Skip to content

Group Discussion: Who's More Rational - Liberals or Conservatives?

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Group Discussion: Who's More Rational - Liberals or Conservatives?

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside. If you're hungry enough to eat a meal, they have more substantial fare such as salads, soups & sandwiches which are pretty good and their prices are reasonable.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. With PATCO, just get off at the 9th-10th & Locust stop and walk 3 blocks east & 1 block north. For those who are driving, parking in the neighborhood can be tough to find. If you can't find a spot on the street, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street which is just a half block away.

----------------------------------------------
WHO'S MORE RATIONAL: LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES?

ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATION ON SCIENCE DENIAL, CONSPIRACY THINKING, CORRECT VOTING, AND THE "ASYMMETRY THESIS" FOR RATIONALITY

INTRODUCTION:

We often hear people debating whether one political party is more "anti-science" or more irrational in some way or whether "both sides do it". This meetup will address a collection of arguments & debates around whether the Republicans or Democrats are equally partisan when it comes to accepting or rejecting scientific consensus, endorsing conspiracy theories, staying informed on politics & "voting correctly", and exhibiting negative personality traits. We'll look at some of the research in political psychology that's emerged over the last decade and see if it can help us shed some light on this subject.

Throughout our discussion, we'll try to avoid 2 false dichotomies:

(1) Rationality & irrationality are not binary -- there's a spectrum of how logically consistent & evidence-based people's beliefs are, and a person's level of rationality can vary dramatically depending on the topic.

There's also the question of how high we should set the bar to consider someone "rational"...

To the extent that most adults aren't clinically paranoid or delusional, have relatively stable preferences, and can live independently and figure out how to solve most mundane problems they face on an average day, we could say that most adults are functionally rational. This would be consistent with the concepts of "bounded rationality" and "instrumental rationality" used to explain & predict human behavior in economics & political science. "Bounded rationality" accounts for limited information, human cognitive limits, and limited time for decision-making, and it's based not on finding the optimal solution to problems but rather on "satisficing" - i.e. finding solutions that are "good enough" that you avoid catastrophic losses, meet your basic needs, and maintain your current status. "Instrumental rationality" means we're not concerned with whether someone has a relatively accurate mental model of the world (that's "epistemic rationality") nor on whether their behavior align with certain values (that's "value rationality"), but rather we're just seeing if they know how to get what they want. (Consider that some criminologists argue that even most criminals & drug addicts are "rational" but just have very different preferences.)

However, if we define rationality as some sort of specialized ability that allows one to obtain a highly accurate mental model of the world (i.e. "epistemic rationality" only a small segment of the population could rightly claim to be "highly rational". For example, to score in the 90th percentile on Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky's cognitive bias tests or Keith Stanovich's "Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking" (CART) would require a temperament that inclined one to slow, methodical reasoning as well as knowledge of probabilistic fallacies & logical pitfalls that would trip up most people.

(2) Liberal vs conservative also isn't a binary -- even though we have a (mostly) two-party political system, Americans' political beliefs tend to fall along a spectrum and can vary based on the issue. When Pew Research polls Americans every 3 years on their political views and subjects their answers to "cluster analysis", they tend to find 8-9 different clumps: 3-4 of which are very partisan & fairly predictable in their views, another 4 that are less partisan & more eclectic in their views, and yet another group of "bystanders" who mostly don't follow politics or vote.

Unfortunately, most of the studies we'll look at below don't offer this type of granular analysis, meaning that they implicitly lump rural rednecks in the Bible Belt & wealthy country club Republicans together as "conservatives" and lump white secular humanists & New Age hippies together with deeply religious black & Hispanic Democrats together as "liberals". Yet the few studies that do break up the parties into different subsets find quite a bit of variation -- e.g. check out the bar graph above that shows the variation in conspiracy theory beliefs based on which candidate respondents favored in the 2016 primaries (taken from David Healy's article in the LA Times posted down in Section 2 of the discussion outline below).

RELIGION & RATIONALITY: AN OVERVIEW & SOME LINKS RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

One thing this meetup won't address is the differences in the rates of religiosity between conservatives & liberals, and how that ties into the question of which side of the political spectrum is more rational. For a quick reference, you can refer to Pew Research's 2014 Religious Landscape Study, particularly the part that looks at "Belief in God By Political Party" - it shows 3% of Republicans & 7% of Democrats say they believe in God but are "not too certain", 5% of Republicans & 13% of Democrats say they do not believe in God, and 1% of Republicans & 2% of Democrats say they "don't know".
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/belief-in-god/by/party-affiliation/

We can also look at Pew Research's 2012 Religion & Public Life Project's report "'Nones' on the Rise", which showed that the "religiously unaffiliated" (a.k.a. "Nones") are heavily Democratic in their partisanship and liberal in their political ideology, with 63% saying they lean towards the Democrats and 11% saying they have no political leaning, while only 26% saying they lean towards the Republicans (p. 25). This partisan split intensifies for the 30% of "Nones" who self-identify as atheist/agnostic, with only 18% saying they lean Republican while 73% saying they lean Democrat (p. 67). However, Pew Research notes that the unaffiliated appear to be more socially liberal than economically liberal -- almost three-quarters support abortion rights & same-sex marriage, but they're about evenly split on whether or not the US needs a larger government to provide more social services (p. 26).

Interestingly, the unaffiliated are no more or less likely than members of the public as a whole to have New Age beliefs -- in both cases, about 20-30% report believing in astrology, reincarnation, "spiritual energy" in inanimate objects, mystical experiences, and ghosts (p. 24).
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2012/10/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf

Note that we have also partially addressed the overlaps between atheism & political orientation in previous meetups...

In January of 2019, we had a meetup entitled "Can Skeptics Fight Irrationality Without Succumbing To It?" In the 3rd section, we looked at whether or not atheists & agnostics are more likely to endorse paranormal or "New Age" beliefs as a substitute for their lack of religious faith -- there appears to be mixed evidence for this, with studies that indicated the non-religious were less likely to believe in lucky charms & horoscopes but more likely to believe in ghosts & UFOS. In the 4th section, we looked at whether or not atheists & agnostics are liable to become highly partisan and treat politics almost like a religion -- since the non-religious tend to vote at lower rates, this allegation seems unlikely.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/lckqkqyzcbrb/

In July of 2018, our group hosted a meetup entitled "Is 'New Atheism' Declining or Evolving?" We looked at various social & demographic trends that may underlie the recent rise of the "Nones", as well as the oddly high level of religious belief that still persists in the US compared to Europe. We also looked at how American atheists has been recently split by the growing political divide, with a explicitly left-wing group devoted to feminism & social justice facing off against a more centrist wing that's culturally libertarian, concerned with freedom of speech & skeptical of identity politics.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/252679767/

----------------------------------------------

HOW TO PREPARE FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

The videos you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of the scholarly debates surrounding climate change. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - this should take about 47 minutes total to get through. If you can't watch all of the videos, don't worry - just watch as much as you can. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the 4 topics in the order presented here. I've listed questions under each section which we'll do our best to address. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. PARTISAN GAPS IN SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, TRUST IN SCIENCE, AND SCIENCE DENIAL:

  • WHO SCORES HIGHER IN GENERAL SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE - DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS?
  • SHOULD A PERSON WHO REPORTS A HIGH LEVEL OF "TRUST IN SCIENCE" BE REGARDED AS MORE "RATIONAL", EVEN IF THEY DON'T SCORE ABOVE AVERAGE ON SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE?
  • IF A PERSON DOESN'T UNDERSTAND A SCIENTIFIC ISSUE & MERELY DEFERS TO THE EXPERT CONSENSUS, DOES THIS MERELY INDICATE THEY'RE MORE "AGREEABLE" & DEFERENTIAL TO THOSE IN POWER, OR IS IT A SIGN OF INTELLECTUAL HUMILITY & GREATER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS?
  • DOES TRUST IN SCIENTISTS VARY BY THE FIELD/INDUSTRY OR THE SCIENTIFIC ISSUE - E.G. ARE REPUBLICANS LESS TRUSTFUL OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS BUT MORE TRUSTFUL OR PETROCHEMICAL ENGINEERS?
  • DO PEOPLE WHO REPORT A HIGHER LEVEL OF "TRUST IN SCIENCE" TEND TO BE LESS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN SCIENCE DENIAL?
  • HOW CAN WE MEASURE "SCIENCE CURIOSITY" & WHY DO WE THINK IT OVERCOMES POLITICAL BIASES TOWARDS SCIENCE DENIAL? DOES IT CORRELATE WITH OPENNESS, AND IF SO - ARE LIBERALS MORE SCIENCE CURIOUS?
  • ARE REPUBLICANS MORE LIKELY TO "DENY SCIENCE" ACROSS THE BOARD, OR HAS THERE JUST BEEN MORE MEDIA SCRUTINY OF THE ISSUES THEY DENY - I.E. EVOLUTION & CLIMATE CHANGE?
  • ARE DEMOCRATS JUST AS BAD FOR "BLANK SLATE" BELIEFS (E.G. DENYING RACE & SEX DIFFERENCES), AND DENYING THE BENEFITS OF INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY (E.G. NUCLEAR POWER, BIG PHARMA, GMOs)?

1a) Alex Wagner w/ Chris Mooney, "The Republican Brain" (video - 7:07 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=binBSO5HZ6I

1b) ReasonTV, "Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?" (video - 8:10 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nszu3-S_5Qs

.
II. PARTISAN GAPS IN TRUST IN GOV'T, MEDIA & INDUSTRY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

  • WHY DON'T PERSONALITY TRAITS SHOW A STRONGER LINK TO CONSPIRACY BELIEFS? SHOULDN'T LIBERAL PERSONALITY TRAITS LIKE HIGHER OPENNESS & HIGHER NEUROTICISM INCLINE THEM TOWARDS CONSPIRACY THINKING? WHY DON'T CONSERVATIVES' TENDENCY TOWARDS HIGHER CONSCIENTIOUSNESS & "JUST WORLD BIAS" STEER THEM AWAY FROM CONSPIRACY THINKING?
  • WHY DOES "MEDIA LITERACY" TEND TO DECREASE ONE'S ENDORSEMENT OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND DOES IT DO SO EQUALLY FOR BOTH DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS? SINCE REPUBLICANS TEND TO REPORT LESS TRUST IN THE MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA (OTHER THAN FOX NEWS), DOES THIS INCLINE THEM MORE TOWARD CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
  • SHOULD WE DISTINGUISH BELIEF IN SPECIFIC CONSPIRACY THEORIES FROM GENERALIZED SUSPICIONS LIKE "MUCH OF OUR LIVES ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY PLOTS HATCHED IN SECRET PLACES,” OR ARE THEY CLOSELY LINKED?
  • ARE REPUBLICANS MORE LIKELY & DEMOCRATS LESS LIKELY TO ENDORSE IRRATIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERING VIEWS ON "BIG GOVERNMENT"? TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THIS DEPEND ON WHICH PARTY CURRENTLY CONTROLS THE GOVERNMENT? DOES IT VARY BASED ON THE TYPE OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS (E.G. TEACHERS VS POLICE)?
  • ARE DEMOCRATS MORE LIKELY & REPUBLICANS LESS LIKELY TO ENDORSE IRRATIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT CORPORATIONS BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERING VIEWS ON "BIG BUSINESS"? TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THIS DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF INDUSTRY (E.G. HOLLYWOOD VS BIG OIL)?
  • WHY DOES CONSPIRACY THINKING VARY SO MUCH WITHIN BOTH THE DEMOCRATIC & REPUBLICAN PARTIES? ARE SUPPORTERS OF "DARK HORSE" & "POPULIST" CANDIDATES USUALLY MORE INCLINED TO BELIEVE IN CONSPIRACIES, OR WAS THIS UNIQUE TO SANDERS & TRUMP SUPPORTERS IN 2016?
  • DO EDUCATED REPUBLICANS SHOW GREATER ENDORSEMENT OF ANTI-GOV'T CONSPIRACY THEORIES? IF SO, IS THIS SIMILAR TO DANIEL KAHAN'S RESEARCH THAT SHOWS MORE KNOWLEDGE POLARIZES ISSUES BECAUSE MORE EDUCATED PEOPLE TEND TO MORE AWARE OF WHAT "THEIR SIDE" IS SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE AND ALSO GET BETTER AT FITTING THE EVIDENCE TO THEIR PREEXISTING BELIEFS?

2a) John Iadarola, Jimmy Dore & Cara Santa Maria, "Which Party Buys Into More Conspiracy Theories?" (video - 5:58 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNDdcAU5Y8U

2b) CNN w/ Brendan Nyhan, "Conspiracy theories transcend political parties" (video - 2:27 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5fufX4v4m0

.
III. PARTISAN GAPS IN POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE AND "VOTING CORRECTLY" VS SELF-INTERESTED VOTING:

  • DOES ONE PARTY TEND TO RELY MORE ON LESS EDUCATED VOTERS OR "LOW INFORMATION VOTERS"?
  • ARE A SEGMENT OF WHITE REPUBLICANS OR BLACK DEMOCRATS "VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS"?
  • IS THERE DATA TO SUPPORT THOMAS FRANK'S CLAIMS FROM "WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS" THAT THE G.O.P. USES SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE RHETORIC TO TRICK THE WHITE WORKING CLASS INTO VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN ECONOMIC SELF-INTEREST? WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF LARRY BARTELS' CRITICISM THAT WHITES IN THE LOWER THIRD OF INCOMES TEND TO VOTE DEMOCRATIC?
  • WHY DON'T MOST POLITICAL SCIENCE STUDIES SUPPORT THE "SELF-INTERESTED VOTER HYPOTHESIS" - I.E. WHY DOES IT APPEAR THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T VOTE PRIMARILY TO IMPROVE THEIR OWN ECONOMIC SITUATION?
  • HOW DOES ECONOMIC SELF-INTEREST AND POLITICAL SCIENCE'S CONCEPT OF "VOTING CORRECTLY" DIFFER? SHOULD WE CONSIDER SOMEONE RATIONAL IF THEY PICK THE CANDIDATE WHOSE POLICIES MOST CLOSELY REFLECT THEIR STATED PREFERENCES?
  • WHICH IS MORE "RATIONAL" - TO VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE BASED ON SOME PERSONAL QUALITY THEY POSSESS (E.G. EXPERIENCE, CHARISMA, STABILITY, ELECTABILITY) EVEN THOUGH THE CANDIDATE'S POLICY VIEWS DON'T ALIGN AS CLOSELY WITH YOUR VIEWS AS ANOTHER CANDIDATE, OR TO VOTE PURELY BASED ON A CANDIDATE'S POLICY VIEWS REGARDLESS OF THEIR PERSONAL QUALITIES?
  • IS "INSTRUMENTAL RATIONALITY" (I.E. KNOWING HOW TO GET WHAT YOU WANT) MORE OR LESS IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING THAN "EPISTEMIC RATIONALITY" (I.E. KNOWING HOW TO FORM FACTUALLY CORRECT BELIEFS ABOUT THE WORLD)?
  • DOES PARTISANSHIP HELP WITH INSTRUMENTAL VOTING, I.E. DOES IT ALLOW LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS ON THEIR SIDE, OR DOES IT LEAVE THEM OPEN TO BEING DUPED?
  • TO WHAT EXTENT ARE DEBATES ABOUT "RATIONAL" VOTING JUST A WAY TO CONDEMN VOTERS WHO ARE JUST AS "RATIONAL" BUT HAVE FOR HAVE VERY DIFFERENT PREFERENCES & VALUES, AS KEITH STANOVICH SUGGESTS?
  • DOES STANOVICH'S DEFENSE OF "EXPRESSIVE RATIONALITY" - I.E. EXPRESSING OUR VALUES THROUGH SYMBOLIC GESTURES - MAKE SENSE, OR DOES IT PROVIDE COVER FOR NON-SELF-INTERESTED YET NON-ALTRUISTIC ACTIONS (E.G. SPITEFUL DESTRUCTION) THAT WE SHOULD REGARD AS IRRATIONAL?

3a) John Iadarola, "Who Serves Black Voters' Economic Interests Better, Democratic or Republican Presidents?" (video - 5:06 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F1p6LJY4o

3b) Van Jones, "Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness" (video - 15:55 min, start at 4:26 & listen 7:30)
https://youtu.be/zFfWv0EnHQw?t=266

.
IV. GENERAL RESULTS FROM POLITICAL NEUROSCIENCE & POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY:

  • WHAT'S THE EVIDENCE FOR DIFFERENCES IN BRAIN STRUCTURES BETWEEN LIBERALS & CONSERVATIVES (I.E. LARGER AMYGDALA IN CONSERVATIVES & LARGER ANTERIOR CINGULATE CORTEX IN LIBERALS)? TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S TRUE, HOW BIG OF A ROLE DOES IT PLAY IN IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES?
  • DOES PETER DITTO'S META-ANALYSIS OF STUDIES SHOW THAT INFORMATION PROCESSING BIASES ARE FAIRLY BIPARTISAN? OR IS JOHN JOST RIGHT TO SUSPECT THAT SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG WITH THIS META-ANALYSIS, SINCE LIBERALS' TENDENCY TO HIGHER "OPENNESS" & GREATER "NEED FOR COGNITION" SHOULD MAKE THEM LESS BIASED?
  • DO STUDIES INDICATE THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE "AUTHORITARIANS"? AND IF SO, IS THIS BECAUSE AUTHORITARIANISM IS LINKED TO CONSERVATIVES' TENDENCY TOWARDS HIGHER "CONSCIENTIOUSNESS" OR MERELY BECAUSE "AUTHORITARIANISM" IS A CONCEPT THAT WAS BASED ON THEODOR ADORNO'S "F-SCALE" AND ONLY INCORPORATES STEREOTYPICALLY RIGHT-WING BELIEFS?
  • DOES JORDAN PETERSON'S RESEARCH ON "PC AUTHORITARIANISM" SHOW THAT LEFT-LEANING PEOPLE ALSO HAVE A PROPENSITY FOR A DIFFERENT SORT OF AUTHORITARIANISM LINKED TO "MORAL OUTRAGE" & "PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM"?
  • WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS TO REALIZE THAT THEIR DATA SHOWED THAT LIBERALS, NOT CONSERVATIVES, DISPLAY HIGHER LEVELS OF "PSYCHOTICISM"? HOW IS "PSYCHOTICISM" DIFFERENT THAN "PSYCHOPATHY" AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO OTHER TRAITS LIKE IMPULSIVITY & SENSATION SEEKING?
  • ARE LIBERALS MORE LIKELY TO EXHIBIT "NEUROTICISM" - AND IF SO, DOES THIS PREDISPOSE THEM TO MENTAL ILLNESS OR JUST ANXIETY & SADNESS? IS THIS NEUROTICISM RELATED TO AN "EXTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL" - I.E. THE BELIEF THAT MANY ASPECTS OF OUR LIVES ARE OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL?

4a) Tara Long, "How Are Conservative and Liberal Brains Different?" (video - 2:41 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nMzD1OmDE

4b) Amanda Taub, "Authoritarianism: The Science That Explains Trump" (video - 6:44 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YU9djt_CQMCNN

4c) Keith Ablow, "Journal Corrects Study: Liberals Show More Psychotic Traits" (video - 4:18 min, listen til 2:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VMnLFenFOw

4d) Peter Ditto, "Motivated Reasoning in Politics: Are your political opinions as rational as you think?" (video - 3:07 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlwJ1U4jfX4

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
See more events
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
public group