Posts Tagged ‘Scott Eidelman’

Effortless Thinking: Why We’re All Born to be Status Quo Fans

January 9, 2018

The title of this post is identical to the title of an article by Graham Lawton in the series of articles in the 16 December 2017 Issue of the New Scientist titled “EFFORTLESS THINKING: Why some ideas come naturally to us—and why they’re usually wrong.”

The article begins, “There are no right answers in the world of politics—but whether we’re drunk or just pressed for time, the less we think, the further to the right our answers are.”

When researchers in the US loitered outside a bar in New England about their political views, they found that the drunker the customer, the more right wing their leanings. This wasn’t because right-wing people drink more, or get pissed more easily. Wherever people stood on the political spectrum when sober, alcohol shifted their views to the right.

The researchers, led by Scott Eidelman at the University of Arkansas, point out that alcohol strips away reasoning to reveal the default state of the mind. This is why they chatted with drunks: they were using drunkenness to test the hypothesis that low-effort, automatic thought promotes political conservatism.

The researchers also found that they could push people to the right by distracting them, putting them under time pressure, or simply telling them not to think too hard. However, participants who were asked to deliberate more deeply shifted their political thinking to the left. Similar effects have been seen with the three core components of conservative ideology: preference for the status quo, acceptance of hierarchy, and belief in personal responsibility. The researchers say that all three come naturally to the human mind. We think that way without trying, without even noticing. In contrast, more liberal views require effortful deliberation.

Our political views are shaped by many factors, including personality, upbringing, and education. As early as the 1950s, however, psychologists probing the appeal of fascism found that right-wing ideology was associated with dislike of ambiguity and cognitive complexity. The relationship between IQ and political leanings is complex. Broadly speaking, people with lower-than-average IQs tend to be lefties. This is likely due to economic self-interest. People of moderately above-average intelligence lean right for the same reason. But the top 20% swing left again, although highly intelligent people are also over-represented in the libertarian camp.

Nevertheless, dislike of—or lack of training in—analytical thinking is strongly associated with preference for the status quo. Conversely, people who are politically liberal tend to think more analytically than their conservative peers, and having studied science is strongly associated with progressive views.

The author concludes, “Whether you think our intuitive conservatism is good or bad probably depends on your personal politics, With around 85% of the world population’s largely untrained uncritical thinking, preference for the status quo is the clear winner. Nevertheless, progressive change does usually happen eventually.”

HM reminds readers of Kahneman’s System 1 System 2 distinction. System 1 is intuitive and occurs easily without cognitive effort. System 2, which involves reasoning and thinking requires cognitive resources and is effortful. Since System 2 involves cognitive effort, people who do not use System 2 can be called cognitive misers.

The problem of getting people to think critically has become much larger given the rapid changes in society and technology. Many are overwhelmed and take comfort in the old ways of thinking and doing things. Unfortunately, both society and technology are rapidly changing, and these changes need to be adapted with critical thinking.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this problem was the election of Donald Trump. Here is an individual who sees no need to think or to consult with experts because he already “knows” everything. But it is clear that he does not know how government is supposed to work and finds the Constitution to be an annoyance. It appears that his supporters are gradually recognizing his failures. But they have been obvious from the start for people using their System 2 processes. The many lies and contradictions make it obvious that he cannot be believed or trusted. So the problem is an overwhelming number of cognitive misers and a shortfall in System 2 processors.

At least one earlier healthymemory blog post predicted that people who voted for Trump will have a higher incidence of Alzheimer’s, than people who engaged in System 2

© Douglas Griffith and, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Douglas Griffith and with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.