There is this research paper that has been on my mind for years. It shows that there is a particular type of problem where the smarter you are, the more likely you are to get it wrong. So I asked my American friend Wylie to go out on the street and ask people the questions from the study to see if we could replicate its findings.

The first question in the paper is about a fictitious study on skin cream. So in this made-up study, people with skin rashes are assigned to either the experimental group where they use a new cream for two weeks, or the control group where they use no cream for that same period. And at the end, they count up how many rashes improved and how many got worse in each treatment group. The results are summarized in this table. So the question study participants were asked was- Did the skin cream make the rash better or did it make it worse?

The question is a little tricky because it requires proportional reasoning,

I think better.

Better? So what are you looking at? Just real quick.

I'm gonna be honest. I'm just looking at how big the numbers are.

If you just look for the biggest number, well that is the group who used the skin cream and the rash improved.

So this number is bigger than this number?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So you might conclude that the cream worked, it makes rashes better. That is the intuitive answer. But if you look more carefully at the data and use proportional reasoning, you realize that in the experimental cream group, about three times as many people got better as got worse. But in the control group, around five times as many people got better than worse. So using no cream, your rash was significantly more likely to improve. In fact, it's a fair conclusion to say that the cream, on average, made rashes worse.

The lead author on this study was Dan Kahan. Dan Kahan: I'm Studying the science of science communication.

He and colleagues recruited a nationally diverse sample of 1,111 Americans to participate. But before answering the question on skin cream, each participant was asked a series of questions to assess their numeracy.

Dan Kahan: And numeracy, it's not so much the capacity to use complicated mathematics, but really to reason well about quantitative information.

Numeracy scores for the entire sample were roughly normally distributed. Now if you group together all the participants with a certain numeracy score, say group all the zeros together, all the ones together, all the twos and so on. Well, what fraction of each group do you think got the skin cream question right? Well, the results are exactly what you'd expect.

Oh, this is math.

It's math.

In a fifth of the people, which is a smaller number-

Uh-huh.

The rash worsened, so the skin cream didn't help.

So it didn't make it better?

I feel the cream, if anything, made it worse.

The higher the numeracy score, the greater the fraction of participants who got the answer right.

Yeah. I don't think the numbers mean anything to me 'cause I think I need-

That's a perfect answer.

I think I would need to know what's the rash and what's the cream you're giving me.

Those with better numeracy skills manage to avoid the intuitively correct answer.

What are the-

Just seems like proportions.

I've had nobody get into the numbers like this.

This is great.

Excellent. You got that right.

Okay.

And correctly determine that the cream actually made rashes worse, which is no big surprise. But this version of the skin cream question was only shown to some of the participants. Another subset saw the same exact table except the column headings were reversed. So in this case, the skin cream did make the rashes better. So how did the different numeracy groups do with this version? Well, again, the highest numeracy groups were the most likely to get the correct answer. But below a numeracy score of five, the results were pretty flat. That could be because even without any numerical reasoning, most people might expect a skin cream to improve a rash, which just happens to be the right answer in this case.

But the true purpose of the study was not to find out how numeracy effects our ability to reason accurately with data. No, it was to figure out if something else affects our reasoning ability. Specifically, politics.

If you look at the skin cream data again, but separate the participants by their self-reported political affiliations, so liberal Democrats versus conservative Republicans, there's basically no difference between the groups. All follow the same pattern irrespective of party, which makes sense because a study on skin cream is about as apolitical as it gets.

But what the researchers did with the other half of the participants was the opposite. Instead of skin cream, they presented a fictitious study on gun control. In case you don't know, Democrats generally believe that gun control reduces crime, whereas Republicans believe it increases crime because it takes guns outta the hands of good guys who could prevent or deter crime. So in their made-up study, the cities were divided into two groups, those that had recently enacted legislation making it illegal to carry a concealed handgun and similar cities that had no such legislation. Over the following year, crime rates were monitored to see where crime increased and where it decreased. And the results are summarized in the table. Again, no surprise, it's exactly the same as the skin cream example. Of course, there were two variations, one where gun control decreased crime and one where it increased crime.

Now if you look at the results by political leaning, they paint a very different picture.

It's kind of obvious, if you have guns in a city, people are gonna start shooting people. And you know, if you don't have guns and you outlaw them, cities are obviously gonna have less crime in 'em. But the thing is, it's like you can't just take people's guns away and say that they're illegal. You know, like that's just, it's kinda like drugs.

So wait, but these numbers though, how did you just come to that conclusion?

When Republicans are shown the table where the correct answer is gun control laws increase crime, then the accuracy improves with increasing numeracy, just as before. But for the Republicans who are shown the table where gun control decreases crime, well, numeracy skills no longer affect accuracy. Those with a numeracy score of seven or eight are barely more likely to answer correctly than those with a score of zero or one.

So where the crime improved, like there can be crimes that were prevented because the guns were legal. And the crimes that were worsened, that could have been other crimes like not related to guns, you know?

Mm-hm.

And the same is true in reverse for Democrats. The more numerate people in this sample have no problem recognizing the correct answer when it shows that gun control reduced crime. But, if the data showed that gun control increased crime, then all of a sudden numeracy didn't help. Remember, this is the exact same data and question as the skin cream example. The only difference is now that data is presented in a political context.

Dan Kahan: And the biggest difference in performance is among the most numerate people, they're scoring a lot worse than they should have. The low numeracy people are about 25 percentage points less likely to get the right answer if that answer is threatening to their ideology, than if it's consistent with their ideology. The people who are high in numeracy, on the other hand, 45 percentage points less likely to get the right answer.

Rather than using their mathematical ability to come to the correct conclusion, they somehow selectively apply it to justify the conclusion they already believed beforehand.

Illegal guns, less crime.

Illegal crime.

Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't have thought that.

And as numeracy increases, people are more divided about the efficacy or the risks of gun control regulation. The same thing with fracking, and same thing with global warming. We see the polarization conditional on numeracy, but we also see the same effect when we measure people's reasoning proficiency in other ways. The people who are high in science literacy, more polarized than the people who are low. The people who are high and actively open-minded thinking, you see more polarization, not less, as they become more proficient in this kind of thinking.

Based on this data, of course I'd wanna look into it and look at all the sources. And of course there are sources from sources because people are always citing each other, so yeah.

This is, the numbers are actually not real whatsoever.

It looks, but, if I were to look at this pragmatically, I would just say that the playing field seems pretty even here.

It's pretty even?

Yeah.

Okay, great.

Now, everyone wants to believe that they are rational, that they could change their beliefs in light of the evidence.

If you encountered evidence on a political issue that you were like, "This is good evidence. I've done my research." But it contradicted your political belief on that issue, how would you react to that?

I'd consider myself to be a little bit open-minded in that aspect.

At least be open to learning.

Yeah.

If it's on paper and that's the way it is, I would have to go with that.

I'm gonna have to deal with it. I can't be like, "Well, I feel like it's different."

All I see here are people who will continue to hold partisan beliefs regardless of the evidence, all the while deluding themselves into thinking they came to these beliefs via an independent, sober consideration of the facts. The truth is that mostly we believe what we believe to fit in with our tribe. And that, in the most important way, is highly rational. Because humans are very social creatures, and for most of our evolution, we've depended on each other for survival. Being ostracized from the group is almost as bad as walking off a cliff. If we question the status quo by rejecting what those around us accept as true, we jeopardize our place in society.

Man, I've learned that people are not as dissimilar as we think. That there is so many similarities between sides that we think share nothing in common.

I attended Zoom meetings in the opposite party and it was kind of scary because they sounded just like my side.

It makes you think about what we could get done if we didn't have that burden, and I think it would be a pretty different world and pretty extraordinary if we managed to figure that out.

So what do we do about this? Well, I don't think there is an easy solution, but Kahan has identified a few angles that might work. One is avoiding partisan rhetoric. Rather than talk about gun control or climate change, avoid the loaded terms and instead focus on specific local policies. No buzzwords that could trigger anyone into tribal thinking. No villainizing the other side, just constructive solutions that make sense given the data. One example comes from southeast Florida where a bipartisan group of lawmakers have joined together to take action on sea-level rise. The plans don't debate whether climate change is manmade or not. They just deal with existing challenges faced by residents. The other thing is to foster a curious mindset.

Dan Kahan: Maybe the science curious people, they're more willing to examine all the evidence, including information that's inconsistent with their political ideology.

With increasing science comprehension usually comes increasing polarization on political topics. But with increasing science curiosity, this same increase in polarization is not observed. That is a start. I am not going to claim to have the solution. Problems of this sort are likely as old as the human species itself. They are just much more obvious now that everyone can post, tweet, comment and basically shout loudly into this nearly infinite digital space. The only thing I hope to do is bring some awareness. The beliefs of most people are not formed by a careful consideration of the data. That includes me, and it probably includes you. Acknowledging this is an important first step.

One organization that is trying to tackle polarization and our information echo chambers is Ground News. So we specifically asked them to sponsor this video because they gather news sources from around the world in one spot and show you any political leaning they have. That way you can read about the same issue from different perspectives with the context needed to separate facts from politics. For instance, the FBI recently released statistics about violent crime in the US. This is a key political issue that was referenced in the presidential debate. Most left-leaning outlets focused on the 3% drop in violent crime. Some use this to counter Trump's claim that crime is on the rise. However, right-leaning sources suggested crime increased under Harris and Biden in line with Trump's statements. So how can we have such a disagreement? Well, Ground News lets us dive deeper into the reporting to uncover that right-leaning sources referenced a completely different report, a DOJ survey. And this survey collected data differently and crucially, couldn't include fatal crimes, while the FBI statistics did. Similarly, the FBI statistics couldn't include unreported crimes while the DOJ survey specifically does. So we're comparing apples and oranges here, which is the source of the disagreement. This kind of critical thinking is crucial to keeping our biases in check and so is personal accountability. Ground News helps here too with data-driven insights from your personal News Bias dashboard. This lets you track your own potential blind spots and biases so you can identify and correct them. Check it out at groundnews.com/ve or scan this QR code. By subscribing through our link, you can get a 50% discount off the Unlimited Access Vantage Plan. This is their biggest discount of the year, and it's only available for a limited time. You know, Ground News is subscriber supported, so by subscribing you're directly contributing to the development of the platform and a more transparent, less tribal political arena. So I want to thank Ground News for sponsoring this video and I want to thank you for watching.