Misinformation

Last week’s discussion centered around the idea that despite the prevailing cynicism regarding the ignorance of the American voter, citizens use relevant information cues to, on average, make rational decisions. What this week seeks to address is the validity of that information. Until recently, there were the informed and the uninformed which was never a problem because in the aggregate the “noise” from the uninformed cancels out. Misinformation carries the power to influence policy and change cultural norms.
The Kuklinski article opens with an analogy about how information is the currency of democracy. In the currency and securities market, un/misinformed traders will trade on “noise” (financially irrelevant information) that results in a veer in the true value of that security. I thought that Kuklinski made a compelling argument for the dangers associated with this noise in the public policy realm. In the securities market, the value strays from its true value only until other investors realize the departure. Confidence preferences that stem from misinformation that stems from polarized parties and media bias have an exponential effect on policy decisions.
One aspect of the Kuklinski reading that troubled me was the idea of the perfect, informed citizen. In essence, Kuklinski somewhat implies that there is a right and wrong choice with a set of givens. If you confidently believe that the welfare rate across minorities is much higher than it actually is, you are compelled to adjust your preferences once the true rates “hit you between the eyes”. Nyhan weeps for the polarizing effects of parties and the need to align preferences with the party line, providing greater weight to some facts while suppressing others. The interpretations reading last week would suggest otherwise. There are factors for which we cannot control: parties, media bias/coverage, apathy, and implicit workings of the voter mind (heuristics…). Misinformation is something that can be improved through a variety of programs. But who is to say that misinformation does not cancel out in the aggregate. For every individual who believes that the unemployment rate is 25%, another will believe Obama has reduced it to 1.5%.