Why are polls sensitive to the exact wording of the question?
A surprising parallel to Quantum Mechanics.

Human decisions (such as answers to a question) can be understood by assuming the mind to be a system that is quasi closed. It has interactions with the world only during information reception or questioning, but most of the time, it is subject to internal processes that are going on continually. There is a similarity to certain aspects of quantum mechanics and it is possible to clarify our understanding of both problem areas by using basically the same idea.

In micro physics, the physics of atoms and elementary particles, as it is treated with the mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics, a basic question baffled people for a long time, and it is still somewhat of a controversial subject. Why was it not possible to find a way to predict exactly a future interaction between a particle and the measurement apparatus? Einstein had raised the problem in his famous EPR paper [1]: in physics, the three authors claimed, we must seek to represent a state of nature exactly and go beyond the statistical prediction as it is given in quantum mechanics, because the use of statistics indicates only an incomplete knowledge of reality. There were many efforts in physics to overcome this problem with the so called hidden parameter theories, but after several attempts, these must up to now be considered a failure. A principal difficulty seemed to exist and we have to accept that mere probabilities are all that can be given by any theory! But why is this so?  The same situation exists in attempts to predict the action of a person. Only probabilities for certain decisions can be stated - it is not a deterministic situation.

Bohr, in response to the EPR paper, explained the need for statistical prediction with what became known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, but many physicists still today refuse to accept this as too philosophical. They are fixed on Classical Realism, or strong realism, where objects have inherent properties (such as the character with its current beliefs in the case of a person) that will determine their behavior in respect to a future experimental situation. Bohr's interpretation was considered as a denial of Realism because it stipulated the particle as existing without a definite property which would determine its reaction at the next interaction.

Bohr distinguishes two sources of uncertainty regarding a state of nature: an uncertainty due to problems of obtaining the information (epistemic or measurement uncertainty, such as the usual explanation of Heisenberg's uncertainty), and an intrinsic uncertainty which we can call ontic uncertainty. But what is the origin of this ontic uncertainty? In Bohr's theory the quantum object has only relational properties, i.e., it assumes the property in the interaction and does not have it as an inherent property that exists before the interaction. As is to be expected, this is very difficult to explain and leads to all kinds of erroneous concepts, the worst of which is the claim that the measurement depends on a human mind to get the information about the particle (which in quantum mechanics collapses the wave function - how else could the wave function collapse as a result of the measurement?). This is the source of the opinion that the Copenhagen Interpretation is subjectivistic, but this is a serious accusation for physicists who attempt to be as objective as possible, and it has no basis in facts.

We cannot assume that quantum objects have properties as such - without, or before, they are being tested because, according to the result of the experiments, a particle assumes its value of a physical parameter in the process of a specific interaction, but not before. Why this could be so remained unclear in many minds. However again, the idea that the critical point is human observation is a gross misunderstanding. The critical point is the interaction which fixes the state in respect to the "outside world".

I gained a better mental picture of the situation in an early experience that made me realize that we can observe this problem elsewhere too, even in our macro world. I had been working at the Observatory in Graz in 1952 and was on my way to my job in the evening when I saw, straight ahead, a terrific meteor slowly coming down and explode. I noted my observations and called the city paper asking readers who saw the same thing to please, write what they saw, on a postcard to me at the observatory, hoping I could deduce the location of the phenomenon.

The result was astonishing. I received perhaps fifty cards with some of the most unbelievable stories! Many were typical  “flying saucer” observations! One or two were obviously totally invented - on the spot! When I mentioned this to my newly acquired uncle in law, an experienced lawyer, he said that this did not astonish him the least. Many people you must know, he said, are very poor witnesses, they have a general memory of the event, but develop their opinion while they speak! Most do not know exactly what they are going to say, they just answer questions and more details come out only in response to these searching questions - but these are details of which they themselves had no clear idea that they knew them! Of course, this can be devastating to their counsel who did not know these details when he prepared for the case.

Here is the crucial point: these people behave just like a quantum particle! I think that both, the particle and the mind of the witness, are complicated, semi closed systems that have only occasional interaction with the outer  “reality”, but in the meantime have continued internal (“amorphous”) developments of which we cannot have any idea because they are in flux, mostly below our consciousness, or in the case of particles, cannot be observed between interactions. Unless the person is trained to reflect on his experience and notes details immediately, these details do not exist in the mind in a concrete, i.e., fixed, verbalized way before the searching question forces the person to “take a stand”, which only now crystallizes the internal process in respect to the question. At this moment, the mind process changes the vague subconscious "feelings" into abstract knowledge and words. The same is true for many people also for the moment of voting itself, when last minute influences and the momentary emotional state can play a surprising role.

In the case of a particle, the internal processes allow only certain states that can be assumed under the conditions of the interaction (such as an ever changing facial expression caught at a snap shot of reality), which the theory can represent as probabilities. For this reason, I accept the Copenhagen view as a deep insight that is not in conflict with a realistic world view. But, we have to refine our understanding.

An analogous concept also explains the surprising sensitivity of the response to the exact wording of a question in the so called “scientific” opinion surveys!  The pollsters try to measure something that in most minds does not really exist in a clear and verbally fixed, abstract way before the question. How the vague feelings are translated into words depends, therefore, each time critically on the circumstances, the context and the exact wording of the question. At that moment of the question, the mind is forced to consider the specifics that are posed by the question and this guides his response in reference to his vague feelings, attitude, most recent experiences, and memory. 

In the case of the quantum particle, we have no way to know what internal processes take place between the interactions because we face an intrinsic uncertainty even in the process of information collection. We could say that the human mind faces here a barrier in principle, which is why the attempts to overcome the statistics in physics with deterministic theories had to fail. But it is really not just a curious mind which is shielded from the details of reality in the extremely small, it is the outside world for the time between interactions.  In  the Universe, we find that this is not the only domain which is separated from the rest of the world. The theoreticians think that the "black holes" have a total barrier that allows no exit to the outside. Similarly, we can have no idea what happens to a photon on its way between emission and absorbtion. As Prof. Wheeler jokingly remarked, it could very well transform itself into a fiery dragon until it is concentrated in the process of absorbtion.

Reference:

[1] The Einstein, Podolski and Rosen paper is reproduced on pages 137 ff. in J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (ed.) (1983), Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton.   This remarkable anthology of many classical papers on quantum theory contains also Bohr's extensive reply to Einstein's objections, i.e., the Copenhagen Interpretation.              

    Copyright @2005 by Gernot M. R. Winkler.      Last Correction  10/30/2009