
Not everyone sees the world in the same way. This is one reason why market economies work better than centrally planned economies. If everyone preferred black mid-sized sedans, you could have one government-owned auto manufacturer churn out millions of copies of a standardized car, and achieve significant economies of scale. But not everyone has the same taste.
None of this is particularly controversial. But the rest of this post will be a bit more controversial. I claim that most people underestimate the extent to which other people see the world differently from the way that they see the world.
I’ve met many people who like modern art, and many people who dislike modern art. In the later group, I often find a disbelief that anyone truly likes abstract art. I often hear people suggest that modern art lovers are faking their interest, in order to seem hip. What’s going on here? Before answering this question, let’s consider another example.
During the course of my life, there’s been a significant increase in political polarization. People no longer simply disagree with people holding differing views, they increasing regard the other side as bad people. More and more often, people will refuse to even date someone holding different political views, something that rarely occurred when I was young. What’s going on here? It’s not nice to suggest that those with different artistic tastes are fakers, nor is it nice to suggest that those with different political views are evil.
I don’t believe that increased political polarization is due to the issues becoming more important. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the world faced many very important issues, such as high inflation, the nuclear arms race and the Vietnam War. Instead, I believe the increased polarization is due to the (mistaken) impression that others are seeing what you see.
The people that cannot accept that other people like modern art suffer from a failure of imagination, an inability to grasp that other people process visual information differently than they do. People that view voters for the opposing party as evil often fail to grasp that not everyone sees political issues the way that they do.
Differences of opinion on economic regulation or corporate taxes don’t tend to cause political polarization. Voters understand that the issues are complex and that other people might have a different perspective. Polarization is most likely to occur when the issues seem more personal (trans rights, abortion, affirmative action, etc.) Polarization also increases when political styles become more diverse. People often gravitate toward the style they prefer, and wonder how anyone could possibly be attracted to the opposing candidate. Over the course of my life, I’ve seen increasing divergence in political styles.
At the same time, religious polarization has mostly been declining over time, except where a religion adopts an overt political stance.
Hypochondria is another example. Many doctors will assume that patients are faking an illness if the doctor is unable to diagnose the problem. A few decades ago, a colleague of mine (in his 40s) went to (highly rated) Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston complaining of chest pains. The hospital did a few tests and sent him home, perhaps viewing him as a hypochondriac. A few hours later he died of a massive heart attack.
Don’t assume that you know what’s going on in the minds of other people. You do not. You don’t believe that your neighbor needs a painkiller? How would you know? We need free markets precisely because we do not know what other people see and feel and taste.
READER COMMENTS
Todd Ramsey
Jun 30 2024 at 5:11pm
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I don’t agree with “Differences of opinion on economic regulation or corporate taxes don’t tend to cause political polarization. Voters understand that the issues are complex and that other people might have a different perspective.”
I see vitriol from people online who believe that proponents of corporate tax cuts are evil because they give money to the rich at the expense of the poor. These people aren’t considering that “issues are complex”. They never consider the possibility that others may favor corporate tax cuts because the cuts might be beneficial to the poor.
Mostly, the post is insightful, as usual. Although I still don’t appreciate modern art. 😉
Scott Sumner
Jun 30 2024 at 5:28pm
Yes, but I’d still insist there is a difference between forceful opinions and political polarization. People had forceful opinions on the Vietnam War, but it didn’t cause the tribalism that you see today.
David Seltzer
Jun 30 2024 at 5:59pm
“The people that cannot accept that other people like modern art suffer from a failure of imagination, an inability to grasp that other people process visual information differently than they do. People that view voters for the opposing party as evil often fail to grasp that not everyone sees political issues the way that they do.” In terms of methodological individualism, those you reference fail to accept the unique subjectivism for individuals.
The modernist artists, poets and writers began exploring their subconscious and dreams. They wrote and painted to depict their subject experiences. Freud, T.S. Elliot and Jackson Pollock to name a few. I suspect the great 20th century mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan was similarly gifted. Good stuff Scott.
David Seltzer
Jun 30 2024 at 6:00pm
Meant subjective.
Mark Barbieri
Jun 30 2024 at 6:45pm
I think polarization has increased because people can more easily avoid being exposed to different viewpoints. As news sources become more ideologically specialized, information consumers can choose the news sources that say what they want to hear (which encourages news sources to become more ideologically specialized). Opposing views sound more radical when you don’t hear them from people who you respect.
David Henderson
Jun 30 2024 at 6:49pm
Good post. It’s essentially Hayek’s “argument from ignorance,” which he saw, correctly, as a strong case for free markets.
Dylan
Jun 30 2024 at 7:11pm
When I was a teenager, I spent a lot of effort in trying to be different, while internally fearing that I wasn’t. As I’ve gotten older, it’s been interesting to watch those thoughts flip. My default is to assume that people are much the same, at least in the important matters, but fear that there are fundamental differences in how we view the world that inevitably lead to conflict.
I find the comment on political style preferences particularly insightful and something that I’ve been struggling to put into words. I’ve noticed when it comes to political candidates I’ve got strong aesthetic preferences for candidates that are well spoken, acknowledge nuance, and generally seem thoughtful. I find I elevate this above actual policy proposals most of the time I rationalize this by saying 1) Few candidates have policy positions anywhere close to mine, 2) I have little reason to expect they will implement the ones that we do share, and 3) I think the bully pulpit is one of the most influential powers that the president has, so I want someone who can eloquently make the case for the American idea. But, those are probably just justifications for my innate preferences.
What’s challenging for me, is really grasping that sizable portions of my fellow citizens have pretty much the exact opposite aesthetic preferences, and that group seems to be growing on both sides.
Grant Gould
Jun 30 2024 at 7:51pm
The place where you feel chest pain is in fact the hypochodrium — the bit of the body for which hypochondria was named, because people complained of pain in the hypochondrium so often.
So you colleague, rather than being a figurative hypochondriac, was a _literal_ hypochondriac.
Craig
Jun 30 2024 at 8:13pm
Big government is inherently polarizing. Even without NJ taking half my income in FL, government remains, by far, the single largest expense I face.
Scott Sumner
Jul 1 2024 at 1:20am
Everyone, Thanks. Good comments.
Jon Murphy
Jul 1 2024 at 9:46am
Good stuff. I have some thoughts, but I should note up front that my comment is based on my personal experience, not any hard data that I am aware of.
The attitude you describe of “fail[ing] to grasp that not everyone sees political issues the way that they do” seems to go hand-in-hand with the idea that there is only one correct answer to everything. I see that attitude strongest with those who tout slogals like “just follow the science” or use phrases like “it’s the only reasonable solution.” Believing themselves to be quite enlightened, they use this scientism as justification to exclude viewpoints. After all, in their mind, science and reason only lead to singlular conclusions. To them, “science” and “reason” are nouns used to describe a single, undeniable thing, rather than words used to describe a process to think about the world. There is only objective reality. Any deviation from their viewpoint is due to either ignorance or evil.
In short, I suspect we are seeing people falling under a myth of scientism: that there can only be one Objective Truth to everything. Subjectivity, differences in preferences or ideas, or really any differences, can only be explained by evil, propaganda, or ignorance. But science and reason are messy. The processes of science and reason tell us many objective truths exist, but also that subjctivity matters as well. The world is not black and white. What works for one may not work for another. To end with a lyric from Jim Croce: “Do you say what’s wrong for him is not wrong for me?
You walk the streets of righteousness but you refuse to understand
You say you love the Baby but then you crucify the Man”
Scott Sumner
Jul 1 2024 at 11:29am
Yes, I think science is best understood not as a set of objective facts, but rather as a relentless search for the truth, never assuming that we have final answers to complex questions. At best, science offers partial answers, which may be improved upon in the future.
Jennifer Rynbrandt
Jul 1 2024 at 4:36pm
Hello and really well done article!
I too, am fascinated by anyone decidedly not liking abstract art or even considering it’s relevance given it’s a direct reflection of the unending creative freedoms generously gifted to our nation by the First Amendment, something representational art enthusiasts often meditate on with ardent devotion.
I’m the Art Director at Sonder Magazine (online) and Editor at Conservatarian Press, a free speech boutique publisher. I hope that you’ll consider reading my piece “Abstract Art: A Visual Meditation on Free Speech” in Sonder Issue #3 at ConservatarianPress.com and think about sparring a bit more next time you’re confronted with a representational art stagnist. They often don’t understand what abstract art was born from or why. I realize that’s not the point of your piece, but it’s worth looking at, regardless.
Again, very nice read and thank you for writing it!
Jen Rynbrandt
Scott Sumner
Jul 2 2024 at 1:52am
Thanks Jennifer.
Rajat
Jul 1 2024 at 6:16pm
The funny thing is, I agree with every line of this post, and yet I find myself quibbling with the message. Yes, people have different tastes, and free markets help serve those tastes. But almost all of the political disputes between people in western countries are over the application of law and the allocation of society’s resources. To say that these issues should be left to the market, to choice and to bargaining, will strike whoever is currently the beneficiary of the status quo arrangements as unfair and, as such, the market allocation will not be adopted. Maybe in the US, modern art and ‘public’ radio is entirely funded by private individuals, but almost nowhere else. And in other areas, there’s almost always someone with a stake in the outcome. Should your unfortunate colleague have been kept in hospital for a few days? Should your neighbour get painkillers? Whose taxes or insurance are covering that? Should public universities apply affirmative action? Whose taxes are funding that? In the past, I’ve often applied the thinking in this post to ethnic and religious disputes in non-western countries. I’ve often asked myself why separatists exist – what do the Basques, the Quebecois, the Sikhs all want? Why are they so upset? When I ask people with those sympathies, they inevitably say that they want to be able to retain their language, their schools and forms of worship. So why doesn’t the national government allow that? Or maybe it does? So why the complaint? Most of the time, I can’t work it out. But at least in English-speaking countries, I can see the disputes for what they are – over the force of law and government taxing and spending.
Scott Sumner
Jul 2 2024 at 1:48am
I’m not quite sure I follow. You seem to be saying that markets don’t decide lots of questions in all countries. I agree. I’d even agree that markets shouldn’t decide all questions.
I do think that markets should play a greater role than they do today, in all countries.
Rajat
Jul 2 2024 at 3:00am
I guess what I mean is to ask what does it even mean to say that markets should play a greater role in all countries when so many issues are about government funding or rules. For example, should universities be allowed to apply affirmative action? Maybe so, if that is what students or their parents are seeking. But what if taxpayers are funding that university? Does the greater application of market forces mean that taxpayers no longer need to fund universities, except perhaps for basic research? The same goes for modern art and opera. Should your colleague have spent longer in hospital? Well, maybe the hospital was allocating its scarce resources as wisely as it could, ex ante. Perhaps your colleague should have been allowed to stay in hospital if he was willing to pay to stay? That’s fine, but would his insurance fund have covered it if not based on medical advice? Similarly, I don’t mind your neighbour taking painkillers if I don’t have to pay for it, either as a member of the same insurance fund, or as a taxpayer. Maybe if insurers were completely transparent in revealing what they cover, I wouldn’t mind because I could switch to another insurer or a less generous policy. The same goes for zoning. It’s easy to say there should be no zoning, but if one has already paid a lot of money for amenity on the understanding and expectation it would be protected, simply removing all zoning rules won’t strike many as fair. One day I spend a million dollars on a house with privacy and morning sun and the next day someone builds a 50 storey building next door which leaves me in shade and overlooked all day. That’s quite a different proposition to the government saying that in this new area (eg Gurgaon, Dubai), anything goes, or knowing that from the outset (like in Shanghai or Tokyo). The important political questions are about what should be or not be treated as a property right (or entitlement, if you prefer).
MarkW
Jul 2 2024 at 7:27am
My sense is that the current political polarization really got started with the aftermath of the 2000 election, was driven chiefly by the left, and derived from two explicit changes — denormalization and activism. The idea arose that it was a mistake to treat GWB or Republican generally as normal or to treat their arguments and ideas with respect. Doing so was a “mug’s game”. I am not sure he was the prime mover, but I remember this being exemplified by Paul Krugman’s NY Times columns. Those who disagreed with him were not just wrong, but either fools or knaves who were knowingly ‘arguing in bad faith’ (a common phrases at the time) or persisting with disproved ‘Zombie’ ideas. In any case, for Democrats to treat their political opposition as unworthy of basic respect was not an emergent phenomenon as much as it was a deliberate strategy.
The other change was the belief that (left wing) activism should be a core part of the mission in professions that formerly had declared standards of political objectivity and neutrality — specifically, the press, academia (and also big tech). And the nominally apolitical civil service. This change took roughly a generation to take effect fully as an older ‘objective’ cohort were gradually replaced (or canceled or cowed) by the young, new ‘activist’ cohort (though, of course, some of the older cohort were quite willing to adopt the new religion out of some combination of affinity and careerism). The institutions themselves came to explicitly select for activism (e.g. mandatory DEI statements) when hiring. And even where the organizational leaders were still members of the ‘objective’ cohort, they had so many rank-and-file activists in their organizations, that they felt it very difficult to enforce the old standards. In the news business, this trend was furthered as the Internet severely threatening revenue models and newspapers found that ‘red meat for true believers’ sold much better than objective reporting for the masses of all persuasions.
And so we are where we are, although all of this probably peaked during the Trump administration and the 2020 election and has receded somewhat as some institutions have been hurt by their embrace of activism (the ‘bud light’ effect?) Still, it’s probably going to take at least another generation to recover fully from this polarization.
Floccina
Jul 11 2024 at 8:50pm
I’ve read that a wine maker started to put 2 bottles of wine in some tastings and the experts sometimes rated one of the bottles the top and the other the bottom.
Could the people who think Jackson Pollock is a good artist real tell good art? I doubt it.
Knut P. Heen
Jul 12 2024 at 6:46am
Political polarization seems rather strange given the median voter theory. The problem with that theory is that there is no reason to vote if both sides cater to the median voter (identical programs). Now, if voter participation drops low enough, it becomes necessary to forget about the median voter and rather make sure that the core voters actually show up and vote. That is when both sides start to demonize each other to increase voter participation among the core. Once voter participation is up to max level, they start competing for the median voter again. Political polarization in the US must have been high back when the divide was Protestants vs. Catholics.
Comments are closed.