It doesn't help that we (people) tend to use words so broadly here in the west. Cases like 'liberal' being rather problematic as well as other labels you mention. Some I have seen call themselves this, others I've seen be accused and insulted under the same label ("libtard snowflake", et al.). I consider myself an 'independent thinker'. I wince whenever someone says that I consider myself an 'intellectual', when I probably would fit more as a philosopher. Haha, and I have my own doubts as to my own ability in regards to that, even still. ;D