Matthew Yglesias » Partisan Self-Deception

Jan 7th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Partisan Self-Deception

Ezra Klein reminds me that this finding from Larry Bartels’ paper on the rationalizing voter is relevant to my talk of the ideological valence of economic optimism:

This plots voters’ view of the economy in 1996. That there’s some divergence shouldn’t be surprising. But the level of divergence increases as you start talking about better-informed voters. The more access to information you have, it seems, the more you can do to find information that will confirm your views.

Comments
26

Filed under: Economy, Political Science, Public Opinion

26 Responses to “Partisan Self-Deception”

Aaron Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Doesn’t this study disprove the idea of rational democratic decision making?
kid bitzer Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
or maybe higher-information voters just divide the question into smaller subquestions, and answer different ones depending on salience, interests, hobby-horses, etc.
Raskolnikov Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I think you are misreading this. How I interpret this is that in an election year, higher information voters have a greater awareness that their poll responses will have a partisan impact, and are more likely to game their answers to achieve the desired story they want to push.
Emmanuel Goldstein Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane.
The Blow Leprechaun Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
There could be a lot of things at work here, although the rationalization explanation is definitely a good one. It could also be that people who care strongly about certain issues get more informed about them and it colors their entire view of the economy. I’d be curious to look at the surveys they used to determine political information and perceived change.
paul Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Aaron Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Doesn’t this study disprove the idea of rational democratic decision making?

i don’t think too many people have ever felt that there was such a thing as rational democratic decision making. whether that’s an actual problem or not is a different issue though…
Bruce Baugh Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I would guess that the divergence among the informed is partly a moral judgment. If you think that it’s important that the rich retain their prerogatives and that the general public be deprived of comforts obtained as rights and obligations rather than as charity and largesse, you’re going to think differently about reduced social stratification than, say, me, for instance.
musa Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Actually, it seems to me here that this divergence can be attributed mainly to three groups of votes, those in the 0-5%, 40-50%, and 80-90% range. Its not necessarily a linear correlation. I would be interested in something more in-depth as to why these levels of political information result in such divergence. Maybe their political and economic attitudes correspond in particular ways. Someone should do a Q study on these people!
neil wilson Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I think it makes a lot of sense. After all, it confirms what I BELIEVED to be true before I looked at the data.

I think it is human nature for people to fit the available facts into patterns that support what they already believe. The studies I have seen show where people get a certain group of facts that support and refute a certain position. The people who believed the position to be true before getting the facts thought the facts supporting their position were most important and disregarded the facts that refuted their original position.

I think the most important point of this idea is that we have very few people in the middle in this country. You are pulled in one direction or the other. It is tough to sit on the fence.

The average Republican is far right of center and the average Democrat is far left of center. There are very few people in the actual center.

How often on this blog or any other reasonable liberal blog do you disagree with a left of center point of view? The answer is very rare.

Being a liberal it is far easier to see the affect on the other side.

Has Rush or Sean ever picked on the Republicans for being too liberal? You only hear them complain when Bush or whoever is not being conservative enough.

So basically, I think that as you, Matt Yglesias, gets more information that, try as you might, you value the information that agrees with you more than you value the information that disagrees with your current views.
Mark Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Emmanuel Goldstein: “In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion; the more intelligent, the less sane.”

What? This makes no sense.
curious Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
So what does this say about the geniuses that devise these sorts of studies?
Maineiac Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Just what I thought.
Aaron Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
paul Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm

i don’t think too many people have ever felt that there was such a thing as rational democratic decision making.

Really?
Jinchi Says:
January 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
But the level of divergence increases as you start talking about better-informed voters.

I don’t think the graph says what you think it does. There’s no real “divergence” until you get past the 85% mark. Before that the Republicans line is almost linear while the Democrats line has abrupt shifts near 10%, 35%, 55% and 65%. This suggests that you’re sampling (4 or 5) very distinct groups of Democrats who see the world differently from one another and implies little about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Byrd Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 10:50 am
People also tend to get informed for a reason. If I had little political interest, I would be less inclined to be informed. Because I’m pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and anti-war to a greater degree than most, I will read more politics. If I didn’t have strong feelings, I’d know more about movies and comic books. Once you pass a particular threshold of “being informed” there is a greater chance that that someone is likely to be partisan not because of how informed they are, but because highly informed people stake out a point of view based on a large amount of data. Less-informed people don’t have that impetus to care and are therefore less partisan. It really boils down to chicken and egg – which came first – did we form our political beliefs that lead to interest that lead to being informed or did we reach certain conclusions based on being informed people?
patience Says:
January 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Matt,

Hasn’t the source of high information voter information changed dramatically from 1996 to 2009? Also haven’t there been some tansformational events in politics since then, that might change the landscape.

Does it really make any sense at all to look at 1996 pre-internet data in a 2009 post internet post 9-11 world?
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:23 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 5:05 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
Buy Viagra Online Says:
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 am
Buy Viagra Online…

http://url.edna.edu.au/4bbN Buy Viagra Online…
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:02 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra

Matt Yglesias

Partisan Self-Deception

26 Responses to “Partisan Self-Deception”

Blogroll