An Urban's Rural View

If you've ever tried to change minds about food, agriculture or anything, really, you know the syndrome: On some issues some people are impervious to argument. They believe what they believe. They ignore facts that contradict their views and embrace facts that support them.

Confirmation bias, it's called, and scholars are increasingly studying it.

Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein notes an interesting example of the syndrome. In a column on Bloomberg (http://tiny.cc/…) that cites research by a Yale law professor, Sunstein argues that Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of defying science. They do it on different issues but for similar reasons: interest-group politics, echo-chamber effects and, most importantly, their ideological predispositions.

Here's Sunstein's logic, step-by-step, starting with the consensus:

"The strong majority of scientists (of course, not all) accept two propositions," he writes. "First, GMOs generally don't pose serious threats to human health or the environment. Second, greenhouse gases are producing climate change, which does pose serious threats to human health and the environment."

From there he goes on to note that Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to "reject the prevailing scientific judgment" on GMOs, while Republicans are far more likely to reject science's judgment on climate change.

Among the statistics he cites:

-- "Of the 27 senators who recently voted to require labeling of GMOs, not one was a Republican."

-- "In a 2013 Senate vote on a nonbinding resolution calling for a 'fee on carbon pollution,' Republicans were in unanimous opposition, while most Democrats were supportive."

Why does this happen? One part of the explanation, Sunstein says, involves interest groups. Those that are influential with Democrats include the organic food industry and the environmental movement while those that have Republicans' ear include businesses eager to head off regulations.

Another reason is the echo-chamber effect: the tendency of partisans on both sides to listen only to the like-minded.

But the most important reason, in Sunstein's reading of the research, is pre-existing ideology.

"Many Republicans are opposed, in principle, to government interference with free markets. They're inclined to be suspicious of scientific evidence that purports to justify that interference, especially in the environmental domain.

"By contrast, many Democrats are willing to indulge the assumption that corporate efforts to interfere with nature are potentially dangerous, especially if those efforts involve chemicals, new technologies or pollution. Among Democrats, scientific claims about the risks associated with GMOs and greenhouse gases fall on receptive ears."

Sunstein is stereotyping, to be sure. Plenty of Democrats and Republicans don't fit these molds. But his underlying point rings true. Whether "ideological predisposition" grows out of partisan loyalties or independent thinking, it resists arguments to the contrary.

So that's what the law professor slash social-science researcher says. I'd love to hear a conversation between an anthropologist, a neurobiologist or a clinical psychologist on why a human mind, once made up, is so hard to change. In evolutionary terms, could it be that natural selection favored those who husbanded their brain's energy by not rethinking issues again and again? Or, perhaps, what people think shapes their self-perceptions, so that changing their opinions threatens their sense of identity.

Whatever the reason, confirmation bias is a reality. "Agvocates" trying to sway public opinion on agriculture have their work cut out.

Urban Lehner can be reached at urbanity@hotmail.com

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.