Posted on 01/26/2006 8:02:40 PM PST by neverdem
Liberals and conservatives can become equally bug-eyed and irrational when talking politics, especially when they are on the defensive.
Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.
"Everything we know about cognition suggests that, when faced with a contradiction, we use the rational regions of our brain to think about it, but that was not the case here," said Dr. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory and lead author of the study, to be presented Saturday at meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in Palm Springs, Calif.
The results are the latest from brain imaging studies that provide a neural explanation for internal states, like infatuation or ambivalence, and a graphic trace of the brain's activity.
In 2004, the researchers recruited 30 adult men who described themselves as committed Republicans or Democrats. The men, half of them supporters of President Bush and the other half backers of Senator John Kerry, earned $50 to sit in an M.R.I. machine and consider several statements in quick succession.
The first was a quote attributed to one of the two candidates: either a remark by Mr. Bush in support of Kenneth L. Lay, the former Enron chief, before he was indicted, or a statement by Mr. Kerry that Social Security should be overhauled. Moments later, the participants read a remark that showed the candidate reversing his position. The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual.
The Republicans in the study judged Mr. Kerry as harshly as the Democrats judged Mr...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions. The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "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." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.
Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "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."
During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.
Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.
Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.
While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.
Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.
The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.
The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "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 says.
Coauthors of the study include Pavel Blagov and Stephan Hamann of the Emory Department of Psychology, and Keith Harenski and Clint Kilts of the Emory Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.
### Emory University is known for its demanding academics, outstanding undergraduate college of arts and sciences, highly ranked professional schools and state-of-the-art research facilities. For more than a decade Emory has been named one of the country's top 25 national universities by U.S. News & World Report. In addition to its nine schools, the university encompasses The Carter Center, Yerkes National Primate Research Center and Emory Healthcare, the state's largest and most comprehensive health care system. To access News@Emory RSS feeds, go to: http://news.emory.edu/Releases/RSSFeeds1124313225.html.
I dunno... my own experience is that liberals are much more emotional. Their hands shake when you corner them.
Well, duh. Of course that would trigger people and piss them off!
Then again, we hear doctored "fake but accurate" anti-Bush stuff everyday. If reacting strongly to it means "bug-eyed" then so be it, lol.
It is possible to override these biases, Dr. Westen said, "but you have to engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.' "
He added, "It speaks to the character of the discourse that this quality is rarely talked about in politics."
Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.
Did anybody put the researchers in an MRI and see how their brains lit up while they came to their conclusions?
What about people who switch party affiliations?
If it's in the Times, I want verification from two independent sources.
Explains a lot of Freeper posts I've read. If you can call it "writing."
LOL! "and you know what I'm talking about."
Same here.
I have friends across the political spectrum.
My more liberal friends are honest enough to admit they have more of a emotional attchement to their beliefs.
Often enough, when broken down, their ideas are more of a "The means justify the ends" type of thinking, where motive is more important then result.
We do joke that they have substituted politics for religion, but there is a fervor among many on the left that I've started calling "Left wing fundamentalism".
Goes back to an old saying "When the the facts don't fit the theory, disregard the facts".
still no cure for cancer. did they get a government grant for this? they need to go back to studying important things.. like why dog crap turns white. thats a mystery of the universe right there
Cancer is at least 200 different diagnoses. Brain imaging studies such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, fMRI, and positron emissiom tomography, aka PET scans, are offering fundamental insights into psychology, psychiatry and neurology.
Men hungrier for revenge than women, brain scan study reveals
Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others Sorry, but the last link is the original article in a pdf. format about the revenge link.
Dr. Drew Westen, who headed the study at Emory University, has conducted similar experiments before. In 1998 he structured another test around the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. The results?
According to that study's conclusion, "people's political judgments at every point in the scandal bore minimal relation to their knowledge of relevant data but were strongly predicted by their feelings about Democrats and Republicans, Clinton and high status philandering "alpha-males," feminism, and infidelity."
Dr. Westen's major areas of research are personality and personality disorders, adolescent psychopathology, psychotherapy, eating disorders, emotion regulation, emotional influences on political decision making.
He has been a commentator for “All Things Considered” on National Public Radio (NPR) and has performed as a stand-up comic.
"The quotes were doctored for maximum effect but presented as factual."
In other words, they were exerpted from the front page of the NYT...
What the study is telling us is that all the people at the times are Really very emotional arent they?
I used to be a stauch Dem, but since 1998 have been voting staunchly Republican. Wonder how they'd explain me?
The last time I was in a MRI, it was like being stuffed in a torpedo tube while all the hammers of hell banged on it.
Your tax dollars at work.
Yes, exactly. The way I tend to describe it is: Conservatives have principles. Liberals have goals.
No, it proports that highly partisan people are very emotional about politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.