Evidence-based policy is an established concept, in theory. In practice, policy still abandons or ignores evidence (scientific and otherwise) with disturbing frequency. Though many politicians play loose with “facts,” the most prominent recent example is Donald Trump:
Granted, every Presidential candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, and Congress is, in theory, in charge of policy development anyhow. In practice, Congress has abdicated and left policy-making for the President, judiciary and court of public opinion to hammer out, media gladiator style. The Economist summarizes this nicely (pay wall) in the wake of Scalia’s sudden death.
While Dan Kahan’s Cultural Cognition project at Yale has begun to explore why political views aren’t influenced by strong scientific evidence, his evidence that individual motivations for retaining demonstrably ‘false’ views are culturally based only complicates the problem.
If an individual constructs their personal and social identities around a set of beliefs, invalidating those beliefs can threaten both the individual and their friends and family. When people feel threatened and act on fear, extreme behavior or ideas may seem acceptable, or even vital to reestablish security for those close to them. For example, occupying Federal land and threatening Federal officers as an armed, politically motivated militia only makes sense if you believe these things are an inexorable existential threat to your friends and family.
While the behavior above seems to be more commonplace, or perhaps merely more often observed, America’s common welfare would be better served if the trend were reversed, and citizens with varying values and lifestyles could agree on what is reasonably “true” and “good” for our society as a whole. In theory.
People do not have a natural impulse to value empirically proven “facts” nor the subjective weight of “independent experts” over their emotional well-being and the intimate relationships that form most of their life experience each and every day. This is a fundamental psychological concept known as belongingness, which social scientist now believe may motivate most, if not all, human behavior. Viewed in that light, what’s the incentive for the individual to change their views if doing so risks conflict, ostracism and perhaps a long and difficult period of emotional self-discovery?
The problem with evidence-based policy goes beyond subjectivity and the arcane statistics behind empirical science. Before anybody can rationally consider evidence, the message must first pass through the core of each individual’s sense of self, worth and their place within a community. That is, if the message triggers a defensive emotional response, there is little hope that the recipient will ever accept it as proven truth.
To keep our faith in democratic rule of law, we must believe that evidence-based policy is possible to practice and eventually master in a transparent, representative legislative process, and that if America’s leaders committed themselves to changing their practices, we could shift away from tiresome bickering towards constructive dialog that produces measureable benefits for citizens.
Just how long and difficult will this transition be? How can we come to reasonable consensus about what is “truly good” for the hundreds of millions of people living an amazing variety of lives and facing a similar variety of challenges in America? What role can technology play to improve policy design, implementation and evaluation?
