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 today.
"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."
I'm pretty sure this happens in general, rather than just in the political arena. Religion, race, socioeconomic status - even topics as innocuous as musical preference. Discussion involving strongly held opinions routinely results in parties simply not listening to each other.
I do honestly enjoy considering Ray and his more notable supporters as being intellectually defficient - and they're usually eager to provide evidence to this effect. Yet, the above study suggests something different...
So here's the question: are fundamentalists doing this? Are they communicating via emotion? Is the phenomenon in the above study the result of a willful disabling of the intellect, or is it involuntary?
Posts
Very interesting...
ReplyDelete"So here's the question: are fundamentalists doing this? Are they communicating via emotion? Is the phenomenon in the above study the result of a willful disabling of the intellect, or is it involuntary?"
As long as we're asking ourselves the same question, I think we can find an answer...
I think the more valid question is this: are we guarding ourselves against it?
ReplyDeleteHere's an example: I am strongly opposed to the nuclear industry. I have seen and read a lot of facts about it's history, practices, costs, dangers etc. that make me firmly believe that it is a terrible and ineffective solution to global warming, even as a stop-gap. We should be investing in renewables: if America had given renewable research as much money as nuclear in the past, we'd live in a world where they were far more cost effective.
But here's the catch: I hold this opinion so strongly that I have difficulty accepting the pro's of nuclear. My mind engages those other circuits, and my reasoning is thrown out of the window. I can fight this, but the simple fact is that it would take far more to sway me on this issue than it would an unbiased observer with the exact same knowledge.
All I'm saying is, don't let it get you.
[Goes to sleep cradling shotgun]
Q,
ReplyDelete"We should be investing in renewables:"
What renewables?
EPM wrote As long as we're asking ourselves the same question, I think we can find an answer...
ReplyDeleteYup, couldn't agree more.
I'll be honest: I hang around the Raytractors for several reasons, one of which is to keep myself honest. Some of the controversy here enables me to work on reacting impassionately, while reminding myself that I'm not exactly like the people I'm agreeing with.
I'm not being dishonest or anything - I say what I mean. But I watch carefully for emotional reactions, both in myself and in the people I'm blogging with.
I'm almost positive fundamentalists do not do the same.
@Froggie: renewable energy resources. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc
"So here's the question: are fundamentalists doing this? Are they communicating via emotion? Is the phenomenon in the above study the result of a willful disabling of the intellect, or is it involuntary?"
ReplyDeleteI would say that it isn't either/or, but a combination, just as motor skills combine both voluntary and involuntary action. But I think a large part is emotion, and conditioning.
But Ben - I don't think I see people anywhere reacting with a combination of emotion *and* rational consideration. The reaction itself appears binary...
ReplyDeleteWEM
ReplyDeleteThe best studies I've read about brain function liken the brain to an orchestra. In the case of epilepsy, the analogy is made that the conductor is conducting, but the instruments are playing randomly, rather than together.
The brain functions at such a high level, that I don't think that just one section can be completely isolated and not functioning, short of some type of impairment, or trauma.
I may be wrong, after all, It's not like it's brain salad surgery.
Or the theory of relativity.
(Comfurt is such a putz!)