It's a Start...

Kuklinkski et al. made a very important distinction when it comes to information: citizens can be informed, uninformed, or misinformed. These three categories provide a means by which we can evaluate political incompetence. Obvious informed citizens are most adequately fulfilling their civic duties as members of society. However, when it comes down to the uninformed and the misinformed- who is to say which is worse? At least the misinformed have made some sort of effort to exercise their political rights. Yet, on the other hand, incorrect information can lead to the same results as a lack of information when it comes to things such as voting, etc: "Not only does this misinformation function as a barrier to factually educating citizens, it can lead to collective preferences that differ significantly from those that would exist if people were adequately informed" (792). Are Americans too stubborn to admit when they are wrong? Is our own societal standard infringing upon the democratic abilities of the nation? It is hard to tell, but based on the article it seems as though the authors blame political elites, the media, etc. for the misinformed segment of the population. Vehicles such as framing can, and apparently do, have a large impact on the way in which we process information. Everyone has an agenda; therefore, every piece of literature we read is going to be spun in one way or another in order to further the author's agenda. On some level, Kuklinski et al. have framed their article to reflect their beliefs, omitting information that would lead the reader to believe that their argument is weak. Every article that we have read thus far has actually been extremely convincing, even though the authors contradict each other. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to find an unbiased account of our current status as democratic citizens.

The research suggests that individuals are overconfident in their factual beliefs, leading them to make decisions that may not necessarily be in their best interests. I find this position to be accurate when you consider the ways in which people acquire information. For the most part, it is usually in small doses, and over a long period of time. Politics changes constantly, so it is nearly impossible to be up-to-date in terms of factual information. Therefore, many, if not most average citizens, are going to be uninformed to some degree. Picking up a newspaper every morning doesn't necessarily compensate for this due to the biased nature of newspaper reporting/writing. I am not trying to say that we are hopeless, only that it is extremely difficult to avoid being misinformed. Thus I do not necessarily agree with Kuklinski et al. in the sense that misinformation is a barrier to democratic competence, because it is certainly a start. It is not ideal, but there is only so much we can do to account for those individuals who do not care to be involved in the political realm. The reason they may not care in the first place may actually be due to a fear of being incorrect, as politics is a sensitive subject and requires a large knowledge base. On the other hand, those who are so overly confident in their incorrect information may be so because confidence can override actual knowledge. It is what drives people to the polls- the confidence in ones beliefs, and that those beliefs will translate into something positive for society.

Fortunately, Kuklinski et al. believe there is hope for us yet: "If [correct information] is presented in a way that "hits [misinformed citizens] between the eyes" - by drawing attention to its policy relevance and explicitly correcting misperceptions - such information can have a substantial effect" (805). Furthermore, I think we are more willing to believe certain people over others; therefore, the actual source of information may be the most important indicator in the misinformation equation. I want to say that misinformation is a start because at the very least people are motivated enough to have opinions/beliefs that drive their political decision-making. The next step is to edit those opinions/beliefs so that they can more accurately reflect individual's positions on political issues, etc. While individuals may unfortunately resist correct information, as the authors suggest, maybe it is due to the way in which the information is being presented. Many people do not like to admit when they are wrong, so when they feel their beliefs are being scrutinized they are going to hold on to those beliefs based on principle. We need to figure out a way to present correct information to individuals in a way that does not offend them and simultaneously leads them to more coherent decision-making. A lofty goal, but given the alternative it seems worth the effort.