This may be part of the answer to a paradox thats bothered me for some time. On one hand, we know from both representative population surveys and lab experiments (not to mention cultural cues) that progressives are no more or less susceptible to scam artistry and science denial that appeals to nature or conspiracy than conservatives; fear of vaccines, GM foods, cell phones, and water fluoridation are evenly split across ideological lines [1,2], while the Obama birthers are (only) about as conservative as the 9/11 truthers are progressive [3] (maybe [4]—though i suspect that the difference is largely explained purely in terms of recency). On the other hand, though, the natural and even many traditional scams (ancient or Eastern medicine, miracle diets) and fearmongering (vaccines, GM foods) in this category do seem, on the surface (in their advertising and outward-facing culture), to appeal asymmetrically to progressive values or campaigns: feminism [despite being inegalitarian], anti-capitalism [despite being corporatist], multiculturalism [despite being appropriative and racist], and so on. But if the cultural status of these nonsense campaigns is so wrapped up in progressive ideology, how is it that conservatives are equally taken in by it? This article, besides being a provocative [in both senses] read in its own right, hints at some possible explanations: (a) much of the conservative-tailored equivalent may simply operate through different channels, tied up as much as in the progressive case with political and religious identity triggers (and causes); or (b) conservatives responding similarly to progressives in surveys and tests that measure assessments of reality or risk in these cases have different touchstones in mind (e.g. the Reagan cancer story). [The author makes the rather silly suggestions that these channels condition people to be more gullible—we dont really need conditioning—and that dishonesty is a characteristic of contemporary conservatism—ironic given their condemnation of the conservative pathologization of liberalism.] ...Or, it could just be that (c) i (and the author) are not as hooked-in to publicly-available conservative media than to progressive and centrist media. This might be explained by the conservative tilt (with respect to reality, not to popular opinion) of U.S. media: The progressive fringe is (only) about as (un)grounded in reality as the conservative mainstream. (This is old news but worth reviewing. Consider, for instance, Democracy Now! and Planet Money, two programs i find about equally skewed from reality and about equally popular; or compare MSNBC to Fox News, which are popularly equated culturally despite the latter being wildly less grounded.) Or it might just be that i, and the sources i follow, engage in more progressive circles. ...Or is there an equally pernicious progressive backchannel of scam artistry and conspiracism that im just not privy to? And, really, at this resolution the stats are probably to fuzzy to reliably say that theres anything here. Still, its something ill be looking out for more insight into. Share it if youve got it! [1]: motherjones/environment/2014/09/left-science-gmo-vaccines [2]: npr.org/blogs/health/2014/03/19/291405689/half-of-americans-believe-in-medical-conspiracy-theories [3]: brendan-nyhan/blog/2009/08/911-and-birther-misperceptions-compared.html [4]: brendan-nyhan/blog/2009/09/ppp-misperception-poll-questions.html
Posted on: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015