Asymmetric Insight: Political Problems
By Lauren Ziesmer
In this current year, 2024, politics is a hot topic that seems to leak into conversations. One of the most common things seen in politics is that both major political parties like to talk about each other and make many claims about the opposite party. But, how much does each group truly know about each other?
Within Dr. Julia Shaw’s “The Memory Illusion” (2016) novel, asymmetric insight is defined as “the tendency for people to view themselves as more complex than others so they assume that they know more about another person than that person themselves does” (p.154). For example, you may think that someone likes certain foods on the surface, but they might not like or like other foods better.
Asymmetric insight can be seen in groups as well, where the in-group thinks they know the out-group better and vice versa. In one study, Pronin et al. (2001) studied how asymmetric insight affects a person’s bias when in a group. This study consisted of asking individuals what their political orientation was and asking about their stance on political topics, then weeks after they would ask them about how well each group knew each other. The study found that liberals and conservatives have asymmetric insight, finding that each group thought their group’s knowledge of the other group was greater than that of the other group.
Asymmetric insight is something that others can impact. Having others impact asymmetric insight benefits the spread of false information and confirms group biases. Weir (2019) looks at the idea of group identity and how the actions from having this identity are reflected in a person’s actions. This article discusses motivated reasoning and states that having a group and having an identity within that group affects what information is accepted and ignored. For example, Wier (2019) discusses a study where both Democratic and Republican participants were asked to rate their belief in factual and false statements made by Trump in the 2016 election. It was found that Republicans believed more statements linked to Trump and Democrats believed fewer statements linked to Trump. This feeds into asymmetrical insight when this gets applied to misinformation given out by members of the in-group, with individuals potentially believing false information just because they are in the same political party. Weir (2019) also discussed that conservatives in one study started believing statements that were labeled and that they knew as false information over time because of the conservative politician's name being linked to it. This shows in-group bias in that they think something is correct because someone from their group said this. Asymmetrical insight comes into play when these statements start discussing aspects of the other party, which can have people believing false information about the other party over time.
Asymmetric insight can also be affected by what is assumed to be true about other’s ways of thinking. Holland (2017) states that “if we have asymmetric insight, then it can be suggested that we may be dismissive of the fact that others have the same knowledge processing that we do” (para. 7). This quote shows that we can easily dismiss others and their ideas because we have the assumption of asymmetric insight. Dismissing ideas because we do not think others have the same brain functioning as us is something that is concerning when we all have these same functions and can all have the same assumptions. Asymmetric insight within individuals in a party can make this happen, and this can help perpetuate the idea within others that their party is better because of the assumptions made that they think differently than the other group. This could be thinking more critically about things, or that the other party does not have the brain processing like their party does. This sort of thinking is the main way that individuals can develop confirmation bias and the backfire effect when looking at information. Cau and Tintarev (2024) looked at how highly opinionated internet users clicked and searched for information based on what is recommended to them. What they found within their study was that when these users were exposed to search results going against their beliefs, they would be less likely to click on any of the results and they would be less likely to use the search function again. This shows confirmation bias within the study in that people are more likely to be looking for information that confirms their views when looking for information, and the backfire effect can be found with opinionated individuals not finding information that can contribute to them feeling stronger about their beliefs. Within politics, this could be seen when someone is looking for information on a nominee, and when looking for information they end up leaning towards their biases.
Overall, the political landscape and the biases that come from it help feed into our asymmetric insight. Research and learning about what is going on politically is something important that can help work against these biases. As this year is a larger election year, this is an important step in the voting process, with the other being to go vote.
References
Cau, F. M., & Tintarev, N. (2024). Navigating the Thin Line: Examining User Behavior in Search to Detect Engagement and Backfire Effects. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 403–419). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_30
Holland, E (2017). How well do you really know your acquaintances? The illusion of asymmetric insight. CogBlog. https://web.colby.edu/cogblog/2017/04/16/how-well-do-you-really-know-your-best-friend-the-illusion-of-asymmetric-insight/
Pronin, E., Kruger, J., Savitsky, K. & Ross, L. (2001). You don’t know me, but I know you: The illusion of asymmetric insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 639-656. https://doi.org/10.1O37//OO22-3514.81.4.639
Shaw, J (2016). The memory illusion. Penguin Random House.
Weir, K (2019). Politics is personal. American Psychological Association.https://www.apa.org/monitor/2019/11/cover-politics