From Stanford University: Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning

Younger adults find it difficult to tell real news from fake news - or to detect political bias. Something for us to be mindful of this semester. Skepticism - but not cynicism - of the information seems increasingly justified.

- Click here for the study.

Here's the executive summary:

When thousands of students respond to dozens of tasks there are endless variations. That was certainly the case in our experience. However, at each level—middle school, high school, and college—these variations paled in comparison to a stunning and dismaying consistency. Overall, young people’s ability to reason about the information on the Internet can be summed up in one word: bleak.

Our “digital natives” may be able to fit between Facebook and Twitter while simultaneously uploading a selfie to Instagram and texting a friend. But when it comes to evaluating information that follows through social media channels, they are easily duped. We did not design our exercises to shake out a grade or make hairsplitting distinctions between a “good” and a “better” answer. Rather, we sought to establish a reasonable bar, a level of performance we hoped was within reach of most middle school, high school, and college students. For example, we would hope that middle school students could distinguish an ad from a news story. By high school, we would hope that students reading about gun laws would notice that a chart came from a gun owners’ political action committee. And, in 2016, we would hope college students, who spend hours each day online, would look beyond a .org URL and ask who’s behind a site that presents only one side of a contentious issue. But in every case and at every level, we were taken aback by students’ lack of preparation.

For every challenge facing this nation, there are scores of websites pretending to be something they are not. Ordinary people once relied on publishers, editors, and subject matter experts to vet the information they consumed. But on the unregulated Internet, all bets are off. Michael Lynch, a philosopher who studies technological change, observed that the Internet is “both the world’s best fact checker and the world’s best bias confirmer—often at the same time.”1 Never have we had so much information at our fngertips. Whether this bounty will make us smarter and better informed or more ignorant and narrow-minded will depend on our awareness of this problem and our educational response to it. At present, we worry that democracy is threatened by the ease at which disinformation about civic issues is allowed to spread and flourish.

- NPR outlines the study's finding: Students Have 'Dismaying' Inability To Tell Fake News From Real, Study Finds.

- Most middle school students can't tell native ads from articles.
- Most high school students accept photographs as presented, without verifying them.
- Many high school students couldn't tell a real and fake news source apart on Facebook.
- Most college students didn't suspect potential bias in a tweet from an activist group.
- Most Stanford students couldn't identify the difference between a mainstream and fringe source.

Political Knowledge Today

This is always a great way to start a semester - especially since I like to begin with a lecture justifying the government requirement.

- Political ignorance haunts 2016 campaign.

A noted libertarian scholar finds ignorance among supporters of both major party candidates. He thinks the problem is that government does more than we can comprehend.

What is behind this public ignorance?

It is not that the voters are dumb, but that they have little incentive to learn. Because there is only an infinitesimally small chance that any one vote can influence the result of an election, even most smart people usually have little motivation to follow politics closely. That helps explain why political knowledge levels have remained low for decades, in spite of rising IQ scores and educational attainment, and despite the increasing availability of information on the Internet.There is no easy solution to the problem of political ignorance. But we can at least mitigate it by limiting and decentralizing government.

- What Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Can Learn From William James.

The problem isn't bad politicians, its bad citizens.

Good citizens do not merely demand liberty and equality (though they should), but view their liberty and equality as public goods to be used for public ends. Good citizens do not merely study their nation’s glorious past (though they may), but seek to understand its complicated present and shape its uncertain (but certain-to-be-different) future. Good citizens do not merely articulate their interests, opinions and principles in the language of inclusivity, but embrace the hard work, moral humility and imperfect compromises that make an inclusive common life possible.

Who was William James? Click here.

This essay was referred to in the article: The Moral Equivalent of War.

Only 30% of Americans can name the three branches of government - my goal is to make you one of them.

Some food for thought: It won’t happen, but compulsory voting might be the only solution to political ignorance in America.

From the Pew Research Center: 5 facts about the Supreme Court

Mostly facts about the public's attitude about the Supreme Court.

- Click here for the article.

A summary:

1 - Unfavorable opinions of the court reached a 30-year high after the end of last year’s momentous session.

2 - There is a wide partisan gap in views of the court.

3 - Partisans have starkly different views over how the justices should interpret the Constitution.

4 - In the wake of last session’s major decisions, views of the court’s ideology have shifted and become more politically polarized

5 - The justices of the court are a mystery for most Americans.

Apparently only 32% of Americans knew who Antonin Scalia was.

From the Washington Post: What a divided America actually hears when Obama speaks

More on partisan polarization in the American public. Similar things could likely be said about the current presidential candidates.

- Click here for the article.

As President Obama spoke of the country’s deepening sense of alienation and anger last month, a teacher in Michigan listened, her eyes fixed on the stone-faced Republicans in the House chamber who in her view represented the problem.

“Let’s get over the party lines and work together!” she tweeted during the president’s State of the Union address.

In Maryland, a retired lawyer was listening to the exact same words. He, too, was worried about the anger and division gripping the country, but as Obama spoke, his resentment toward the president only swelled.

"Hearing him complain about political rancor is frankly nauseating,” he wrote.

The two tweets flashed across the Internet within seconds of each other, each in their own way capturing the country’s mood and the challenge facing the president in his final months in office — not simply a partisan divide, but a deep mistrust that has become so entrenched that it seems to affect the very way Americans hear the president’s words and see each other.

Part of the problems seem to be that people who identify with the two parties know little about each other - or themselves it seems. Add this to our discussion of political ignorance.

A Crisis in Civic Education

Click here for the study referred to in the previous post:

- A Crisis in Civic Education.

It'll be worth a look in class.

Here are bullet points from the study:

• Only 20.6% of respondents could identify James Madison as the Father of the Constitution. More than 60% thought the answer was Thomas Jefferson—despite the fact that Jefferson, as U.S. ambassador to France, was not present during the Constitutional Convention.

• College graduates performed little better: Only 28.4% named Madison, and 59.2% chose Jefferson.

• How do Americans amend the Constitution? More than half of college graduates didn’t know. Almost 60% of college graduates failed to identify correctly a requirement for ratifying a constitutional amendment.

• We live in a dangerous world—but almost 40% of college graduates didn’t know that Congress has the power to declare war.

• College graduates were even confused about the term lengths of members of Congress. Almost half could not recognize that senators are elected to six year terms and representatives are elected to two-year terms.

• Less than half of college graduates knew that presidential impeachments are tried before the U.S. Senate. 

• And 9.6% of college graduates marked that Judith Sheindlin—“Judge Judy”—was on the Supreme Court!

From CNN: Report: 10% of college graduates think Judge Judy is on the Supreme Court

This helps explain why government classes are required in Texas - to combat ignorance.

Now the question is, do they help?

- Click here for the article.

Nearly 10% of college graduates surveyed in a poll believe Judith Sheindlin, aka "Judge Judy," serves on the Supreme Court.

Sheindlin is an American lawyer made popular as the judge on a court show by the name of "Judge Judy." The show features Sheindlin handling small disputes in a courtroom, but Sheindlin does not serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The poll, conducted by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni in August 2015 but released in January 2016, concluded from the 1,000 surveyed that college graduates "are alarmingly ignorant of America's history and heritage."

The survey also found 28.4% of college graduates correctly identify the father of the Constitution as James Madison. About 59% of college students surveyed believe the father of the Constitution was Thomas Jefferson, who was actually the principal writer for the Declaration of Independence.

It also found that almost 60% of college graduates couldn't correctly identify a requirement for ratifying a constitutional amendment and 40% of college graduates didn't know that Congress has the power to declare war.

Additionally, the poll revealed that less than 50% of college graduates surveyed know that presidential impeachments are tried before the U.S. Senate.

From the Cato Institute: Trump Exploits Rational Political Ignorance

I make a claim in the opening section of the class that the government requirement is an effort by the state of Texas to combat political ignorance. Whether it is a successful effort, I don't know, but I do what I can.

I'll post a few additional items relate to the current state of political ignorance and its consequences, but here's a provocative piece from this past October by a self professed libertarian author and his take on the Donald Trump phenomenon. He notes that polls show that Trumps support - among Republicans - is highest among those with low levels of education, and that a variety of Trump's claims are not factually true. This doesn't seem to affect his support.

He concludes by noting that there is nothing new with playing to voter ignorance and even notes that it may well be a rational thing given how little one person's vote can matter. But he does note that political ignorance makes people ripe for exploitation. A point of view promoters of public education - from day one - would likely agree with.

- Click here for the story.

. . . political ignorance is not a problem unique to Trump’s supporters or this particular campaign, or to any one side of the political spectrum. Decades of survey data show that most Americans have low levels of political knowledge. For example, an Annenberg Public Policy Center survey taken during the 2014 campaign, which decided control of Congress, found that only 38% knew which party controlled the House of Representatives at the time, and the same low percentage knew which one controlled the Senate.

Exploitation of ignorance was a standard political tool long before Trump decided to run for president. It was not Trump but the far more respectable President Obama who secured passage of his signature health reform law in large part by manipulating what Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber called “the stupidity of the American voter.” The president lied to the public when he repeatedly assured them that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” A 2012 YG Policy Center poll showed that 64% of Americans fell for that deception.

The problem is not that voters are stupid, or that accurate information is unavailable. Rather, for most voters, political ignorance is actually rational. No matter how well-informed you are, the probability that your vote will change the outcome of an election is tiny — only one in 60 million in a presidential election. Few Americans know the exact odds. But most have an intuitive sense that there is little payoff to carefully studying political issues. Quite rationally, they act accordingly. That behavior, however, leaves them vulnerable to Trump and others who seek to manipulate ignorance for political gain.

Despite his current lead in the polls, Trump probably won’t win the GOP nomination, much less the presidency. But even when his star fades, the political ignorance that fueled his rise will remain, ripe for exploitation by other candidates and interest groups. That, far more than his crude rhetoric, is the truly frightening reality revealed by The Donald.

Some information for my dual credit GOVT 2305 class

Following our discussion in class earlier today. This is James Foley. He's been in the news recently.

Joan of Arc, Noah's wife

I'm working on the slides for public opinion and touching on political ignorance.

I ran across the following fun fact:

Many high school seniors believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife, while a majority of Americans cannot name one of the four Gospels. Jay Leno asked his Tonight Show audience one night to name one of Jesus’ twelve apostles; they came up empty. One in ten Americans believes that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife, and only one-third knows that Jesus (not Billy Graham) preached the Sermon on the Mount. One of the most frequently quoted passages from the Bible—“God helps those who help themselves”—actually appears nowhere in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament.

Many allusions in debates over government during the formative years of the republic - and every since - are couched in biblical language. Tough to follow these is basic facts contained in the document are unknown.

Ignorance of Roe v. Wade by age group

From Pew Research Center by way of The Dish:



Some fodder for discussion.

For members of Congress: fundraising beats out learning about policy

While we've been focusing on political ignorance among the general population, there's evidence of similar ignorance among members of Congress. What's more, there's a suggestion that this ignorance is tied into fundraising, specifically the amount of time members of Congress are expected to spend fundraising each day as opposed to learning about policy, or meeting with constituents.

A writer in Salon claims "Congress is awful because members spend all day long talking to rich people." Why? Because the costs of campaign today require that they do. The wealthy are more likely to provide the funds necessary to win the next election. Your everyday constituent cannot. Unfortunately this also helps prioritize who they speak to and whose concerns they are most attentive to. Which feeds the perception that Congress is not responsive to the needs of ordinary folks, which leads to lower opinions of Congress, more polarized politics, and an even more dysfunctional institution.

This slide leaked from a presentation made by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has been circulating recently:



The Washington Post calls it the most depressing graph for members of Congress

"the dreary existence awaiting these new back-benchers." In particular note that they expect five hours out of every day to be devoted to fundraising (call time + strategic outreach).
One's future in the party is dependent on being a good fundraiser. Money talks after all.

South Dakota's Madville Times looks at their member of Congress and wonders how she is coping. We might do the same for Randy Weber.

The public knows little about the Republican field and the nominating process

This continues is an ongoing theme on this blog. Do people have the knowledge necessary to make the decisions necessary to sustain a democratic republic? What do we know and what do we not know?

More bad news from the Pew Research Center - via the Washington Post:

A new Pew Research Center poll suggests that most voters have little idea about even the most basic facts regarding the backgrounds of the men seeking the Republican presidential nomination this year.

Pretty basic stuff right? Um, no.

Just 43 percent of all registered voters — these people are actually registered to vote — got at least three of those questions right.

Upcoming students ought to be prepared to discuss whether this presents a real problem.

Here's a chart from the Pew report:

The Morality of Political Ignorance

A great post from the Volokh Conspiracy. Is political ignorance moral? Despite the fact that voters have only a small chance of ever making a decisive vote in an election, is this an excuse for not being informed?

Unfortunately, extensive evidence shows that most voters both know very little about public policy and do a poor job of evaluating the political information they do know. Elsewhere, I have argued that such ignorance and bias is actually rational. There is only an infinitesmal chance that any one vote will be decisive. So individual voters have strong incentives to remain ignorant. But not every form of rational behavior is morally defensible. Sometimes, rational individual behavior leads to terrible collective outcomes. Consider the case of air pollution, where individuals might rationally choose not to limit their emission of dangerous pollutants because any one person’s behavior has only a tiny effect on overall air quality in the area. Widespread voter ignorance is a kind of pollution of the political system.


- from Andrew Sullivan's Site

The Latest Measure of Political Knowledge

From the Pew Research Center:

The public is generally aware of basic facts about several recent national and international news stories, but is much less knowledgeable about current politics in Washington, according to the Pew Research Center’s latest News IQ survey.

About seven-in-ten know that Hillary Clinton currently serves as U.S. secretary of state (73%) and that Moammar Gadhafi is the leader of Libya (71%). An even higher percentage (80%) knows that that the “No Child Left Behind” law deals with education policy.

Yet Americans continue to struggle with questions about Congress and its leaders. Just 38% correctly say that Republicans hold a majority of seats in the House – and not in the Senate or the full Congress. Shortly after the midterm elections in November, slightly more (46%) knew that the Republicans had a majority only in the House.

And only about four-in-ten (43%) are able to correctly identify John Boehner as House speaker; 19% say incorrectly that Nancy Pelosi is still speaker of the House. In November, shortly after the GOP won the House, 38% named Boehner as the presumptive speaker and 13% named Pelosi.

Don't Know Much About Politics

Here's a neat little read as we grear up for 2301s discussion of public opinion.

CNN Poll: Americans flunk budget IQ test:

If you think cutting the government's budget is as easy as taking the ax to some unpopular federal programs, a new national poll suggests that you should think again.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday, most Americans think that the government spends a lot more money than it actually does on such unpopular programs as foreign aid and public broadcasting.

The poll's release comes one week before current funding for the government runs out. If there is no budget agreement between congressional lawmakers by next Friday, some government programs and offices may shut down.

"The public has a better idea of how much the government spends on programs like Social Security and Medicare, but there is a related problem - cutting them has little public support," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The result: cutting unpopular programs would probably not cut the deficit very much, and cutting the deficit would probably require cuts in programs that Americans like."

Political Knowledge and Political Ideology

A worthy read:

...If we want to know the true impact of political knowledge on political opinions, it's necessary to test that impact while controlling for other variables in a randomly selected sample of adults. Political scientist Scott Althaus has actually done this in his book Collective Preferences and Democratic Politics. He shows that, controlling for a variety of demographic and other variables, increased knowledge makes people more socially liberal and economically conservative (i.e. - more libertarian). That does not mean that high political knowledge necessarily turns you into a libertarian. Far from it. It does mean that it is likely to make you more libertarian than you would be otherwise. The pattern is not completely consistent across all public policy questions. For example, greater knowledge reduces opposition to taxation (I suspect because antitax arguments are less counterintuitive than the protax ones). But it does hold true across most issues.

Finally, low knowledge levels are just one of two major negative effects of rational political ignorance. The second is poor evaluation of the information that we do possess, what economist Bryan Caplan has called "rational irrationality." As I discuss in this article, the fact that there is little incentive to acquire political information for the purposes of becoming a "better" voter implies that most of the information people do learn is acquired for other purposes. Many of these purposes - such as entertainment value and confirmation of preexisting prejudices - are antithetical to rational, unbiased evaluation of evidence. In my article, I explain how rational irrationality may account for the fact that most citizens tend to discount information that goes against their preexisting views and only read and watch those political media that reinforce those views, while ignoring opposing positions. Such behavior is inexplicable if the goal is to get at the truth in order to be a better voter; it is perfectly rational, however, if truth-seeking is not the primary objective.

Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

In my experience, yes. Most students seek confirmation of preexisting beliefs, not exposure to new ideas.

Susan Jacoby writes about the phenomenon and the New York Times gives it a review.

Lincoln?

As much as I like to complain about student ignorance abotu basic facts about government and history I wasn't quite prepared for yesterday. A small group of my fellow faculty and staff types gathered for a demonstration of clickers which can be used to assess what students know and whether certain concepts are being learned.

As a quick example of how it works the demonstrator asked the gathering to click yes or no to the following: "Lincoln was the first Republican president."

The results: 7 yes, 8 no.

I'll lay off my students from now on.