Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Partisanship and (un)reason

This just in: partisan loyalty shuts down your brain.

Via Ron Bailey at Hit & Run:

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


(In other news: dogs are adept at barking.)


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.

"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."

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.



(They needed a study for that?)

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator 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.


Presented with the results of the study, Republicans vehemently insisted that its findings applied mainly to Democrats, while the Democrats maintained the reverse.

Just kidding.

22 comments:

Mark B. said...

This just in - Emory University researchers have also confirmed that the sun rises in the East, bears continue to leave unsightly messes in the woods, and the Pope stubbornly insists on remaining Catholic.

Anonymous said...

Cathy,

We had fun with this yesterday over at centerfield. It made my day.

Since I'm not sure how to contact you otherwise, I want to point out the following Boston Globe article since it seems to be something that's right up your alley: Male Students Sues School for Systemic Bias Against Boys

I'm starting a thread on it over at centerfield, too.

bk from centerfield

Cathy Young said...

BK--thanks. And interesting item. Btw, my email address (two of them as a matter of fact!) is on the home page of the blog. ;)

Zack M. Davis said...

I find this study deeply disturbing. While the tests were specifically on devotees of the United States's two major parties, I don't see any reason to assume this phenomenon wouldn't be found in anyone else who strongly believes something. And that's damn scary, because the implication is that we believe what we believe not from reason, but from arbitrary emotional commitment.

But one can never disregard science simply because the results disturb one--and in this case any fool trying to do so would surely die of irony.

But similarly one can never renounce ideology altogether simply because it could very well be that one is not as rational as one would tend to think one is.

I guess all you can do is check your premises. Check them hard, and if you still think you're right, keep on fighting harder than ever before. Figuratively speaking.

Cathy Young said...

Zack, interesting point. I think one good measure of how "rational" you are is how you deal with information that contradicts your deeply held beliefs, whether it's about a political candidate or about anything else. I think that for a lot of people the first impulse is to try to find some means of explaining away this information.

reader_iam said...

I can't decide whether I like your line about dogs barking better or the kicker to your post.

Funniness aside, there are some sobering and disheartening implications here.

Linked.

colagirl said...

I don't see any reason to assume this phenomenon wouldn't be found in anyone else who strongly believes something.

I completely agree. In fact I'm pretty sure I've seen examples of similar phenomena in academia, when members of various theoretical camps argue with (or past) each other, as well as in various fandoms. I think at bottom, human beings are a lot less rational than we like to imagine we are.

AprilPNW said...

This blog has kinda petered out since NYT's "select" regime, but www.lyinginponds.com attempted to score pundits on their partisanship.

But what Zack said really hits home for me. I gave up discussing religion with people many years ago, as I found little point in debating a subject that has nothing to do with reason. Politics has become increasingly more "religious" in mindset (the "saved vs the unsaved", "don't question my faith and don't bother me with the facts" ect..) - so I added that to my list of "don't discuss".

Revenant said...

The same phenonmenon crops up in familial and romantic relationships.

It is probably an evolutionary adaptation to group living -- if we didn't tend to suppress our distrust of people in our social group society would fall apart.

Cathy Young said...

I agree that this probably applies to any strongly held beliefs, not just about politics.

What troubles me is that these days, so many people don't even make an effort to look fairly at both sides -- they wave their partisan bias like a banner.

Revenant said...

What troubles me is that these days, so many people don't even make an effort to look fairly at both sides -- they wave their partisan bias like a banner.

Do things really seem worse to you? To me it seems like the only difference between the 80s, 90s, and the present day is that there are a lot more outlets for people to express partisan rancor in. There weren't a whole lot of Democrats interested in giving Reagan's ideas a fair hearing, or many Republicans interested in listening to Jimmy Carter. Go back a few generations more and party affiliation was even more openly tied to cultural identity -- e.g., if you lived in the south, you voted Democrat, period.

AprilPNW said...

Interesting article on Tech Central Station about developing world views that are not based in reason, and serve merely to make one feel good:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=012706B

Cathy Young said...

April, very interesting piece. Thanks for the link.

drumgurl said...

I too found the TCS Daily piece interesting. However, I find it odd that people who call themselves conservatives love Milton Friedman -- because Friedman calls himself a liberal (and so does Hayek). Does it just come down to how we define liberal and conservative?

I do not consider myself a conservative. According to the dictionary, I'm not. But according to Arnold Kling, I certainly am.

Perhaps it is a negative emotional response to Pat Robertson and the IWF that I don't want to call myself conservative? Not that I'd call myself a Democrat, either, which is definitely a negative response to Keynesian economics.

Anonymous said...

People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive. - Blaise Pascal, The Art of Persuasion

I also found the Tech Central article interesting, although the implications one is left with vis a vis Friedman, Volcker and Monetarism are somewhat misleading. Friedman was a Nixon economic adviser when things went bad, he was highly critical of the Volcker reign as Fed Chairman and the decisions he made, and Friedman has recently admitted that "The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success".

Anonymous said...

Its kind of funny to me that the TCS link basically reinforced my opinion of why political dialogue is so nasty these days. IMHO, the boomers, those just younger, and the boomer's parents are still obsessed with the late '60s, early 70s cultural changes. I have found that it is nearly impossible to have a conversation with a political conservative who is 45+, without the 60s & 70s coming up. Either they were conservative then, and felt marginalized and are still mad about it. Or, they completely bought all the tenants of the counter-cultural revolution, realized those tenents were flawed (as are all new ideas), switched to conservatism, and now have all the zeal and anger of the newly converted.

As I was only just BORN in the late 60s, I am really more interested in what is happening NOW. I believe that it is important to learn from history, but it is not particularly useful to either filter every political idea through 1968 or to compare everything to what liberals from 1968 would think. I seriously wonder if many conservatives (especially some of the loudest pundits) have even READ a liberal rag since the 1970s. I don't mean the NYT. I mean a REAL liberal rag, like the Utne Reader, Mother Jones, or ODE. Contrary to popular conservative opinion, you are much more likely to see an article praising micro-credit programs or polution credit exchanges than articles praising communism or welfare.

Sorry to rant, it just irks me to no end that ideas can't just be evaluated by their merit alone, regardless of whether the idea came from the left, right, or center.

Z

opit said...

One of my favourite quips has been "It isn't the things I don't know that are a problem ; it's the things I know that aren't so"

Mike said...

One who, for instance, believes that there's never any difference between the political parties is just as likely to fail to deal with the information that contradicts _that_ deeply held belief.

Not that there's any of THAT going on here. Of course not. Kerry would have been worse!

nike said...

nike shox nz
discount nike running shoes
which is usually used in the midsole of the running shoes and casual shoes.
EVA is quite lightweight, elastic, flexible and suitable to a variety of climates.
discount nike shoes
nike shox shoes
cheap nike shoes
PHYLON. Phylon is the product of the EVA after the second processing. Just as the rubber
nike sports shoes
puma running shoes
puma sneakers
The midsole of running shoes, tennis shoes and basketball shoes in the world is made PHYLON.
nike air max tn
puma cat
puma shoes
The upstanding hardness, density, traction and extension make it favorite by the manufacture.
nike running shoes
wholesale nike shoes
nike shoes
Just as a coin has two sides, Phylon is nonrecoverable and easily shrink under high PHYLON.
nike shoes kids
nike women shoes
swimwear in an austere tone proposal combines the exclusive tailoring, Cool down, sunshine fair,
ed hardy outerwear
ed hardy womens
ed hardy womens jeans
green MOISTURE, attractive red no other elements, together with the unique thwart-buckle create
ed hardy bags
ed hardy winter boots
ed hardy t shirts
Whether it is sexy bikini, or cross-quantity g-star trunks intended to reach new heights with this
ed hardy bags
ed hardy winter boots
ed hardy t shirts
The desired redden of this type of bag, but once again the label that ed hardy and the Christian Audigier Brand Manage Louboutin at MAGIC in August 2009.
ed hardy t shirts for men
ed hardy mens jeans
ed hardy mens shoes
The total spectrum of Audigier Brand Management lifestyle brands and crop will be including ed hardy shirts,
ed hardy mens shoes
ed hardy womens hoodies
ed hardy mens tees

nike said...

Rubber. Rubber is widly used in the outsole of the athletic shoes.
cheap puma shoes
discount puma shoes
It has the advantages of durable, skipproof, flexible, elastic, extensive, stable and proper hardness.
nike shox torch
nike tn dollar
cheap nike shox
PU is a kind of macromolecule polyurethane materials which is offten used in the midsole
cheap nike shox shoes
nike shox r4
puma mens shoes
Sometimes, it is also used in the outsole of casual shoes.
PU is durable, strong hardness, upstanding flexbility and more important, it is environmentally
cheap nike max
discount nike shox
cheap puma ferrari shoes
The disadvantage is also outstanding. Strong hydroscopic property, break apart and EVA.
nike mens shoes
ed hardy womens hoodies
ed hardy mens tees
You will never find swimsuit more excellent than in Ed Hardy!
ed hardy ugg boots
ed hardy love kills slowly boots
ed hardy love kills slowly
We provide you with the sexiest swimwear at present. Wanting to be bright on beach in this
ed hardy polo shirts
ed hardy love kills slowly shoes
ed hardy wear
Abandoning traditional concepts on sexy swimwear, Ed Hardy adds tattoo upon, which is meaning
ed hardy love kills slowly shirts
ed hardy trousers
ed hardy jackets
It seems that ed hardy mens shoes was difficult to be able to let you exist out in swimwear, the
ed hardy t shirts sale
ed hardy womens t shirts
ed hardy boots
In the trunks term, the Panerai candy-flush has mainly took the Louis Vuitton Speedy purpose
ed hardy womens clothes
ed hardy womens shirts
ed hardy clothes

aiya said...

Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Microsoft word
Office 2007
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Office 2007
Office 2007 key
Office 2007 download
Office 2007 Professional
Outlook 2010
Microsoft outlook
Microsoft outlook 2010
Windows 7

Peter said...

nice share thanks a lot :)

download free pc games
affiliate review