Monkey Cage: Republicans are increasingly antagonistic toward experts

[Virginiá]

Republicans are increasingly antagonistic toward experts. Here’s why that matters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/11/republicans-are-increasingly-antagonistic-toward-experts-heres-why-that-matters/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The title sounds kinda "duh" but I didn't feel like making up my own. The article references several studies (new and old)

[Hindsight was 2020]

The people that put Trump in office are stupid and in other breaking news water is wet

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

The people that put Trump in office are stupid and in other breaking news water is wet

[Santander]

The fact that these idiots think conservatives are anti-intellectual shows that they just don't get it. What exactly do you think we mean when we talk about values?

[RINO Tom]

Pretty simple, if you think that the human beings who currently comprise the group known as "experts" disagree with you on more political things (e.g., Bill Nye yapping about abortion or something), you're going to be more skeptical of everything they say.  Sad but true.

[Nyvin]

The fact that Climate Change(both whether it's real and whether we should do something about it) is only a debate in the United States and nowhere else in the developed world should speak volumes in support of this.   

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

 Worshiping Trump is amplifying and accelerating the GOP's already strong pro-ignorance tendencies.

[Nyvin]

Pretty simple, if you think that the human beings who currently comprise the group known as "experts" disagree with you on more political things (e.g., Bill Nye yapping about abortion or something), you're going to be more skeptical of everything they say.  Sad but true.

Yeah, but it's literally around 95% of experts that Republicans disagree with on most issues.

If it was 50% or even 60% you might have a point, but finding anyone with a PhD who thinks Trumpcare will improve the nation's health or that Climate Change isn't real or that Same Sex Marriage leads to the denigration of society is an extreme challenge.

Republicans often need to stay in their Fox News info bubble to keep themselves feeling okay about their beliefs usually.

[Matty]

On the other hand, why is it a good idea to simply accept what "experts" have to say at face value? Experts were wrong about the housing market, they were wrong about the 2-16 election, they were wrong about the iraq war.

There are an innumerable number of examples of "experts" getting things wrong, especially in the social sciences.

This issue has actually been debated for a long time. FA Hayek's last great work, "The Fatal Conceit", is devoted to this topic.

I can list other examples of experts being wrong: look at diet recommendations and the government food pyramid.

[Matty]

Pretty simple, if you think that the human beings who currently comprise the group known as "experts" disagree with you on more political things (e.g., Bill Nye yapping about abortion or something), you're going to be more skeptical of everything they say.  Sad but true.

Yeah, but it's literally around 95% of experts that Republicans disagree with on most issues.

If it was 50% or even 60% you might have a point, but finding anyone with a PhD who thinks Trumpcare will improve the nation's health or that Climate Change isn't real or that Same Sex Marriage leads to the denigration of society is an extreme challenge.

Republicans often need to stay in their Fox News info bubble to keep themselves feeling okay about their beliefs usually.

Depends on which field. Business "experts" or oil/nat gas "experts" probably favor GOP policy over dem policy.

BTW, science has been aligned with the leftwing for the last century and a half or so, in virtually every nation.

[Virginiá]

On the other hand, why is it a good idea to simply accept what "experts" have to say at face value? Experts were wrong about the housing market, they were wrong about the 2-16 election, they were wrong about the iraq war.

Look at everything else the eggheads did right. For example: the modern world

I'd say there is more cause for trust than skepticism. Just because they may not agree on guns or abortion doesn't mean their opinion on everything else is wrong. Same goes the other way.

[Nyvin]

Pretty simple, if you think that the human beings who currently comprise the group known as "experts" disagree with you on more political things (e.g., Bill Nye yapping about abortion or something), you're going to be more skeptical of everything they say.  Sad but true.

Yeah, but it's literally around 95% of experts that Republicans disagree with on most issues.

If it was 50% or even 60% you might have a point, but finding anyone with a PhD who thinks Trumpcare will improve the nation's health or that Climate Change isn't real or that Same Sex Marriage leads to the denigration of society is an extreme challenge.

Republicans often need to stay in their Fox News info bubble to keep themselves feeling okay about their beliefs usually.

Depends on which field. Business "experts" or oil/nat gas "experts" probably favor GOP policy over dem policy.

Yeah, and there's a simple explanation for that:  Profit Motive.

Hire some "scientist" give him lots of money, and he says "oil/gas good!  Renewables bad!" just like a parrot.

[Matty]

On the other hand, why is it a good idea to simply accept what "experts" have to say at face value? Experts were wrong about the housing market, they were wrong about the 2-16 election, they were wrong about the iraq war.

Look at everything else the eggheads did right. For example: the modern world

I'd say there is more cause for trust than skepticism. Just because they may not agree on guns or abortion doesn't mean their opinion on everything else is wrong. Same goes the other way.

Ok, I think you and I are not arguing the same issue. I'm not disparaging the role of "experts" when it comes to advancing society, tech, our economy, etc. Outside of luddites and economic dullards, you won't find people against technology.

The issue with "experts" in the political sphere revolve around 2 huge issues.

1) social science is not a science, has extremely high causal density (an innumerable amount of variables), and you cannot perform randomized control experiments in the social sciences. So, "experts" on gun control, or welfare, or economics, or crime are much less well-equipped than their hard science counterparts in actually determining the correct route or ont.

2) The issue of personal liberty. Experts, in the framing of this particular issue, tend to think that because they have higher IQs, they have some sort of right in ordering people around and designing society as they see fit.

Society is not a petri dish. It's not a lab where one person can manipulate, restrict, add, or subtract things as his/her will. It's a collection of an innumerable amount of individuals exchanging in mutually beneficial exchanges with others, all bounded by a shared sense of morality and right/wrong.

A scientific solution to something may not have a political/societal solution. For example, overpopulation. The science says it needs to stop. How do you do that politically?

[HAnnA MArin County]

Facts have a liberal bias. That's why conservatives believe #AlternativeFacts.

[Nyvin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Allow women to get an education.

[hurricanehink]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Allow women to get an education.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing surprising about any of this is the fact that the conservative figure has supposedly changed by so little. I think I'm going to have to distrust the experts here and believe that conservative mind-rot has been occurring at a much faster clip.

[Matty]

Facts have a liberal bias. That's why conservatives believe #AlternativeFacts.

Or maybe all issues and problems have causes and solutions that fall into different political ideologies.

Basic probability says it is laughable that one, and only one, political ideology has the correct answer to all problems.

[pbrower2a]

On the other hand, why is it a good idea to simply accept what "experts" have to say at face value? Experts were wrong about the housing market, they were wrong about the 2-16 election, they were wrong about the iraq war.

Well-educated people can be wrong, bigoted, and even evil. They can take bad data and apply solid logic to it and get horribly wrong results. Obviously we cannot simply accept the argument that something is true because a smarter person says it when we have a choice.

Learned people recognize that tests of truth exist -- like results. Many of us aware of the now-discredited idea that poverty alone created the climate for crime. It fit the idea that a civilized society rightly sought to alleviate poverty in part because poor people were dangerous and amoral and that as living standards improved, so would the behavior of poor people. Truth be told, people started finding that crime in 'bad neighborhoods' was heavily concentrated in the activities of a few people who did almost all the crime. Attitudes toward offenders changed, and the claim that an offender was a criminal because he was oppressed was no longer accepted.

People aren't crooks because they are oppressed; more likely they are sociopaths who can operate in all social classes, whether destitute people or aristocrats. 

Learned people have created tools for determining the truth -- like statistical analysis of data. Maybe if large numbers of car thefts occur around the corner of 8th Street and Maple Avenue, then the problem is that the car thieves hang out around 8th Street and Maple Avenue.  But those tools require some learning to use. Gut feelings might be right, but those are best turned into hypotheses that allow conclusions.

Of course nobody can have a model to explain human fickleness. Maybe it is best taht we have no such model.

...Oh, by the way -- the projections that Donald Trump would be a horrible President if elected have proved true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So to whom do you turn? Folk wisdom? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Knowledge is hardly stagnant. There have been plenty of studies, often quite sophisticated, that have proved terribly wrong -- like astrology, phrenology, and eugenics. Consider astrology: much of the effort in mathematics in antiquity went into the effort of astrologers to make more precise predictions about events.  But knowledge advances, and ignorance (and worse, superstition) gets increasingly irrelevant and unreliable.

One thing is certain: I will take science over superstition any day.   

[mvd10]

Pretty simple, if you think that the human beings who currently comprise the group known as "experts" disagree with you on more political things (e.g., Bill Nye yapping about abortion or something), you're going to be more skeptical of everything they say.  Sad but true.

Yeah, but it's literally around 95% of experts that Republicans disagree with on most issues.

If it was 50% or even 60% you might have a point, but finding anyone with a PhD who thinks Trumpcare will improve the nation's health or that Climate Change isn't real or that Same Sex Marriage leads to the denigration of society is an extreme challenge.

Republicans often need to stay in their Fox News info bubble to keep themselves feeling okay about their beliefs usually.

Yeah, that's a big problem. People like Romney or McCain both were supported by a decent amount of economists (even though economists in the US pretty clearly to the left and Obama easily would have carried them), but I don't think there is a single serious economist who supports Trump and his policies. Same for most other fields. Trump is killing the Republican party with intellectuals. And that's a terrible thing because we need to be a party of ideas.

[ProudModerate2]

Worshiping Trump is amplifying and accelerating the GOP's already strong pro-ignorance tendencies.

[Matty]

Pretty simple, if you think that the human beings who currently comprise the group known as "experts" disagree with you on more political things (e.g., Bill Nye yapping about abortion or something), you're going to be more skeptical of everything they say.  Sad but true.

Yeah, but it's literally around 95% of experts that Republicans disagree with on most issues.

If it was 50% or even 60% you might have a point, but finding anyone with a PhD who thinks Trumpcare will improve the nation's health or that Climate Change isn't real or that Same Sex Marriage leads to the denigration of society is an extreme challenge.

Republicans often need to stay in their Fox News info bubble to keep themselves feeling okay about their beliefs usually.

Yeah, that's a big problem. People like Romney or McCain both were supported by a decent amount of economists (even though economists in the US pretty clearly to the left and Obama easily would have carried them), but I don't think there is a single serious economist who supports Trump and his policies. Same for most other fields. Trump is killing the Republican party with intellectuals. And that's a terrible thing because we need to be a party of ideas.

economists as a whole may be left leaning on social issues, but on some big economic issues there really isn't consensus.

[darklordoftech]

Right-wing anti-intellectualism isn't anything new. Nixon called Adlai Stevenson an "egghead", Buckley and Nixon complained about "Harvard professors", Reagan said that trees cause more pollution than people and that ketchup is a vegetable, Dukakis citing statistics suggesting that the death penalty is ineffective hurt him, etc.

[mvd10]

Pretty simple, if you think that the human beings who currently comprise the group known as "experts" disagree with you on more political things (e.g., Bill Nye yapping about abortion or something), you're going to be more skeptical of everything they say.  Sad but true.

Yeah, but it's literally around 95% of experts that Republicans disagree with on most issues.

If it was 50% or even 60% you might have a point, but finding anyone with a PhD who thinks Trumpcare will improve the nation's health or that Climate Change isn't real or that Same Sex Marriage leads to the denigration of society is an extreme challenge.

Republicans often need to stay in their Fox News info bubble to keep themselves feeling okay about their beliefs usually.

Yeah, that's a big problem. People like Romney or McCain both were supported by a decent amount of economists (even though economists in the US pretty clearly to the left and Obama easily would have carried them), but I don't think there is a single serious economist who supports Trump and his policies. Same for most other fields. Trump is killing the Republican party with intellectuals. And that's a terrible thing because we need to be a party of ideas.

economists as a whole may be left leaning on social issues, but on some big economic issues there really isn't consensus.

Trump's economic policies (protectionism, slashing immigration, massive deficit spending during relatively good economic years) aren't really popular with economists though. Your average Republican probably has the support of a decent amount of serious economists, but even these economists are turned off by Trump's opposition to liberal immigration laws and free trade. Romney, despite all his China-bashing and "self-deportation" comments, supported more legal immigration and  free trade.

[TJ in Oregon]

One of the more interesting findings was this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it anti-intellectual to think ordinary people should be trusted over experts? Isn't that basically the core principle underlying democracy: that ordinary people should be trusted to make decisions that affect the country as a whole?