In 2013, a team of researchers held a math test. The exam was administered to over 1,100 American adults, and designed, in part, to test their ability to evaluate sets of data. Hidden among these math problems were two almost identical questions. Both problems used the same difficult data set, and each had one objectively correct answer. The first asked about the correlation between rashes and a new skin cream. The second asked about the correlation between crime rates and gun control legislation.
2013 年,研究小組舉辦了數學測驗 測驗對象是超過 1,100 名美國成人 一部分是測試他們評估資料集的能力 數學題中卻暗藏兩條幾近一樣的問題 兩道題採用同一組艱澀的資料 各有一個客觀正確的答案 第一條問皮疹與新款護膚霜之相關 第二條問犯罪率與槍械管制立法 兩者之相關
Participants with strong math skills were much more likely to get the first question correct. But despite being mathematically identical, the results for the second question looked totally different. Here, math skills weren’t the best predictor of which participants answered correctly. Instead, another variable the researchers had been tracking came into play: political identity. Participants whose political beliefs aligned with a correct interpretation of the data were far more likely to answer the problem right. Even the study’s top mathematicians were 45% more likely to get the second question wrong when the correct answer challenged their political beliefs.
熟諳數學的參與者 答對第一條的機會相對高很多 不過,即使數學上是如出一轍 答對第二條的結果大不相同 此時,數學技能並非 最佳的預測子(predictor) 用來預估哪些參與者會答對 相反,研究員追蹤的另一個變數 則左右大局:政治認同 (political identity) 參與者的政治信念 與資料的正確詮釋吻合的話 答對問題的機會就大大增加 即使是研究中頂尖的數學高手 都有 45% 較大機會答錯第二題 倘若正確答案有悖他們的政治信念
What is it about politics that inspires this kind of illogical error? Can someone’s political identity actually affect their ability to process information? The answer lies in a cognitive phenomenon that has become increasingly visible in public life: partisanship.
政治如何激起這種不合邏輯的錯誤? 一個人的政治認同 會實際影響其處理資訊的能力嗎? 答案在於一種認知現象 而且是日趨在社會生活顯而易見:
While it’s often invoked in the context of politics, partisanship is more broadly defined as a strong preference or bias towards any particular group or idea. Our political, ethnic, religious, and national identities are all different forms of partisanship. Of course, identifying with social groups is an essential and healthy part of human life. Our sense of self is defined not only by who we are as individuals, but also by the groups we belong to. As a result, we’re strongly motivated to defend our group identities, protecting both our sense of self and our social communities.
黨派性(partisanship) 雖然論述的場合大多是談政治 黨派性廣義指一種強烈偏好或偏誤 傾向任何特定一個群體或主張 政治、種族、宗教、國家認同 全都是我們形形色色的各種黨派性 當然,與社會群體認同是人類生活中 不可或缺而且健康的一部分 自己身為個體是怎樣的一個人以外 我們歸屬的群體也塑造自我的意識 因此我們有強烈動機捍衞群體認同 保護自我意識,同時保護社會社群
But this becomes a problem when the group’s beliefs are at odds with reality. Imagine watching your favorite sports team commit a serious foul. You know that’s against the rules, but your fellow fans think it’s totally acceptable. The tension between these two incompatible thoughts is called cognitive dissonance, and most people are driven to resolve this uncomfortable state of limbo. You might start to blame the referee, complain that the other team started it, or even convince yourself there was no foul in the first place. In a case like this, people are often more motivated to maintain a positive relationship with their group than perceive the world accurately.
不過,當群體的信念與現實睽違 問題就隨之而來 想像一下你心愛的球隊嚴重犯規 你知道這是球例所不容 但身旁的球迷都覺得完全沒問題 這兩個不相容想法之間的張力 稱為「認知失調」,驅使大部分人 去化解這種戚戚然、不踏實的狀態 你或會開始怪責裁判 控訴是敵隊違規在先 甚至說服自己,根本沒有犯規 這種情況下,人通常有較大動機 去維持與群體的正面關係
This behavior is especially dangerous in politics. On an individual scale, allegiance to a party allows people to create a political identity and support policies they agree with. But partisan-based cognitive dissonance can lead people to reject evidence that’s inconsistent with the party line or discredits party leaders. And when entire groups of people revise the facts in service of partisan beliefs, it can lead to policies that aren’t grounded in truth or reason.
多於準確地覺察這世界 這種行為,放諸政治尤其危險 在個人層面而言 對政黨的忠誠讓人建立起政治認同 並讓人支持自己認同的政策 但黨派性而來的認知失調可使人排斥 不符政黨路線或貶損政黨領袖的證據 當整群人修改事實以侍奉黨派性信念
This problem isn’t new— political identities have been around for centuries. But studies show that partisan polarization has increased dramatically in the last few decades. One theory explaining this increase is the trend towards clustering geographically in like-minded communities. Another is the growing tendency to rely on partisan news or social media bubbles. These often act like echo chambers, delivering news and ideas from people with similar views.
政策可能由此不再立足於真相或理由 這個問題由來已久 政治認同已存在數個世紀 但研究顯示 過去數十年黨派性兩極化急劇增加 其中一個解釋這種上升的理論 歸因思想類近的社群日趨群聚起來 另一個理論是人日益依賴黨派性新聞 或社交媒體泡泡 結果就像是回聲室,呈現的都是 見解相近的人發表的意見和新聞
Fortunately, cognitive scientists have uncovered some strategies for resisting this distortion filter. One is to remember that you’re probably more biased than you think. So when you encounter new information, make a deliberate effort to push through your initial intuition and evaluate it analytically. In your own groups, try to make fact-checking and questioning assumptions a valued part of the culture. Warning people that they might have been presented with misinformation can also help. And when you’re trying to persuade someone else, affirming their values and framing the issue in their language can help make people more receptive.
幸好,認知科學家發掘了 一些抗拒這種扭曲篩選的策略 其一是記住你或比自己想像更偏頗 每當遇到新的資訊 使勁摒除你先入為主的直覺 花點功夫條分縷析地評估 在群體中嘗試樹立良好的文化風氣 多查證事實,對假設抱疑三分 警醒旁人可能收到不盡不實的資訊 也助己助人 而當你說服別人時要讓人更易接納 可以試試肯定他們抱持的價值觀 並迎合他們的談吐,好示同聲之誼
We still have a long way to go before solving the problem of partisanship. But hopefully, these tools can help keep us better informed, and capable of making evidence-based decisions about our shared reality.
解決黨派性的問題仍長路漫漫 但願這些工具能讓我們知情更全面 並立足證據上就天下同一現實決策