Internet quizzes

• Franz USA Weekend: (0=super liberal, 40=super conservative)
  • Before: 6
  • After: 10
    
  • Change: towards conservative
    
• World’s Smallest: (personal/economic)
  • Before: 90/10
  • After: 90/20
  • Change: Towards libertarian
    
• Political Compass: (economic/social)
  • Before: -5.5/-5.03
  • After: -4.5/-3.9
  • Change: Towards authoritarian/right
    
• Typology Test: (no numeric score given)
  • Before: “liberal”
  • After: “liberal”
  • Change: none

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Presidential Candidates IAT: (ranked most to least favorably)

• Before: Obama, McCain, Clinton
• After: A three-way tie!

Good thing I already voted; otherwise I might have a hard time deciding

Past Presidents versus George W. Bush:

When I previously took this test, the match-up was between JFK and GW Bush. I had a moderate preference for JFK over Bush, but I used the results from a test taken even earlier in which I had a strong preference for George Washington over George W. Bush to argue that I have a moderately-strong preference for past presidents over GW Bush.

Imagine my horror when I visited the IAT website today to take my follow-up test and saw that the current match-up is between George W. Bush and RONALD REAGAN. Conservatives love that ex-prez! Obviously I was curious to see where I stand, but I was a little unsure how to interpret the results of the test. Reagan is the ultimate conservative, while Bush is more of a neo-con (or at least that’s who he lets run the country). Given this match-up I decided I have to exclude this test from my arsenal. But just to be complete I’ll report the result: Strong preference for George W. Bush. I didn’t think it was possible! Guess I’m no Reagan Democrat.

Conclusions

I don’t know the margins of error for all of these quizzes so I can’t really say whether the changes I had were significant, but there does seem to be a slight trend towards a more conservative ideology. How much? Well, after two weeks of conservative media I scored a 10 on the Franz quiz, which puts me right alongside Hillary Clinton according to the website–not exactly right-wing. My “political compass” still points towards “left/libertarian.” But I did have to think a little harder when answering the questions, and that’s probably not such a bad thing. I doubt if the Presidential Candidates IAT result is meaningful since conservatives don’t really like any of the candidates anyway. It probably just means that the conservative media are doing a good job of spreading doubt about Obama and Clinton.

So what’s the take home point from this experiment? I already mentioned in my last post how difficult the experiment was to actually carry out and how much I dreaded reading the news when I knew I was going to disagree with most of what I read. So I guess that goes a little way towards explaining why people seek out like-minded news sources and individuals. It’s a matter of comfort and enjoyment–not exactly a ground-breaking conclusion.

It’s possible that had I immersed myself a little more or spent several months doing this I would have measurably shifted a little more towards the conservative side; maybe become more of a fan of free markets or something. But I don’t think this experiment alone would have changed my core beliefs. The biggest take home that I got from this experience is that there are a lot of people out there with whom I deeply disagree. It’s not that they’re stupid and I’m smart, or that I’m better at thinking critically about the issues than them (well many of them, at least). The problem seems to be simply that we occupy a different reality. I got a taste of their reality and it seemed as foreign to me as I’m sure mine seems to them. If I were to live in that reality full-time I don’t think it’s too far fetched to think that I would start seeing things like they do.

So what’s the problem? Why is it so difficult for me to only consume conservative media for two weeks?

Well, I decided at the beginning that my only outlet for political discussions during these two weeks would be through online forums and blog comments at conservative websites. This raises a number of problems for me. First, it sets me up with a handicap because any time I try to make an argument on one of those forums, I either have to rely on my memory of facts that I accumulated before the experiment began, or I have to try to dig up data from an impartial source (usually the primary source), which is extremely time-consuming. For instance, if I want to make the point that the reason why poor people can’t afford health insurance is NOT because they waste their money on expensive cars, televisions, and lottery tickets (yes, I was challenged on this!), I have to dig through census data or some other objective source. My opponent just has to cite a Heritage Foundation article in which the author claims to have culled the census data and found that poor people buy all of these things, which proves that they have the disposable income to purchase health insurance if they desire. (Nevermind the possiblility that they may have a piece of shit car and an inexpensive tv, the costs of which pale in comparison to the costs of health care) I’m sure there’s a liberal think tank out there that has contested this assertion, but my self-imposed rules won’t allow me to seek it out.

The second problem is that I can’t bitch to anyone about the assholes I was just arguing with online because that a) would provide confirmation that I am in the right, which is against my rules, and b) would invariably turn into a conversation about political issues, which is also against my rules. (I have to admit that I’ve slipped on this a couple of times, but I quickly caught myself and changed the topic of conversation)

The third problem I’m encountering is that right now I have ZERO motivation to follow the news. This is a real issue because the central question of this experiment is whether regular exposure to conservative media will push me towards conservative views. When I planned this out I figured that if I kept up something resembling my usual routine of religiously checking headlines throughout the day (and clicking on interesting ones), listening to NPR in the morning, and watching The Daily Show or Olbermann at night (making the appropriate conservative substitutions for all of these, of course), that would be a pretty big immersion. The problem I’m finding is that I now dread doing all of these things. It has ruined my ability to procrastinate on the work that I should be doing, which has had the desireable side-effect of making me much more productive at work. So my advice to you is if you have a major project that needs to get done, like say a PhD, just emulate my experiment and you’ll finish in no time.

Fortunately there’s less than a week of this to go….

Note: These numbers probably won’t mean much to you unless you’ve taken the quizzes yourself. So why not follow the links below to take the quizzes and report your scores in the comments….

Internet quizzes

• Franz USA Weekend: 6 (0=super liberal, 40=super conservative) ["liberal"]
• World’s Smallest: 90/10 (personal/economic) ["liberal"]
• Political Compass: -5.5/-5.03 (economic/social) ["left-libertarian"]
• Typology Test: “liberal” (no numeric score given)

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

For those who aren’t familiar with the IAT, I copied the following description of the test from the website of the Project Implicit research group that runs the IAT:

The IAT asks you to pair two concepts (e.g., young and good, or elderly and good). The more closely associated the two concepts are, the easier it is to respond to them as a single unit. So, if young and good are strongly associated, it should be easier to respond faster when you are asked to give the same response to these two. If elderly and good are not so strongly associated, it should be harder to respond fast when they are paired. This gives a measure of how strongly associated the two types of concepts are. The more associated, the more rapidly you should be able to respond. The IAT is one method for measuring implicit or automatic attitudes….

I took the two IATs that seemed to most closely resemble tests of implicit ideological bias, the Presidential Popularity and Presidential Candidates tests.

The Presidential Popularity test measures your implicit preference for past presidents over George W. Bush. When I took the test today I had a moderate preference for John F. Kennedy over Bush. I had previously taken this test a few months ago when the match-up was between George Washington and George W. Bush and at that time I had a strong preference for Washington over Bush. So I’m going to split the difference and say I have a moderately-strong preference for past presidents over George W. Bush.

The Presidential Candidates test measures your relative positive or negative feelings about the three remaining presidential candidates (Obama, Clinton, McCain). As a rabid Obama supporter, I wasn’t surprised to see that I implicitly view him more positively than the other two, but what surprised me was the runner-up: McCain. Clinton came in third. This result is pretty interesting already because I had also taken this test a few months ago and Clinton came in second (with McCain third). Does this reveal the unconscious component of what the pundits have been saying for weeks–that the democratic primaries are becoming too divisive? I don’t know, but I’ll be pondering this question and many more in the coming weeks, so stay tuned!

Experimental Methods

Subject

A 28 year old, middle class, highly educated, white male living in a large midwestern US urban area.

Stimuli and procedures

For a two week period I will surround myself as much as possible with conservative viewpoints. Because it is not practical for me to physically surround myself with conservative people, I have to do it in the virtual spaces of the Internet and broadcast television/radio.

In preparation for the experiment I have created a new Netvibes account and filled the homepage with RSS feeds from news organizations that are conventionally considered conservative. These feeds will comprise my online news sources. They include:

1. Fox News
2. National Review
3. The Heritage Foundation
4. The Drudge Report
5. Right Wing News

In addition to these publications, I will also read columns by conservatives such as Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Robert Novak, and George Will. [NOTE: I'm not familiar with all conservative news sources and columnists, so please don't hesitate to suggest others in the comments.]

For other forms of media intake I will watch Fox News and listen to conservative radio (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, etc).

For non-partisan mediation I will consult Factcheck.org.

I won’t read my normal sources of news and information and I won’t discuss politics with liberal friends or family. My primary form of political dialog will be through comments I post on conservative forums, in which I will argue my own viewpoints and respectfully challenge those of others.

Data collection and analysis

At the beginning of the two week experimental period I will take a series of tests to quantify my ideological attitudes. For the sake of presentation and simplicity, these tests will mostly be questionnaires used for academic and marketing research; however, since self-reporting is notoriously inaccurate I will also use a test of implicit attitudes, the Implicit Association Test (IAT).

Throughout the two week period I will make regular posts to this blog about my experiences and thoughts–an experimental diary, if you will.

At the end of the two week experimental period I will retake all of the questionnaires and the IAT. I will compare my scores before and after and check for statistically significant changes (Take the statistics with a grain of salt, since small sample sizes don’t usually pass muster with the assumptions underlying most statistical tests).

I encourage feedback from all readers in the comments.

Next up: Baseline data

Throughout my 28 year life I have been surrounded for the most part by like-minded people. I grew up in a progressive city, attended one of the most liberal colleges in the country, and now work among other liberals in academia. I read liberal blogs and websites, watch liberal cable news shows, and read liberal newspapers. Most of my friends and family are liberals. I like being a liberal and don’t intend to change because, frankly, I think I chose the right side of the ideological divide. But why do I feel this way? How can I think I’m right and half of the country is wrong? And why are there so many other people, liberals and conservatives alike, who feel the same way?

As a student of neuroscience, I believe that people’s political and moral leanings are deeply rooted in both our genetic makeup and life experiences. Genetic factors may contribute to our basic need to identify with a group, while experiences throughout life may determine with which group we identify. Once we’ve identified with a group and adopted its core beliefs, we tend to seek out information that supports these beliefs.

Psychologists have a term for this. It’s called “confirmation bias,” and it means that people tend to disproportionately weigh evidence that supports their own beliefs over evidence that conflicts with these beliefs.

This experiment is my attempt to break through my own confirmation bias by surrounding myself only with evidence that conflicts with my beliefs. In leaving my comfort zone and addressing this evidence head-on, without the benefit of confirmation from like-minded people, I may be able to shed some light on the extent to which ones environment determines one’s ideology.

Coming up next: The experimental design.

In the next few days I will begin posting more about the experiment, such as my reasons for going through the experience, the rules I will follow, and my expectations.