In politics, the lost art of thinking

The recent awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Angus Deaton of Princeton caused me to ponder — well, think, actually — about his reliance on data and analysis.

It also reminded me of the book Moneyball (which I read at least 10 years ago), the story of Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics. He began using analysis of baseball data — rather than visual determinations such as “he looks like a ball player” — to determine which players the Athletics would draft and/or sign. Looking past the facade to the facts should be a thought process we all employ.

{mosads}In a recent article in The New York Times, Philip Tetlock and J. Peter Scoblic posed this question: “Is there a solution to this country’s polarized politics?” They cite a number of different instances, including the Iranian nuclear deal, where they saw both sides making non-falsifiable predictions and thus each side felt less accountable. In a recent speech to college freshmen, I quoted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for his call for a free college education for all, and former New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (R) for asserting that President Obama had dramatically expanded the federal government. The challenge to the students was to look past a statement that might appeal to them or anger them, and challenge the factual basis of those statements. If we listen to political speak, there is very little fact or analysis provided. That is not to say that facts aren’t provided, but they are frequently provided in a way that supports a non-falsifiable prediction.

Tetlock conducted tournaments of “superforecasters.” The most important factor arising out of these tournaments was that those who were successful “learned to seriously consider the possibility that they might be wrong.”

David Brooks recently wrote an op-ed in the Times in which he stated that “the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions … involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and to balance valid but competing ideas and interests.”

Deaton, Tetlock, Scoblic, Brooks and Moneyball all deliver essentially the same hypothesis from substantially different angles, backgrounds and perspectives.

This is not to suggest that we should become Spock-like (you remember “Star Trek”) in our views, but rather to say that when a hypothesis is put forward relying on instinct, do we, in fact, then break it down through analysis? Steve Jobs clearly relied heavily on his instinct in terms of products and product appearance, but equally focused on the functionality and then obviously on the results of sales to determine whether or not he had embarked on the right path.

If you listen to the media, whether left or right, virtually every sentence contains hyperbole and misstatement of facts, or at least an incomplete statement of fact that is being relied on to create the hyperbole.

If we are going to change how politics operates, particularly in Congress, both parties must learn the value of data, the analytic process, and then adopt two fundamental philosophies: (a) I could be wrong; and (b) how do I incorporate valid but competing facts or ideas into my solution?

Owens represented New York’s North Country from 2009 until retiring from the House in 2015. He is now a strategic adviser at Dentons out of its Washington office and a partner in the Plattsburgh, N.Y. firm of Stafford, Owens, Piller, Murnane, Kelleher & Trombley, PLLC.