PDA

View Full Version : Heh, partisanship can be medically explained


mlyonsd
01-24-2006, 12:43 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182641,00.html

Study: Democrats, Republicans Both Ignore Facts
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
By LiveScience Staff
Live Science

Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.

And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced Tuesday.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones." Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other.

The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction.

The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen said.

Vote for Tom Hanks

Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, such as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in the same manner.

The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail.

"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.

The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.

patteeu
01-24-2006, 12:56 PM
It would be more interesting if they gave us some examples, but I guess that's what they will be doing on Saturday.

mlyonsd
01-24-2006, 01:35 PM
It'd be interesting to hook up several of us planet members to finally prove once and for all if they were moderate/centrist/conservative/liberal whatever.

Boozer
01-24-2006, 02:32 PM
I can't say I'm shocked. I firmly believe that most partisan individuals often "backwards-reason" their way to positions on disputed issues. For example, I'm guessing most liberals really haven't thought about the scientific evidence of global warming, rather, the thought process goes like this: "I support keeping the environment clean, many scientists believe that pollution also warms the Earth, because this fact (if true) makes my opponents' stance even worse, I believe it. Let's find more stuff that says pollution will cause the end of the world" Sometimes, I suspect that the reasoning starts a step before that. An example from the other side: "I'm a conservative/Republican, our political opponents support laws restricting emissions to stop global warning, there are some scientists who say that global warming isn't a problem, therefore I choose to believe it's not. Let's find more evidence that restrictinons on emissions aren't needed." In either case, the decision is made first, then facts are gathered to support it.

tiptap
01-24-2006, 02:55 PM
I can't say I'm shocked. I firmly believe that most partisan individuals often "backwards-reason" their way to positions on disputed issues. For example, I'm guessing most liberals really haven't thought about the scientific evidence of global warming, rather, the thought process goes like this: "I support keeping the environment clean, many scientists believe that pollution also warms the Earth, because this fact (if true) makes my opponents' stance even worse, I believe it. Let's find more stuff that says pollution will cause the end of the world" Sometimes, I suspect that the reasoning starts a step before that. An example from the other side: "I'm a conservative/Republican, our political opponents support laws restricting emissions to stop global warning, there are some scientists who say that global warming isn't a problem, therefore I choose to believe it's not. Let's find more evidence that restrictinons on emissions aren't needed." In either case, the decision is made first, then facts are gathered to support it.

I only give scientific reasoning for the radical production of COtwo. We produce 150 times the amount produced naturally by volcanoes. That increase production correlates with the overall average increase in the amount of COtwo in the atmosphere as measured at the top of isolated mountains and at the south pole. We know that COtwo and other greenhouse gases interact with wavelengths of light that would be reflected into space but instead are partially reflected back. (no COtwo and the temperature would be -40.) There are no places on earth where glaciers are building. All are retreating. The worlds average temperatures has only gone up over the last 10 years.

As far as pollution, have a cup of tea from Love Canal or parts of Louisiana.

Boozer
01-24-2006, 03:30 PM
I only give scientific reasoning for the radical production of COtwo. We produce 150 times the amount produced naturally by volcanoes. That increase production correlates with the overall average increase in the amount of COtwo in the atmosphere as measured at the top of isolated mountains and at the south pole. We know that COtwo and other greenhouse gases interact with wavelengths of light that would be reflected into space but instead are partially reflected back. (no COtwo and the temperature would be -40.) There are no places on earth where glaciers are building. All are retreating. The worlds average temperatures has only gone up over the last 10 years.

As far as pollution, have a cup of tea from Love Canal or parts of Louisiana.

Hey, I didn't say it's true of everyone. And environmental policy was just an example. No one on this board has the range of expertise to fully understand the whole range of positions he takes.