Politics and math don't mix

[jakefromstatefarm]

The study, by Yale law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues, has an ingenious design. At the outset, 1,111 study participants were asked about their political views and also asked a series of questions designed to gauge their “numeracy,” that is, their mathematical reasoning ability. Participants were then asked to solve a fairly difficult problem that involved interpreting the results of a (fake) scientific study. But here was the trick: While the fake study data that they were supposed to assess remained the same, sometimes the study was described as measuring the effectiveness of a “new cream for treating skin rashes.” But in other cases, the study was described as involving the effectiveness of “a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public.”

The result? Survey respondents performed wildly differently on what was in essence the same basic problem, simply depending upon whether they had been told that it involved guns or whether they had been told that it involved a new skin cream. What’s more, it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more — not less — susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability.

http://grist.org/politics/science-confirms-politics-wrecks-your-ability-to-do-math/

[xxlt]

(08-27-2015, 04:57 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: The study, by Yale law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues, has an ingenious design. At the outset, 1,111 study participants were asked about their political views and also asked a series of questions designed to gauge their “numeracy,” that is, their mathematical reasoning ability. Participants were then asked to solve a fairly difficult problem that involved interpreting the results of a (fake) scientific study. But here was the trick: While the fake study data that they were supposed to assess remained the same, sometimes the study was described as measuring the effectiveness of a “new cream for treating skin rashes.” But in other cases, the study was described as involving the effectiveness of “a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public.”

The result? Survey respondents performed wildly differently on what was in essence the same basic problem, simply depending upon whether they had been told that it involved guns or whether they had been told that it involved a new skin cream. What’s more, it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more — not less — susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability.

http://grist.org/politics/science-confirms-politics-wrecks-your-ability-to-do-math/

Not sure this proves what you or others may think - not sure what the thread title means.

It seems to me what the study shows is that people who didn't understand math didn't understand math period, in any context. People who understood math understood it in any context. But, the more they understood it the more likely they were to consider the context and reason accordingly.

Example: I tell you that you have a 10 percent chance of buying a million dollar prize ticket from the remaining tickets (because the winning numbers have been drawn and we are cheating and selling the winning ticket post drawing and we know it is one of the remaining 10 - shh!). I suspect even if only allowed to buy one and with only a 10 percent chance that you would pony up a dollar since these odds are far better than the normal lottery odds.

Now I tell you there is another lottery and another one million dollar winning ticket and it is stapled to a utility pole right across the road. However, this is a road that has been studied extensively and we know statistically that any time of the day or night you have a 10 percent chance of surviving if you cross on foot and return to the lottery prize office which is conveniently located right across from the pole. Your only chance to claim the ticket is to walk across the road and return with it as time is running out (I found the ticket blowing around the parking lot and I couldn't cash it because I work for the lottery - but being a thrill seeker I dashed across the road and nailed it to the pole). The number was drawn one year ago and in five minutes the ticket expires. Your only chance is to go get it now and you are the only one who knows it is there. Same 10 percent chance to be a millionaire - do you take it just as quickly? Perhaps...

But just as in the first case, you have a 10 percent chance of winning a million dollars in the second case. But, given the context, you might evaluate that 10 percent chance differently. In scenario one you have a 10 percent chance to win and a 90 percent chance to lose. Same in scenario two, but losing will also mean losing your life. The numbers are the same and the "problem" is the same mathematically and the odds are the same, yet the context makes a 10 percent chance look great in one light and not so great in another.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 05:22 PM)xxlt Wrote: Not sure this proves what you or others may think - not sure what the thread title means.

It seems to me what the study shows is that people who didn't understand math didn't understand math period, in any context. People who understood math understood it in any context. But, the more they understood it the more likely they were to consider the context and reason accordingly.

That's not accurate:

More specifically, the study finds that people who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.

Most strikingly, highly numerate liberal Democrats did almost perfectly when the right answer was that the concealed weapons ban does indeed work to decrease crime (version C of the experiment) — an outcome that favors their pro-gun-control predilections. But they did much worse when the correct answer was that crime increases in cities that enact the ban (version D of the experiment).

The opposite was true for highly numerate conservative Republicans: They did just great when the right answer was that the ban didn’t work (version D), but poorly when the right answer was that it did (version C).

[xxlt]

(08-27-2015, 05:29 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: That's not accurate:

More specifically, the study finds that people who are otherwise very good at math may totally flunk a problem that they would otherwise probably be able to solve, simply because giving the right answer goes against their political beliefs.

Most strikingly, highly numerate liberal Democrats did almost perfectly when the right answer was that the concealed weapons ban does indeed work to decrease crime (version C of the experiment) — an outcome that favors their pro-gun-control predilections. But they did much worse when the correct answer was that crime increases in cities that enact the ban (version D of the experiment).

The opposite was true for highly numerate conservative Republicans: They did just great when the right answer was that the ban didn’t work (version D), but poorly when the right answer was that it did (version C).

So people have biases. This is not a great revelation to me. And an examiner can use obfuscation (including introducing information that taps into biases) to impact the examinees ability to answer correctly. Again, not a huge revelation. Teachers throw red herrings and obfuscating information into problems all the time.

I guess I don't know why someone would do this study, or who would publish it, or why it would make anyone say "wow." Seems kind of common sense, and as I noted above, not necessarily abominable. Most people have an ethos and it shapes their processing of information. It just isn't a big "aha" for me and I think you can argue it is a good thing. If your biases (political or otherwise) have any basis in fact then this may mitigate getting the "wrong" answer to a problem you find secondary to a larger problem. So, for example, while there is ample evidence that some government programs work you have GOP people in large numbers condemning all government programs. They don't care if 100% of them work, they don't believe in government. I think that is kind of ignorant, but respect their right to yield to a "higher" problem - government is always bad, rather than the facts that many (even up to 100%) of programs work because they see the efficacy of government programs as irrelevant - a question that doesn't matter.

[xxlt]

It is kind of like the haters on here. No matter how many times someone points out that Dalton and Green have put up numbers on par with current or future HOF QB-WR tandems in their first years together, there is a constant barage of "Dalton sucks" and 'Green sucks." Even those who defend them say they "aren't good enough." The numbers say they are beyond good enough, but if someone has decided Dalton is not the QB for me or Green is not the WR for me they will hate them until the day they die. Those guys could win 10 straight Super Bowls together and you would come on here and those haters would still be saying they suck and that there are so many better QBs and WRs out there. It isn't a matter of them not being able to count or understand the statistics (although one thread creator today demonstrated he could do neither) it is just a deep seated belief that will never change. It is kind of like RG III saying he is the best QB in NFL. The numbers sure don't back that up, but he believes it, so he will get that problem wrong every time he is asked. So if what the study shows is the average person is about as stupid as RG III and they got paid to prove this, well, I guess that is impressive.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 05:52 PM)xxlt Wrote: So people have biases. This is not a great revelation to me. And an examiner can use obfuscation (including introducing information that taps into biases) to impact the examinees ability to answer correctly. Again, not a huge revelation. Teachers throw red herrings and obfuscating information into problems all the time.

I guess I don't know why someone would do this study, or who would publish it, or why it would make anyone say "wow." Seems kind of common sense, and as I noted above, not necessarily abominable. Most people have an ethos and it shapes their processing of information. It just isn't a big "aha" for me and I think you can argue it is a good thing. If your biases (political or otherwise) have any basis in fact then this may mitigate getting the "wrong" answer to a problem you find secondary to a larger problem. So, for example, while there is ample evidence that some government programs work you have GOP people in large numbers condemning all government programs. They don't care if 100% of them work, they don't believe in government. I think that is kind of ignorant, but respect their right to yield to a "higher" problem - government is always bad, rather than the facts that many (even up to 100%) of programs work because they see the efficacy of government programs as irrelevant - a question that doesn't matter.

I found it interesting because it shows that being a partisan can cloud rational thinking. 

I'm rather thrilled by the psyche of people and what makes them tick.  It's not a "gotcha" post to any certain side. 

Although I'm a libertarian that rejects the R vs D paradigm, that certainly doesn't mean that I don't have my own views that are well set in stone.  

[Rotobeast]

(08-27-2015, 09:17 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I found it interesting because it shows that being a partisan can cloud rational thinking. 

I'm rather thrilled by the psyche of people and what makes them tick.  It's not a "gotcha" post to any certain side. 

Although I'm a libertarian that rejects the R vs D paradigm, that certainly doesn't mean that I don't have my own views that are well set in stone.  

We are emotional animals and those emotions are crafted on past experiences.
The sad thing is that most of those experiences are selfish and irrational.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-27-2015, 10:36 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: We are emotional animals and those emotions are crafted on past experiences.
The sad thing is that most of those experiences are selfish and irrational.

It is fascinating the level of "science literacy" in this country,  Basically, it's a classic case of coming to some conclusion and then finding evidence to support said conclusion, which is very antithetical to the scientific method.