Wray Herbert, “Extremist

 This passage is adapted from Wray Herbert, “Extremist

Politics: Debating the Nuts and Bolts.” ©2012 by

TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

Voters need to understand the prosaic details of

complex policies. Most have staked out positions on

these issues, but they are not often reasoned

positions, which take hard intellectual work. Most

citizens opt instead for simplistic explanations,

assuming wrongly that they comprehend the nuances

of issues.

Psychological scientists have a name for this

easy, automatic, simplistic thinking: the illusion of

explanatory depth. We strongly believe that we

understand complex matters, when in fact we are

clueless, and these false and extreme beliefs

shape our preferences, judgments, and actions—

including our votes.

Is it possible to shake such deep-rooted

convictions? That’s the question that Philip

Fernbach, a psychological scientist at the University

of Colorado’s Leeds School of Business, wanted to

explore. Fernbach and his colleagues wondered if

forcing people to explain complex policies in

detail—not cheerleading for a position but really

considering the mechanics of implementation—

might force them to confront their ignorance and

thus weaken their extremist stands on issues. They

ran a series of lab experiments to test this idea.

They started by recruiting a group of volunteers in

their 30s—Democrats, Republicans, and

Independents—and asking them to state their

positions on a variety of issues, from a national flat

tax to a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.

The volunteers indicated how strongly they felt about

each issue and also rated their own understanding of

the issues. Then the volunteers were instructed to

write elaborate explanations of two issues. If the issue

was cap and trade, for example, they would first

explain precisely what cap and trade means, how it is

implemented, whom it benefits and whom it could

hurt, the sources of carbon emissions, and so forth.

They were not asked for value judgments about the

policy or about the environment or business, but

only for a highly detailed description of the

mechanics of the policy in action.

Let’s be honest: Most of us never do this.

Fernbach’s idea was that such an exercise would

force many to realize just how little they really know

about cap and trade, and confronted with their own

ignorance, they would dampen their own

enthusiasm. They would be humbled and as a result

take less extreme positions. And that’s just what

happened. Trying—and failing—to explain complex

policies undermined the extremists’ illusions about

being well-informed. They became more moderate in

their views as a result.

Being forced to articulate the nuts and bolts of a

policy is not the same as trying to sell that policy.

In fact, talking about one’s views can often

strengthen them. Fernbach believes it’s the slow,

cognitive work—the deliberate analysis—that

changes people’s judgments, but he wanted to check

this in another experiment. This one was very similar

to the first, but some volunteers, instead of

explaining a policy, merely listed reasons for liking it.

The results were clear. Those who simply listed

reasons for their positions—articulating their

values—were less shaken in their views. They

continued to think they understood the policies in

their complexity, and, notably, they remained

extreme in their passion for their positions.

Polarization tends to reinforce itself. People are

unaware of their own ignorance, and they seek out

information that bolsters their views, often without

knowing it. They also process new information in

biased ways, and they hang out with people like

themselves. All of these psychological forces increase

political extremism, and no simple measure will

change that. But forcing the candidates to provide

concrete and elaborate plans might be a start; it gives

citizens a starting place.