Written by Sig Silber
Random Thoughts from the High Desert
This is a look at the current Impeachment proceedings in light of what we have learned from the Yale Cultural Cognition Project. It may help explain why the evidence presented at Impeachment Hearings has very little impact one way or the other on how people feel about the President. The mechanism which controls this can be used to understand why many policy issues tend to be stalemated and not subject to rational analysis. A suggestion is offered for overcoming the way information is filtered through the lens of affinity group politics.
Please share this article – Go to the very top of the page, right-hand side for social media buttons. Please feel free to share this article with anyone you feel might find it to be of interest.
Introduction and Background Information
Democrats claim that Republicans are living in an alternative reality where Trump’s crimes just did not happen. Is this a realistic way of looking at the situation?
I am reminded of the work performed at Yale University on the Cultural Cognition Project. A number of people are involved in that but I am most familiar with the work of Dan M Kahan. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study is an example of his work. This was the central finding of an empirical study:
Only the third theory—the “Expressive Rationality Thesis” or ERT—was fully supported by the study. That theory alone predicted both that ideologically motivated reasoning would be symmetric and that it would be amplified by higher CRT scores. Those hypotheses reflect a theory that sees ideologically motivated cognition not as a reasoning deficiency but as a reasoning adaptation suited to promoting the interest that individuals have in conveying their membership in and loyalty to affinity groups central to their personal wellbeing (Cohen 2003; Akerlof & Karanton 2000; Hillman 2010). Because individuals make use of this form of information-processing to protect their stake in all manner of groups—including ones not connected to politics (Sherman & Cohen 2006)—there is no reason to expect it to be more pronounced among people who subscribe to any particular ideology. In addition, because this dynamic is rational—that is, because it reliably guides individuals to assign information the significance that advances their personal ends, albeit not their collective ones (Kahan et al. 2012b)—there is good reason to expect it to be used with even greater determination and consistency by individuals disposed to engage in conscious, effortful forms of information processing (Chen, Duckworth & Chaiken1999). The experiment results corroborate this expectation.
Dr. Kahan refers to this as protecting “their membership in and loyalty to affinity groups central to their personal wellbeing”. I believe I heard him at a lecture at UNM refer to it as protecting values but perhaps I just imagined that. At any rate, that is my conclusion, at least in part. And here it is (paraphrased) in his above-referenced article.
The second dynamic associated with public conflict over societal risks is motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning refers to the tendency of people to conform assessments of information to some goal or end extrinsic to accuracy (Kunda 1990; Balcetis 2008). The goal of protecting one’s identity or standing in an affinity group that shares fundamental values can generate motivated condition of evidence on contested facts of policy significance (Cohen 2003; Sherman & Cohen 2006). Even among modestly partisan individuals, shared ideological or cultural commitments are likely to be intertwined with membership in communities of one sort or another that furnish those individuals with important forms of support—emotional and psychic as well as material (Green, Palmquist & Schikler 2002). If a proposition about some policy-relevant fact comes to be commonly associated with membership in such a group, the prospect that one might form a contrary position can threaten one’s standing within it. Thus, as a form of “identity self-defense,” individuals are unconsciously motivated to resist empirical assertions—that the death penalty deters or does not deter murder, for example (Lord, Ross & Lepper 1979), or that gun control reduces or does or does not reduce crime (Taber & Lodge 2006)—if those assertions run contrary to the dominant belief within their groups (Cohen, Bastardi, Sherman, Hsu, McGoey, & Ross 2007).1
He has a shorter quote also referring to viewing information through a lens of value in that article but I selected the longer one on purpose. I would recommend reading his full article and everything else he has written as well as the work of others in the Yale Cognition Project as it is very insightful. I do have some major disagreements with Professor Kahan but I think he really sheds a lot of light on the subject in general.
“information is filtered through the lens of affinity group politics.”
I guess my disagreement has to do with his apparent disdain for fundamental values as if “values” are some sort of archaic baggage that people carry rather than a result of collective wisdom. If that is his point of view, we fundamentally disagree. But it then raises the question of how one integrates empirical truth about a specific topic with values that are based on experience with many topics. A good example not related to the Impeachment Issue is concern about government actions to deal with Anthropogenic Global Warming.There is concern that this is leading to a Command and Control Economy that many, including myself, consider to be similar to Communism. Due to my training, I will not deny Anthropogenic Global Warming even though I fear the response to it. But I see the mechanism described by Kahan and the Cultural Cognition Project leading to highly intelligent folks with significant training in physics and chemistry denying Anthropogenic Global Warming. And in a similar way folks with significant training in money and banking denying Modern Monetary Theory. So I have to conclude that Kahan and his associates are on to something.
Surprisingly, the empirical studies did not observe a difference in IQ among different political persuasions as measured by performance on a test they called CRT (Cognitive Reflection Test). It is more than an IQ test – it is a way of assessing the ability of people to avoid jumping to conclusions without thinking through the problem as described. Not to brag, but it took me less than a minute to get all three questions right so I have some reservations about that test. But that is a different topic. I suspect, however, that my students at Polytechnic Institute, who were graduate students, would have done as poorly as the Harvard, Yale and MIT undergraduate students used to validate the test.
“Democrats claim that Republicans are living in an alternative reality.”
The three questions are not that difficult (you can try them at the link provided earlier in this paragraph) but if you are not trained in how to answer those questions you have to be willing to test your initial guess which can be done without referencing the correct answers. And if your initial answers turn out to be incorrect, one needs to rethink the problem until you get the correct answer. So it is a test of both IQ and flexibility. And it seems that folks with different ideologies are both equally intelligent and pretty much equally inflexible in their thinking so this tends to confirm the hypothesis offered by the Cultural Cognition Project.
Constitutional Guidance
Can we get any guidance on Impeachment and Conviction from the U.S. Constitution which Framers of the Constitution came to adopt at the Constitutional Convention in 1787?
Article II Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Do we know what Treason means? It would seem to mean more than a policy detrimental to the U.S. I believe that no official has been charged for Treason as part of the Impeachment process.
“Bribery” sounds clearer and it seemed like a case could be made for the Trump phone call to Zelensky being an attempt to bribe Ukraine but there is no Article of Impeachment titled Bribery. One wonders about that. Why not lead with your strongest argument unless there are problems with that argument or foreseen negatives with making that charge such as certain witnesses would then likely be called by the U.S. Senate to testify. It is a very interesting question but not the topic of this article. Federal Judges have been Impeached based on a charge of bribery and Convicted by the U.S. Senate.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors may have been explained in the Federalist Papers but “High Crimes” is vague and the common notion of Misdemeanor has historically been described as per the word derivation to be “bad-behavior, immoral conduct, fault,” but legally an indictable offense less serious than a felony. So this is very confusing. Why would a misdemeanor be grounds for Impeachment let alone Removal? Click on high Crimes and Misdemeanors to read an excellent article on this term of art but notice that Wikipedia is not satisfied that their article on High Crimes and Misdemeanors is fully developed. Here is a longer explanation. The focus seems to be on the word “HIGH” referring to the importance of the office rather than the violation. I think the reader, just like the framers of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, will not find a satisfactory definition of this term since it was a best efforts attempt to define that which at that time was unable to be defined in a satisfactory way. And that remains the case today.
“empirical studies did not observe a difference in IQ among different political persuasions“
And to make matters worse, there is no appeal unless you consider the trial in the Senate the appeal and from the decision of the Senate there is no direct appeal but the parties involved in pushing Impeachment and Conviction/removal might be rewarded or punished in subsequent elections. So it is hardly a legal process. The Impeachment of Trump in the House of Representatives was designed, in many people’s opinion, to limit the role of the Minority Party. That idea is reflected in the nearly Party-Line vote.
My Assessment of the Situation and Why it will Leave Most Feeling Either Frustrated or that the Process was a Waste of Time and Effort
I conclude it is totally political and as such it boils down to:
A. Is Impeachment and Conviction seen by Congress to be in the best interests of the U.S. and
B. Is impeachment and Conviction favored by voters who will have an opportunity to express their opinion in future elections?
Thus I conclude that the facts of the matter have little if any bearing on the outcome. It is simply a case of how Members of the House of Representatives feel and how Members of the Senate feel both in terms of the impact on the Nation and on their own future. And in fact, the more they understand the facts of the matter, the more their decisions will be related to either their affinity group as described by Kahan and others or their values (which may be my preferred interpretation). The key point here is the better a person understands the facts, the better they can support their predetermined decision on such a matter. So the investigation of the facts does not in general lead to a consensus on how to deal with Impeachment and Conviction/Removal other than how to promote or defend it rather than agreement on how to proceed.
Put differently, people look at the facts with a bias based on their “values”. The facts they will accept as most important are those that have no conflict with their values. In cases of conflict, facts will be rationalized.
But it’s more complicated than the preceding paragraph might suggest. Those who are the most intelligent are the most adept at defending their values or affinity group. Thus improved communication of the argument does not lead to more consensus but to better-defended polarization.
For those who wish Trump to be removed, it is clear that he has done something very wrong. But for those who do not wish to see Trump removed from office, his behavior is of little consequence even if not fully admired.
“Kahan and his associates are on to something.”
The polls suggest that not many have changed their minds on this issue and the Yale Cultural Cognition Project provides a lot of insight into why that is the case. The polls show that many Democrats have come to agree that Impeachment is appropriate and many Republicans have come to agree that Impeachment is not justified. So the polls confirm the Yale Cultural Cognition Project hypothesis.
So it is not a question of Alternative Realities but of Alternative Desired Endings. The Alternative Realities, if they exist, is the misunderstanding of the split in desired outcomes. So my opinion is the Alternative Reality was the view of the Democrats in the House of Representatives that their devotion to Impeachment would change many minds re the 2020 Election.
But elections are won at the margin so it may be that even if few minds in the electorate have been changed, the 2020 election might be impacted but in which direction?
Dan Kahan thinks (and I agree) the Cultural Cognition Project has application to decisions that might be informed by science – called decision-relevant science or DRS. Among these decision areas are Climate Change, private gun ownership, fracking, and nuclear waste disposal. Again the individual who is most informed uses that information to argue their point of view which may have nothing at all to do with the science question being considered. Instead the impact on their values or, as some believe, their association with an affinity group, comes to the fore.
There is something to be said for that as I have experienced alienation due to non-conventional positions on issues. But I know in my case it is related more to my values than to acceptance by groups with whom I have an affinity. Alienation is not pleasant but being at war with myself is unacceptable.
“So it is not a question of Alternative Realities but of Alternative Desired Endings.”
And there is the question of whether or not those associated with the Cultural Cognition Project are immune from drawing conclusions based on their membership in and loyalty to affinity groups central to their wellbeing. It may be a solid hypothesis but it is also elitist. So their interpretation of the scientific results may also be viewed through a lens that is warped by their membership in and loyalty to various affinity groups. This may explain their focus on the mechanism of allegiance to an affinity group rather than the values of the individual.
Is there a Solution to the Affinity Group Lens Filtration Process?
The solution is to incorporate the values of affinity groups in the consideration of issues. This seems like a request to ignore science or, in the case of Trump, actual behavior. But really it is a request to consider the remedy in conjunction with the science or legal case. For those who do not agree with the remedy, they are not going to readily agree with the science or legal arguments. And yet it might in many cases be able to gain agreement on the appropriate remedy in which case there is no longer a need to deny the science or legal arguments.
So it may be a case of proceeding in the correct sequence. I have often felt that this was the major problem with Anthropogenic Global Warming as there are many ways to deal with that issue that would be agreeable to a large percentage of the population and eliminate the need to be fighting over the science but rather working on constructive remedies. I am a habitual optimist so for me the remedies are positive for the most part. I see no need to disagree with what appears to me to be an excellent job done by the IPCC. We can both stabilize the climate and improve the economy without reducing freedom. And I believe we will evolve towards that but so far various interests have preferred to benefit from the conflict that results from not integrating the remedy with the science.
“improved communication of the argument does not lead to more consensus but to better-defended polarization.”
I elect not to share my solution to the Impeachment process since the thought of bending Trump over a chair and provide a few lashes with a cat o’ nine tails seems somewhat archaic. And perhaps it is Guiliani who needs to feel the bite.
Although rumored to be very painful (and the British Navy version with knotted strings certainly would qualify in that regard in the extreme being deadly), the version that I had some limited experience with as a child was more embarrassing than anything else. I had to be careful not to laugh. But I don’t think Trump would think it was funny and it could make him a bit more cautious about Tweets and Phone Calls.
.
.
