Voters need to understand the prosaic details of.complex policies. Most have staked out positions on.these issues, but they are not often reasoned.positions, which take hard intellectual work. Most.citizens opt instead for simplistic explanations,.assuming wrongly that they comprehend the nuances.of issues..Psychological scientists have a name for this.easy, automatic, simplistic thinking: the illusion of.explanatory depth. We strongly believe that we.understand complex matters, when in fact we are.clueless, and these false and extreme beliefs.shape our preferences, judgments, and actions—.including our votes..Is it possible to shake such deep-rooted.convictions? That’s the question that Philip.Fernbach, a psychological scientist at the University.of Colorado’s Leeds School of Business, wanted to.explore. Fernbach and his colleagues wondered if.forcing people to explain complex policies in.detail—not cheerleading for a position but really.considering the mechanics of implementation—.might force them to confront their ignorance and.thus weaken their extremist stands on issues. They.ran a series of lab experiments to test this idea..They started by recruiting a group of volunteers in.their 30s—Democrats, Republicans, and.Independents—and asking them to state their.positions on a variety of issues, from a national flat.tax to a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions..The volunteers indicated how strongly they felt about.each issue and also rated their own understanding of.the issues. Then the volunteers were instructed to.write elaborate explanations of two issues. If the issue.was cap and trade, for example, they would first.explain precisely what cap and trade means, how it is.implemented, whom it benefits and whom it could.hurt, the sources of carbon emissions, and so forth..They were not asked for value judgments about the.policy or about the environment or business, but.only for a highly detailed description of the.mechanics of the policy in action..Let’s be honest: Most of us never do this..Fernbach’s idea was that such an exercise would.force many to realize just how little they really know.about cap and trade, and confronted with their own.ignorance, they would dampen their own.enthusiasm. They would be humbled and as a result.take less extreme positions. And that’s just what.happened. Trying—and failing—to explain complex.policies undermined the extremists’ illusions about.being well-informed. They became more moderate in.their views as a result..Being forced to articulate the nuts and bolts of a.policy is not the same as trying to sell that policy..In fact, talking about one’s views can often.strengthen them. Fernbach believes it’s the slow,.cognitive work—the deliberate analysis—that.changes people’s judgments, but he wanted to check.this in another experiment. This one was very similar.to the first, but some volunteers, instead of.explaining a policy, merely listed reasons for liking it..The results were clear. Those who simply listed.reasons for their positions—articulating their.values—were less shaken in their views. They.continued to think they understood the policies in.their complexity, and, notably, they remained.extreme in their passion for their positions..Polarization tends to reinforce itself. People are.unaware of their own ignorance, and they seek out.information that bolsters their views, often without.knowing it. They also process new information in.biased ways, and they hang out with people like.themselves. All of these psychological forces increase.political extremism, and no simple measure will.change that. But forcing the candidates to provide.concrete and elaborate plans might be a start; it gives.citizens a starting place.Q: Over the course of the passage, the main focus shifts from Answer Choices: (A)a discussion of a long-standing problem, to a report that discredits previous attempts to address that problem, and then to a proposal for future action. (B)an introduction of a phenomenon, to a description of experiments concerning that phenomenon, and then to a recommendation based on the results of the experiments. (C)an explanation of two competing theories for a certain behavior, to a recap of a study designed to determine which theory is correct, and then to a general account of a field’s future. (D)an observation of a trend, to an analysis of its causes, and then to a proposal for a research study to validate the analysis.
A: Among A through D, the answer is
(A)a discussion of a long-standing problem, to a report that discredits previous attempts to address that problem, and then to a proposal for future action.
(B)an introduction of a phenomenon, to a description of experiments concerning that phenomenon, and then to a recommendation based on the results of the experiments.
(C)an explanation of two competing theories for a certain behavior, to a recap of a study designed to determine which theory is correct, and then to a general account of a field’s future.
(D)an observation of a trend, to an analysis of its causes, and then to a proposal for a research study to validate the analysis.
Answer: 1