omplex democratic societies require expertise to make good decisions. In fact, a majority of the American public says a healthy democracy depends on the government getting expert advice. While this does not rank as high as free speech or free and fair elections, Americans still consider it important. However, the information environment that a health democracy depends on is growing increasingly fragile. Faced with an avalanche of fake news, the emergence of deep fakes, and access to enough sources to support just about any argument you want to make, 71% of Americans admit they struggle to tell what is true anymore. In this confusing world, individuals end up following their instincts on political and policy questions—relying on what they have seen for themselves rather than the advice of experts.
There is a growing sense that at least two society-wide realities exist. These can be called the “mainstream” and “alternative” realities. They live side by side, but rarely meet. Each has its own narrative, its own media, and its own set of facts and are full of mistrust for the other. The occasions when they do come face to face are often explosive—like last year’s attack on the Capitol.
Despite the fragmentation of the public sphere, inside research institutes and think tanks it can feel like business as usual. Looking out at the troubled landscape of our democracy, some claim that what we need is more “impartial,” rational, and evidence-based analysis—more data, more facts. Only that will cut through the falsehoods and restore the reign of rationality and reason.
It is true that the challenges politics and policy attempt to address are complex. It is right to take the time to investigate them and make decisions on how to best move forward and tackle them. We might even want to preserve some spaces from the heat and speed of our current political debate. However, there are two problems with this. First, the fracturing of our information environment is not temporary. Second, there is no space outside of society where experts can hover calmly and objectively. This is one reason American citizens have embraced alternative sources of meaning-making. They have turned away from “objective analysis” because it is produced behind closed doors—in power centers removed from everyday life.
The good news is that even in the current information environment, American citizens think experts have a mandate—at least for now. A recent report found that 54% of those polled feel that experts support informed democratic debate through high-quality information and insight, with only 15% disagreeing. However, support for experts varies a great deal across disciplines—with between 65% and 82% of the public valuing medical doctors, professors, and accountants compared to only 48% who value public policy experts. That may be because most people will have actually met someone from one of the former groups while few have met a public policy expert.
It is clear there are huge tensions here: how do we retain the value of independent, forward-looking research while getting researchers to engage with the societies they analyze? How can experts help all of us slow down, instead of sheltering from the storm in their institutions? These are not easy questions to answer, but they are not going away.
Editor’s Note: Findings presented in this article come from Democracy 2.0: Experts in the Age of Instinct, a report recently released by Cast From Clay.
a global affairs media network
Americans Are Choosing Instincts Over Expertise
Photo by Kerwin Elias via Unsplash.
October 4, 2022
71% of Americans admit they struggle to tell what is true anymore. In this confusing world, individuals end up following their instincts on political and policy questions—relying on what they have seen for themselves rather than the advice of experts, writes Cast From Clay’s Tom Hashemi.
C
omplex democratic societies require expertise to make good decisions. In fact, a majority of the American public says a healthy democracy depends on the government getting expert advice. While this does not rank as high as free speech or free and fair elections, Americans still consider it important. However, the information environment that a health democracy depends on is growing increasingly fragile. Faced with an avalanche of fake news, the emergence of deep fakes, and access to enough sources to support just about any argument you want to make, 71% of Americans admit they struggle to tell what is true anymore. In this confusing world, individuals end up following their instincts on political and policy questions—relying on what they have seen for themselves rather than the advice of experts.
There is a growing sense that at least two society-wide realities exist. These can be called the “mainstream” and “alternative” realities. They live side by side, but rarely meet. Each has its own narrative, its own media, and its own set of facts and are full of mistrust for the other. The occasions when they do come face to face are often explosive—like last year’s attack on the Capitol.
Despite the fragmentation of the public sphere, inside research institutes and think tanks it can feel like business as usual. Looking out at the troubled landscape of our democracy, some claim that what we need is more “impartial,” rational, and evidence-based analysis—more data, more facts. Only that will cut through the falsehoods and restore the reign of rationality and reason.
It is true that the challenges politics and policy attempt to address are complex. It is right to take the time to investigate them and make decisions on how to best move forward and tackle them. We might even want to preserve some spaces from the heat and speed of our current political debate. However, there are two problems with this. First, the fracturing of our information environment is not temporary. Second, there is no space outside of society where experts can hover calmly and objectively. This is one reason American citizens have embraced alternative sources of meaning-making. They have turned away from “objective analysis” because it is produced behind closed doors—in power centers removed from everyday life.
The good news is that even in the current information environment, American citizens think experts have a mandate—at least for now. A recent report found that 54% of those polled feel that experts support informed democratic debate through high-quality information and insight, with only 15% disagreeing. However, support for experts varies a great deal across disciplines—with between 65% and 82% of the public valuing medical doctors, professors, and accountants compared to only 48% who value public policy experts. That may be because most people will have actually met someone from one of the former groups while few have met a public policy expert.
It is clear there are huge tensions here: how do we retain the value of independent, forward-looking research while getting researchers to engage with the societies they analyze? How can experts help all of us slow down, instead of sheltering from the storm in their institutions? These are not easy questions to answer, but they are not going away.
Editor’s Note: Findings presented in this article come from Democracy 2.0: Experts in the Age of Instinct, a report recently released by Cast From Clay.
