There are times that I look at the world around me and wonder if my commitment to remaining moderate is in itself a radical way of life. Originally it wasn't a life philosophy, just a bit of Bible verse 'do all things in moderation' but the older I get, and the more I see the radicalization of... well, everything, the more I think it's a pivotal pillar of my life. Not too much, not too little, just enough. Like Goldilocks, only with food, politics, beliefs, sun exposure, and exercise instead of porridge.
I'm not the only one who has noted the benefits of being in the middle. Middle people are more likely to question their own beliefs, and be willing to change if the facts show that what they previously held true is, well, not supported by reality. People at the ends of the bell curve (and note I'm not saying right/left here because that's not the only axis in life, no matter what the media seems to think currently. Moderation in bias, too!) are far less likely to be willing to question their core values and be willing to admit they might actually be wrong. This is shown when scientists take a look at the subjects that are often hot-button topics, like genetic modification and gene therapy.
The paper's key finding is that the more strongly people report being opposed to GM foods, the more knowledgeable they think they are on the topic, but the lower they score on an actual knowledge test.
"This result is perverse, but is consistent with previous research on the psychology of extremism," said Phil Fernbach, the study's lead author and professor of marketing at the Leeds School of Business. "Extreme views often stem from people feeling they understand complex topics better than they do."
A potential consequence of the phenomenon, according to the paper's authors, is that the people who know the least about important scientific issues may be likely to stay that way, because they may not seek out—or be open to—new knowledge. [emphasis added by me]
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-01-genetically-food-opponents.html#jCp It's not just food that people are wary of, but food, since we cannot escape our need to consume it, is a good bellwether for seeing how people perceive the world, and science, around them. It turns out that despite the scientists, people are deeply suspicious of their food and how it is produced. Indeed, I see more and more suspicion of science in general, and hostility toward scientists who do not cater to the extreme believers. I have to wonder, which came first: the food insecurity, or the science insecurity?
‘The presence of an error of judgment is demonstrated by comparing people’s responses either with an established fact ... or with an accepted rule of arithmetic, logic, or statistics" (Kahneman and Tversky)
In the paper (the link will take you to the unclassified report they co-authored) the above quote came from, the researchers refer to the lack of embarrassment most people feel towards being unable to remember numbers, or specific mathematical facts. However, lapses in judgement are seen as 'disconcerting' and 'the error may remain attractive although it is known to be an error.' We see that manifest in several ways in human behavior. Denial that a mistake has been made is common, and can persist into ludicrous extremes even when proof is available to clearly show the mistake. You will see people, when called out for sharing memes and fake news, retort that it should be true, even if it's clearly not. Their narrative trumps reality. Their extreme beliefs are so near and dear to them that moderation becomes scandalous because it is willing to entertain the notion that perhaps some bit of information is... wrong. Being willing to take the embarrassment and give up the attractive error are signs that a person is able to adjust and adapt to reality rather than attempting to mangle, fold, and mutilate reality to fit their narrative.
It's not solely lack of education that leads people into this willful blindness toward reality and stubborn inability to accept changes to their value systems. However, it is certainly a factor. I'm not talking about never going to college, by the way. Highly educated people looking at topics outside their field are just as likely to fall victim to biases as are the general public laypersons. Studies have shown that when you want to know where the gap between field experts, and those of the public, come from, you have to be aware of the biases inherent in both. The general public sees what is put in front of them, even if that is nothing like the whole picture. Appealing to emotions sways the public and leads to widespread biases - all to sell news stories. The media has never been unbiased, nor indeed can it be. Either it is a for-profit and profit-driven enterprise, with the biases of selling stories that require it to focus unnaturally on the psyche of human drama, or it in a government-sponsored outlet that dare not raise it's voice against those who are in power, and are driven against reality and truth to denounce who is not in power.
It's enough to make a moderate person despair, some days. Surrounded by hysteria whipped into frenzies by media, it's hard to say how we can maintain objective standards and find the education we so evidently need to keep us abreast of what is real in the world around us. We live in a funhouse mirror room, and someone we can't trust is cranking the handles to adjust the mirrors in random ever-changing ways. If the mirrors were static, we could learn to compensate for the biases. But the mirrors change, and with them our perceptions. It's no wonder we are losing trust in everything from food to science to... you name it.