Lawrence Wright in his 1997 book, Twins: And What They Tell Us About Who We Are, writes about the massive amount of research psychiatrists and psychologists have conducted on twins separated at birth and raised in different environments. The studies of twins raised in dissimilar home environments can, theoretically, give us some insights into the relative effects of nature (heredity) versus nurture (environment).
Wright is a journalist, not a scientist, so he attempts to look at both sides of the nature versus nurture arguments. What he discovers is that even highly qualified, scholarly scientists often start with an ideological hypothesis and then look for data to support their ideology.
For example, scientists with a liberal ideology look for data that supports the concept that home environment, or nurture, is the main factor in determining IQ, not nature, or heredity. They reason that if environment is the dominant determinant of IQ, then the government spending money to improve the home environment is the right path to pursue.
According to Wright, the home-environment-dominant, liberal view was probably best argued in the 1984 book, Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature, by Lewontin, Rose and Kamin. Not In Our Genes “assails the entire field of behavior genetics.” I read the book the year it was published, and bought into its persuasive arguments that there was no one IQ gene and that IQ was primarily correlated with environment.
However, Wright avers that subsequent mapping of the human genome after 1984 and scientists being able to isolate individual genes in the DNA string of chromosomes has shown that IQ is, in fact, largely determined by a complex array of genes. These findings would tend to support the conservative, behavioral determinist position of heredity-dominant ideology. However, a second edition of Not In Our Genes in 2017 reinforces the authors’ ideological home environmental position in light of recent DNA research.
In pointing out that highly qualified scientists come to different conclusions after looking at data, Wright reinforces the position that even respected, qualified scientists often start with ideology and then analyze data to confirm their biases, just the way politicians, ordinary citizens and you and I do. Well, of course you don’t do this — you’re perfectly rational — but I do.
On the podcast Radio Lab, “Breaking Benford,” host Jad Abumrad details how far-right, conservative bloggers, social-media posters and broadcasters have cited “a century-old quirk of math called Benford’s Law” to support a crazed notion of voter fraud. The math involved in Benford’s Law is way, way over my head and way, way over the heads of the right-wing wingnuts who refer to it. But the bottom line is that they are totally misusing this obscure math law, understood by highly-trained, professional mathematicians, but not by the wingnuts, to justify their nutty voter fraud theories.
The wingnuts appropriation of Benford’s Law is example of an attempt to bend science to fit preconceived ideologies, another exercise of confirmation bias, of shoehorning data to fit into the shoes you already have.
What does the confirmation bias of twins research have to do with the confirmation bias of wingnuts misusing Benford’s Law? I think the underlying motivation of both is economic. Money.
Liberals believe environmental factors are the major determinant of IQ and, therefore, want to spend money for education, retraining, welfare, equality and low-cost housing because doing so will raise IQs and, thus, raise the downtrodden out of poverty.
Conservatives believe hereditary factors are the major determinant of IQ and, therefore, do not want to spend money for education, retraining, welfare, equality and low-cost housing because no amount of money will raise the IQ of people who are born dumb. Conservatives would rather spend money on jet fighters, aircraft carriers and missiles that their donors manufacture.
Liberal media believe that pushing their ideas will, first, lead to change, lead to reform, and, second, will make them enough money to survive. Conservative media believe their ideas will engage people and, will, first, make money so they can get rich, and, second, lead to keeping things the same, lead to no change, lead to no reform.
Therefore, if you want change, want reform, confirm your bias by reading The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Nation or by watching MSNBC. If you don’t want change, don’t want reform, confirm your bias by reading the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, or watching Fox News.
And if you watch the Fox News, you’ll be “standing up for what’s right,” the channel’s new slogan. Not what’s right, a synonym for “correct,” but what’s right, a synonym for “conservative.” The slogan is an extremely clever play on words, but do not be mistaken about it’s meaning. And do not be mistaken that by reading the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or watching Fox News or reading The New York Times or watching MSNBC that you are not confirming your biases and are getting the undiluted truth.
Always keep in mind that producers of conservative media believe that “you can’t handle the truth.”
