Finding truth in public policy is difficult, and often we are our own worst enemies. Research demonstrates that discovering information showing that we are wrong takes an emotional toll, so people actively avoid information that that may undermine our sense that we are righteous.

And when the issues are contentious, there are few incentives to take the risk and find contrary information.

When decisions are made based by politicians and distant bureaucracies - rather than those directly affected by policy - it is more likely decisionmakers will choose based on evidence that is ideologically convenient and avoid data that contradict their position.

The less connected we are to the costs of our decisions, the more likely we are to choose information that feels good, rather than taking the risk to find contrary data.

A high school student wrote a letter to the editor in The Seattle Times complaining of a “lack of clarity” in my recent editorial supporting passage of I-2117, which would repeal the state’s tax on CO2 emissions. She argued that I didn't provide evidence that Washington's CO2 tax is expensive, wasteful and costly.

Indeed, she is correct. I only had 700 words, so I focused on other things.

However, I have provided a lot of evidence elsewhere showing that the CCA has a very high cost, noting that in 2023, Washington was paying “outrageously more” than California, according to an expert at the University of California, Davis.

Additionally, I have shown that the money from the tax is being wasted on projects that yield tiny environmental benefits for very high cost.

So, if she was curious, she could have simply done a search to see if what I said was true. Instead, not searching was the safest way to avoid potential evidence that she was wrong, and I was right.

But let’s face it, when I was 18, I probably did the exact same thing. I looked for evidence that I was right so I could have a sense of intellectual and moral superiority rather than being curious and trying to find data that cast doubt on my position.

The problem is not that “kids these days” aren’t disciplined enough to look for evidence that undermines their beliefs. The problem is that adults aren’t. The simple fact is that it is easier to stay away from inconvenient evidence than it is to face the reality that you might be wrong or that your opponents may have a point.

Avoiding uncomfortable political opinions is widespread and both liberals and conservatives avoid hearing from people they disagree with. Research found that “people on both sides indicated that they anticipated that hearing from the other side would induce cognitive dissonance…” Another study found that people would refuse to read opinions different to theirs even if they were offered payment. There is an emotional price to be paid for engaging with ideas we disagree with, so we avoid it when possible.

What incentives do people have to pay that emotional price? Very few. To the contrary, when our politics are wrapped up in our self-image, there are strong incentives to reinforce our biases. Evidence that we are wrong is more than just embarrassing, it can become evidence that our conception of ourselves is wrong. That is a hard thing to face under any circumstances, and when there is little or no reward for facing that possibility, it isn’t surprising that people avoid information that risks self-examination.

For those of us working to improve policy outcomes and persuade others, it raises the question of how we can make dealing with difficult data more comfortable and even rewarding. One key is to connect people’s policy opinions to the costs and benefits of those policies.

When someone’s connection to a policy position is limited to how it makes them feel, the primary consideration will be maximizing the sense of righteousness. Since extreme positions often send the clearest signal about how much someone cares, the incentive is to become increasingly radical.

On the other hand, radical policies often have high costs and if advocates must pay all or part of those prices directly, they are more likely to look for more reasonable alternatives.

How to connect people more directly to policy outcomes is difficult and different for each situation. The first step is to stop the trend – evident among those on the left and right – of looking to politicians to use government to impose solutions to the problems we face. Outsourcing problems to politicians is easy, but as we have seen with so many policy failures, the results are frequently poor.

Which bring me to the point of my editorial in The Seattle Times. Handing control over important policy issues to politicians who have repeatedly failed makes little sense, unless the benefit isn’t helping the environment, but feeling good. That is true not just for high school students, but for too many in politics these days.