Political bias affects brain activity, study finds

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lefty Wilbury, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Lefty Wilbury
    Offline

    Lefty Wilbury Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +36
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

    Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
    Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans show

    Jim Bourg / Reuters file
    Subjects were asked to evaluate statements by President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, seen here after a debate on Oct. 8, 2004. Both Republicans and Democrats ignored information that could not rationally be discounted, the study found. INTERACTIVE


    Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET Jan. 24, 2006
    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."

    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 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.

    A brain-scan technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI, 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.

    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.
     
  2. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Funny.

    In my own observation, there's something to this. People just kind of pick "the liberal team" or "the conservative team" and try sticking to it. I see lots of smart folks trying to do this, as well as dumb folks, both sides. It's not completely ridiculous, though. For ease of reference, we all want to know which "side" you're on. Everyone's frustrated when you say, "well, I'm not really conservative or liberal..."

    Of course you are!
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Yeah, but WHO'd they test? Bob Dole and Jimmy Carter? :laugh:
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Why? Why does someone have to be conservative or liberal? Why is it not feasible for someone to think on his/her own?
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    I don't agree with the findings of that study. So I'm ignoring this thread.
     
  6. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    Oh, sure, it is... but even as someone who prides myself on "thinking for myself," the truth is I only do this occasionally. Usually I pick up on arguments made by others I agree with. Throughout my life, it's almost always been conservatives, from P.J. O'Rourke to George Will. These days, I find myself agreeing with white nationalists like Jared Taylor. (At the office of course I just say I'm a "Pat Buchanan conservative" and that's controversial enough! At least that explains why I'm conservative but not excited about Bush, the immigration flood or the war.)

    But I stand by the idea that most people figure you for one side or the other, and the only viable third option these days is "libertarian."
     

Share This Page