Maximum New York's Null Hypothesis
Formal instruction in government does not increase political competence
Anyone who purports to teach government should disprove this null hypothesis:
“Formal instruction in government does not increase political competence.”1
A null hypothesis theorizes that nothing changes, or that variables are not causally related. If you think otherwise, it is your job to demonstrate your opposing idea through experiment and evidence.2
In the case of government instructors, you should be able to point to the increased political competence of your students. You should also be able to explain the particular educational interventions that led to that competence.
I can point to both successes and failures as an instructor, although the successes come more frequently and regularly as time goes on.
Most people do not push back on this…in theory
They can see why the null hypothesis might be false. Of course learning more about the system you operate within will help you operate within that system.3
Learning music theory helps you as a musician, learning parliamentary theory helps you with parliamentary procedure, learning proper posture helps with physical training, and on and on.
And yet.
Most politicos at every level of government do not seek formal instruction in government (their undergrad political science degrees don’t count). Their knowledge is often ad hoc at best, and derived only from on-the-job experience. This typically means they have huge holes in the foundation of their knowledge, which causes them to think more narrowly and miss opportunities. They also forgo the compounding effects of acquired knowledge over time.
There is a lot of push back in practice
In practice, many people think—or act in such a way that implies—the null hypothesis is disproven for others, but not themselves.
Why? A non-comprehensive list of reasons:
People think they’ve been in the field too long to learn anything new. But government and law are sprawling. There is an unlimited amount to learn.
People, not having ever actually studied government in depth, are unaware of what they’re missing.
Bad experiences: they’ve had poor civics/gov/law instruction in the past, and conflate that experience with any possible learning experience. They do not seek better ones.
Hubris: it is hard to go back into learning mode if you have been avoiding it for so long, and your identity is based on not being in that mode.
While many people seem more willing to learn the ins and outs of electoral politics and running a campaign, far fewer are willing to learn the other 99% of politics that has to do with governing. I regularly speak with candidates running for office, and they have almost never read their relevant governing document, like the federal constitution. They and their staff will run a whole campaign, fundraisers, debates, and all, but couldn’t tell you basic facts about it or the job they’re running for. Nor do people usually ask them about this, often not knowing themselves.
“Someone else knows all that stuff, and I can just hire them.” Oh no. No, no, no. These people exist, but they are fewer than you think. And if you lack foundational knowledge, how exactly will you evaluate what these “more knowledgeable people” are saying to you?
Most politicos are square wheel aficionados
Identify your own relevant null hypotheses
The null hypothesis is structured such that you have to prove something happens, or is the case. The default is that nothing is happening. It’s harder to trick yourself when your hypothesis has backed you into a semantic corner that demands proof.
Whether starting a company, teaching government, or many other things, form your mission statement into a null hypothesis and try to disprove it.
“We will not make money if we advertise X product.” Disprove it.
“Students who learn government will not go on to achieve office.” Disprove it.
“Students who learn government will not become more or less optimistic than before they learned it.” Disprove it.
“If I go to the gym two days a week for a month, I won’t notice any difference.” Disprove it.
“After people learn about the Board of Estimate, nothing changes in their theory of NYC government.” Disprove it.
“The New York City Council passed no law to increase NYC’s housing supply in 2023.” Well…seems to hold up 😬
Tweet that originated this essay
Ben asked me for some null hypotheses about government! This was the first one that came to mind:
There is no meaningful difference in political effectiveness between people who learn about the system in a class and people who forgo formal instruction. (Many people’s behavior aligns with this idea.)
And then I realized it would make a good essay. Simple as.
The terms “government” and “politics” are defined here. For the purposes of this essay, you can think of them this way: government is the institution and set of procedures, politics is the social interaction that flows through them. Or: government is the water wheel, politics is the water.
Null hypotheses are a tool from the field of statistics, so their applicability to something that isn’t being statistically tested is conceptually fine, but practically distinct.
But always be aware of gestalt shifts that culminate in paradigm shifts.