We only see what our mind lets us see

The Trip: I’ve heard a story of three American friends going on a vacation to a poor Latin American country. All three were recent high-school graduates whose families agreed to give them a Summer vacation if they got a scholarship. All three worked hard and got good grades, so they got the vacation.

One weekend they paid their local guide some extra cash to tour the poorer parts of the country. What they expected to be a risky and fun side tour turned out to be a life-changing experience. These American vacationers had never seen such terrible poverty. Of course they had read about it and caught glimpses on TV, but actually being on the ground and seeing it with their own eyes was different.

One student said, “How terrible it is for America and global capitalism to cause such suffering.” Another thought, “It is the inherent corruption in the Spanish Empire and that if they followed free-market principles they could become rich like Chile.”

Going on the same trip and seeing the same sites had nothing to do with changing interpretations. If anything, more information just confirmed an individual’s previous belief system, which is typical according to both pop psychology and ordinary experience.

The third member of the group was neither leftist nor conservative. He was a high-functioning autist, so he waited until he had evidence. (Like a chad.)

Two decades of research and communication for nothing

The autistic friend spent years studying hard economic data before realizing that unless he could talk to normies, all his extra knowledge would only be useful to other fellow economic nerds. When he became a professor, he insisted on teaching Economics 101 so he could figure out how to communicate to people who aren’t particularly knowledgeable about economics. He writes a pop-Econ book called Economic Realities and Economic Myths: What a responsible citizen needs to know. It contains decades of research that is written to be understood by the common man.

He meets his liberal friend again almost two decades later. He talks about the book and explains how he cooperated with some of the best local economists about the economic history of the country they visited. The professor explains that he learned Spanish to immerse himself in the history of that particular country. He also has a basic knowledge of the surrounding countries and the story of their economic development. Using his well-honed teaching skills, he summarizes important themes with simplified points of key evidence. He gives a solid mini-lecture about how countries are rich or poor primarily based on their own culture or their own economic policies.

Basically, the conservative friend was right. (Minus some very negative corporate practices that he co-published studies against on a bipartisan basis.)

What really even is an evidence economist?

I suspect that after an avalanche of information, the leftist will not concede an inch. Possibly there would be a temporary concession to the economist about underlying facts before going back to emphasizing special circumstances that informed his previous beliefs. I have no reason to believe that the same does not happen to right-wing people or libertarians. Some scientists are able to change their minds based solely on evidence, but they are rare.* As Leon Festinger said, “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

I find it strange how confident people are about things they have never researched in any meaningful manner. More times than I'd care to admit, I have misremembered something or believed something absolutely based on one article or two conversations I’ve had.

It’s quite common to be easily swayed about a subject you know little about. This is known as Anchor bias or primacy bias. You first learn one thing about a subject, and then you anchor your knowledge to that particular information rather than open yourself to more data.

Besides anchor bias, there is plain old wishful thinking. Possibly the lefty in my story just chose the story that made him feel good, while economic reality means nothing to him.

What this all has to do with the Lindsay Clancy Case

Apparently, on the first day of the Lindsay Clancy trial, eight of the nine female jurors were devoted to finding Lindsay Clancy innocent. The eight immediately pressured a quasi-independent lady to join them before moving on two other male jurors.

As I understand it, this is jury misconduct. Members aren’t supposed to be biased one way or another before getting enough evidence to assess. This is followed by deliberation, where jurors discuss evidence with everyone else. Natural biases granted, you are nonetheless obligated by law to be as neutral as possible.

I have wasted an unhealthy amount of my life watching interviews with these jurors, and I'm left with the impression that they were never interested in following the law. From everything I saw, they never went into any serious detail about the nature of postpartum psychosis and the divergent evidence with regard to Lindsay Clancy’s mental state. <NFSW links with Ember Paradox and The Bears>

Blaming capitalism for poverty or blaming American domestic policy for a rich lady killing her kids seems to be an emotionally satisfying verdict for some. Why scrutinize data and test different theories when one can choose something immediately gratifying?

I find this all frustrating. It is worth a lifetime of research and debate to figure out why some countries are poor and others rich. Underlying this is a debate about whether or not people are responsible for their actions, whether they deserve rewards for their successes or are culpable for their crimes. That's an important debate too.

But many people aren’t capable of debate. I'm starting to think they should be ignored and have their vote taken away.