Wikforss and colleagues argue in their reply that we misinterpreted our own data in our study because we are saying that reasoned, thinking about how people interpret information about immigration and crime occurs just as much among those who classify themselves as ”more of a Swedish” or ”more of a citizen of the world”.
What we meant by ”equal” was that ”the Swedes” was 18 percentage points higher probability to interpret the same information correctly when the numbers showed that the crime rate increased. This while ”Världsmedborgarna” was 20 percentage points higher probability to interpret the numbers correctly compared with ”Swedes”, when the numbers showed that the crime rate decreased.
This is because the experimental design does not really allow a direct comparison between ”Swedes” and ”Citizen of the world”. The same thing applies for the calculation in that Gen, and colleagues, presents in its reply, where the ”Swedes” have a seemingly greater effect of reasoned thinking. However, we believe that the most relevant comparison, given our study design, is to compare how people with conflicting worldviews (mis)interpret exactly the same information.
It is when we try to deny that we are vulnerable to reasoned thinking, or think that certain spectrums are exempt from this kind of thinking that it becomes dangerous for real.
None of this affects, however, the main message that we wanted to give expression to in our op-ed article. Namely, that reasoned thinking occurs among all philosophies and political camps. Contrary to what it sometimes given the impression in the public debate, is not some åsiktsläger immune to reasoned thinking.
This also shows the previous studies. Meta-analyses, where the results of several scientific studies made, show that both right - and left-wing americans are as prone to engage in reasoned thinking. Given the highly polarized political situation in Sweden, and the world in general, is this important for us to remember as we increasingly live in a world that encourages reasoned thinking. It therefore becomes all the more important that you look at yourself in the mirror and asking themselves the question why I believe what I believe.
Although science aims to be objective, but the tradition in science is acknowledged often that researchers are trying to defend their position until it is dead and buried beyond all reasonableness. We are no exception.
When we read the reply on our op-ed was the spontaneous reaction to this was nonsense and foolishness. It took a lot of painstaking thought into the headwind to come to the realization that our data may not allow us to conclude that reasoned thinking occurs as much for the ”Swedes” and ”Citizen of the world” in the specific case. Most of us use on a daily basis reasoned thinking and this way of taking on information is not automatically bad.
the Reasoned thinking is instead rooted in the strategies of simplified information processing which is required to effectively navigate in a complex information landscape. Without such simplifications, we would quickly become overloaded and informationsutbrända. But it is when we try to deny that we are engage in reasoned thinking or believe that certain spectrums are exempt from this kind of thinking that it becomes dangerous for real.