The Psychology of Partisanship

[Mac1958]

Good reads. The way i view it (aside from the sound assertion above regarding cognitive dissonance) many just don't cross check information. They become information loyalists. They will cling bitterly to bias information and don't bother to listen to anything else on a subject.

So yeah, they sincerely believe what they spew more often than not. And when confronted with conflicting information, immediately takes on a defensive position to insulate themselves from inner conflict over their loyalist information source.

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

I think the "why" is rooted in the economic situation we are currently in.

If you are ultra rich and have been doing great for the past 10 years, why not be a partisan for the party that promises you even more wealth.

If you have suffered from job loss, housing loss, retirement loss etc, why not be a partisan for the party that offers to help you regain your loss?

If EVERYONE from the top incomes on down were doing great (think back to the 50ties and 60ties) then I don't think that partisanship would be nearly as popular.

And of course I can't ever remember anywhere close to the nunber of partisan media outlets selling advertising and partisanship. And these outlets are having a big effect on the partisans.

Human nature seems to be partisan in a way. No one roots against their own self interest.
Unless you are a real big partisan.

When you are losing ground in the middle class but worrying about the taxes that the ultra wealthy pay or don't pay, you know you are an extreme partisan.

But I don't know why.

Well, according to what I'm seeing, the "why" is a personality trait that predisposes people to play the game. They're saying it's a self-esteem issue.

.

 

[rightwinger]

It goes beyond the psychology of partisanship to the total replacement of what is good for the country as a whole vs what is good for the party. Partisanship is more concerned with "our side won" than in "we all win"
Compromise is viewed as failure, win-win slut ions are derided because they allow the other side to win also

 

[Mac1958]

It goes beyond the psychology of partisanship to the total replacement of what is good for the country as a whole vs what is good for the party. Partisanship is more concerned with "our side won" than in "we all win"
Compromise is viewed as failure, win-win slut ions are derided because they allow the other side to win also

Yup, one of the pieces I've read this morning goes into that:

On Partisan Politics | Psychology Today

.

 

[zeke]

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

I think the "why" is rooted in the economic situation we are currently in.

If you are ultra rich and have been doing great for the past 10 years, why not be a partisan for the party that promises you even more wealth.

If you have suffered from job loss, housing loss, retirement loss etc, why not be a partisan for the party that offers to help you regain your loss?

If EVERYONE from the top incomes on down were doing great (think back to the 50ties and 60ties) then I don't think that partisanship would be nearly as popular.

And of course I can't ever remember anywhere close to the nunber of partisan media outlets selling advertising and partisanship. And these outlets are having a big effect on the partisans.

Human nature seems to be partisan in a way. No one roots against their own self interest.
Unless you are a real big partisan.

When you are losing ground in the middle class but worrying about the taxes that the ultra wealthy pay or don't pay, you know you are an extreme partisan.

But I don't know why.

Well, according to what I'm seeing, the "why" is a personality trait that predisposes people to play the game. They're saying it's a self-esteem issue.

.

I know that I don't think I am partisan. I have always rooted for the underdog and I have ALWAYS had a problem with authority. I don't think we should have to put up with fraud and abuse at any level. Ultra rich or ultra poor. Don't take advantage of a situation just because you can. I think that idea must come from believing in fair play.

That doesn't make me partisan, just pissed off. At 60 who woulda thunk it.
Good read Mac and thanks for the interesting thread. Later.

 

[spectrumc01]

I think it might be more simple than that. I think it boils down to competition. I think it matters little which side politicians are actually on. It is the winning of the election that matters most. Politicians move from state to state to run in elections i.e. Clinton from Arkansas to New York. Politicians change party all the time, mostly when they loose in the primaries and then run as independant, or they switch parties all together. Politicians seem to be playing the role of sports figure when it comes to which team they are playing for.

Our citizens are encouraged, cajoled, and badgered into joing a team / political party. Which side are you on? grab a sign and show your support. Our government is going to run with or without us, it's all about which side has won, and who gets bragging rights for the next four years when the competition starts again.

The winner of the election is more worried about having successes in office to prepare for their re-election campaign, than actually working for the country in it's best intrest. Mean while the other side is doing all it can to ensure the failure of the current winner. If the current winner fails than the odds of the current loser gets considerably better.

Our political system is broken, has been broken, and we need to find a way to fix it. All our current problems are just symptoms of the real problem, which is a broken system.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

This topic won't be very popular here, but what the hell.

I remain absolutely fascinated by the partisan mind - how a Partisan Ideologue (PI) arrives at a point where they appear to created a intellectual vacuum from which they simply cannot escape. PI's are so attached to their beliefs that they appear to be truly sincere when they automatically utilize spin, denial and diversion when confronted with simple facts. I've often wondered if this is just a big game, but after looking into the eyes of PI's - kind of like looking at the face of a Middle East religious zealot - I'm coming to the conclusion that they really do believe most of what they say.

There are many books out there about the power of the subconscious mind, and how we can essentially convince ourselves of many things simply by repeating them and buying into them. That has to play a part in this behavior, and it's obviously exacerbated by the intellectual commitment to people and networks like Fox, MSNBC, Limbaugh, Maddow, Hannity, Schultz, et al. These "pundits" are people who have a vested interest in feeding into this condition, and their "followers" clearly don't see it.

Here's an interesting piece I found while Googling "the psychology of partisanship" - many links, so I'm not the only one wondering about this - it links partisanship to self-esteem, which is something I've thought makes sense:

Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyalties Over Facts? : It's All Politics : NPR

From the piece:

Along with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, Nyhan said, he's exploring the possibility that partisans reject facts because they produce cognitive dissonance — the psychological experience of having to hold inconsistent ideas in one's head. When Democrats hear the argument that the president can do something about high gas prices, that produces dissonance because it clashes with the loyalties these voters feel toward Obama. The same thing happens when Republicans hear that Obama cannot be held responsible for high gas prices — the information challenges their dislike of the president.

Nyhan and Reifler hypothesized that partisans reject such information not because they're against the facts, but because it's painful. That notion suggested a possible solution: If partisans were made to feel better about themselves — if they received a little image and ego boost — could this help them more easily absorb the "blow" of information that threatens their pre-existing views?

Nyhan said that ongoing — and as yet, unpublished — research was showing the technique could be effective. The researchers had voters think of times in their lives when they had done something very positive and found that, fortified by this positive memory, voters were more willing to take in information that challenged their pre-existing views.

"One person talked about taking care of his elderly grandmother — something you wouldn't expect to have any influence on people's factual beliefs about politics," Nyhan said. "But that brings to mind these positive feelings about themselves, which we think will protect them or inoculate them from the threat that unwelcome ideas or unwelcome information might pose to their self-concept."

While I expect personal insults in response to this thread (from PI's, of course), please note again that I'm not the only one fascinated by this topic. Holy crap, folks are doing research and studies on it.

Anyway, thoughts?

.

There is a difference between being ‘partisan’ and being committed to a cause or political belief, however.

Unfortunately, for those passionate about politics and who want to be involved, our current political system forces that effort into only one of two channels, creating the perception of partisanism.

When Democrats hear the argument that the president can do something about high gas prices, that produces dissonance because it clashes with the loyalties these voters feel toward Obama.

Perhaps.

But it likely has more to do with the fact no president can do anything about gas prices.

 

[spectrumc01]

The president can look into the EPA and encourage a change in the Summer / Winter blend policies. That directly affects the price of gas.

 

[Bfgrn]

Good reads. The way i view it (aside from the sound assertion above regarding cognitive dissonance) many just don't cross check information. They become information loyalists. They will cling bitterly to bias information and don't bother to listen to anything else on a subject.

So yeah, they sincerely believe what they spew more often than not. And when confronted with conflicting information, immediately takes on a defensive position to insulate themselves from inner conflict over their loyalist information source.

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

Here is an interesting article from Psychology Today: The Ideological Animal | Psychology Today

"All people are born alike—except Republicans and Democrats," quipped Groucho Marx, and in fact it turns out that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are evident in early childhood. In 1969, Berkeley professors Jack and Jeanne Block embarked on a study of childhood personality, asking nursery school teachers to rate children's temperaments. They weren't even thinking about political orientation.

Twenty years later, they decided to compare the subjects' childhood personalities with their political preferences as adults. They found arresting patterns. As kids, liberals had developed close relationships with peers and were rated by their teachers as self-reliant, energetic, impulsive, and resilient. People who were conservative at age 23 had been described by their teachers as easily victimized, easily offended, indecisive, fearful, rigid, inhibited, and vulnerable at age 3. The reason for the difference, the Blocks hypothesized, was that insecure kids most needed the reassurance of tradition and authority, and they found it in conservative politics.

Here is the study by notable psychologists the late Jack and Jeanne Block. It goes a long way toward explaining exactly what you are saying about self esteem.

Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later-pdf

 

[GuyPinestra]

Our political system is broken, has been broken, and we need to find a way to fix it. All our current problems are just symptoms of the real problem, which is a broken system.

This is true, and the solution has been around for over 200 years, but people who 'know better' have completely ignored it.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

That guy was pretty smart, IMHO...

 

[spectrumc01]

Do all these articles help fix partisanship? I don't think so. They are explainations for partisanship, like the other side is just broken and if we fix the problem than partisanship will go away. If we can identify it at an earlier age (like a disease) we can correct it. This is getting scarier and scarier if you actually look at what is being discussed.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do all these articles help fix partisanship? I don't think so. They are explainations for partisanship, like the other side is just broken and if we fix the problem than partisanship will go away. If we can identify it at an earlier age (like a disease) we can correct it. This is getting scarier and scarier if you actually look at what is being discussed.

Science is beginning to explain these differences in actual physical differences in the brain...

Liberal vs. Conservative: Does the Difference Lie in the Brain? | TIME.com

The differences between liberals and conservatives run wide and deep, and a new study suggests they may even be reflected in the very structure of their brains.

In the study, led by Ryota Kanai of the University College London, people who identified themselves as liberals generally had a larger anterior cingulate cortex — a comma-shaped region near the front of the brain that is involved in decision-making. By contrast, those who identified as conservatives had larger amygdalas — almond-shaped structures that are linked with emotional learning and the processing of fear.

These structural differences, the authors suggest, support previous reports of differences in personality: liberals tend to be better at managing conflicting information, while conservatives are though to be better at recognizing threats, researchers said. “Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual’s political orientation,” said Kanai in a press release. “Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure.”

This is not the first attempt to locate the biological roots of party affiliation. In an October 2010 study, researchers from the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University identified a “liberal gene” — a variant called DRD4-7R, which affects the neurotransmitter dopamine — that has been linked with a personality type driven to seek out new experiences.

Another study from the University of Nebraska found that liberals and conservatives had different reactions to “gaze cues” — whether they tended to look in the same direction as a face on their computer screen. Liberals were more likely than conservatives to follow another person’s gaze, suggesting that people who lean right value autonomy more; alternative explanations suggest that liberals might be more empathetic, or that conservatives are less trusting of others.

 

[spectrumc01]

Science will provide us a way to identify our opposition and create ways to eliminate such opposition before it gets strong enough to actually be opposition. Is this a good thing to study?

 

[Bfgrn]

Science will provide us a way to identify our opposition and create ways to eliminate such opposition before it gets strong enough to actually be opposition. Is this a good thing to study?

There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[spectrumc01]

Science will provide us a way to identify our opposition and create ways to eliminate such opposition before it gets strong enough to actually be opposition. Is this a good thing to study?

There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson

Be careful of what you wish for...you might get it.
- I have no idea

 

[Bfgrn]

Science will provide us a way to identify our opposition and create ways to eliminate such opposition before it gets strong enough to actually be opposition. Is this a good thing to study?

There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson

Be careful of what you wish for...you might get it.
- I have no idea

If we can't deal with the truth, then there is no chance of solving our problems. We don't argue philosophical differences, ideologies or approaches...we argue what the truth is.

 

[chikenwing]

Good reads. The way i view it (aside from the sound assertion above regarding cognitive dissonance) many just don't cross check information. They become information loyalists. They will cling bitterly to bias information and don't bother to listen to anything else on a subject.

So yeah, they sincerely believe what they spew more often than not. And when confronted with conflicting information, immediately takes on a defensive position to insulate themselves from inner conflict over their loyalist information source.

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

why? simply put many are intellectually lazy, a casual glance at day time TV is proof positive.

 

[Wry Catcher]

.

This topic won't be very popular here, but what the hell.

I remain absolutely fascinated by the partisan mind - how a Partisan Ideologue (PI) arrives at a point where they appear to created a intellectual vacuum from which they simply cannot escape. PI's are so attached to their beliefs that they appear to be truly sincere when they automatically utilize spin, denial and diversion when confronted with simple facts. I've often wondered if this is just a big game, but after looking into the eyes of PI's - kind of like looking at the face of a Middle East religious zealot - I'm coming to the conclusion that they really do believe most of what they say.

There are many books out there about the power of the subconscious mind, and how we can essentially convince ourselves of many things simply by repeating them and buying into them. That has to play a part in this behavior, and it's obviously exacerbated by the intellectual commitment to people and networks like Fox, MSNBC, Limbaugh, Maddow, Hannity, Schultz, et al. These "pundits" are people who have a vested interest in feeding into this condition, and their "followers" clearly don't see it.

Here's an interesting piece I found while Googling "the psychology of partisanship" - many links, so I'm not the only one wondering about this - it links partisanship to self-esteem, which is something I've thought makes sense:

Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyalties Over Facts? : It's All Politics : NPR

From the piece:

Along with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, Nyhan said, he's exploring the possibility that partisans reject facts because they produce cognitive dissonance — the psychological experience of having to hold inconsistent ideas in one's head. When Democrats hear the argument that the president can do something about high gas prices, that produces dissonance because it clashes with the loyalties these voters feel toward Obama. The same thing happens when Republicans hear that Obama cannot be held responsible for high gas prices — the information challenges their dislike of the president.

Nyhan and Reifler hypothesized that partisans reject such information not because they're against the facts, but because it's painful. That notion suggested a possible solution: If partisans were made to feel better about themselves — if they received a little image and ego boost — could this help them more easily absorb the "blow" of information that threatens their pre-existing views?

Nyhan said that ongoing — and as yet, unpublished — research was showing the technique could be effective. The researchers had voters think of times in their lives when they had done something very positive and found that, fortified by this positive memory, voters were more willing to take in information that challenged their pre-existing views.

"One person talked about taking care of his elderly grandmother — something you wouldn't expect to have any influence on people's factual beliefs about politics," Nyhan said. "But that brings to mind these positive feelings about themselves, which we think will protect them or inoculate them from the threat that unwelcome ideas or unwelcome information might pose to their self-concept."

While I expect personal insults in response to this thread (from PI's, of course), please note again that I'm not the only one fascinated by this topic. Holy crap, folks are doing research and studies on it.

Anyway, thoughts?

.

Some thoughts:

1. Great idea for a threat - rep coming your way.

2. I'm not surprised research is on going. Some of which is likely based on learning more effective propaganda techniques; if that is not the intent it will likely be a result.

3.

A. Intuitively and empirically I've come to believe the more partisan the person the greater their propensity to counter (or try to) facts and ideas which conflict with their own using logical fallacies - ad hominem attacks, the use of the red herring, appeals to authority and emotion; a few seem to seek legitimacy with the use of the thesaurus and cute little wordy pejoratives ("LOLiberal" being one of the most common).

B. Similarly some resort to profanity and vulgar attacks of a perverse sexual nature against those who offer opinions which they cannot accept.

4. As a defense mechanism the very partisan also appear to be willfully ignorant; they avoid the feelings noted in the OP by refusing to read, watch or listen to anything which does not support their opinions.

5. While it's hard, I pity those who cannot or will not think critically and challenge their beliefs.

 

[Mac1958]

There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.
Thomas Jefferson

Be careful of what you wish for...you might get it.
- I have no idea

If we can't deal with the truth, then there is no chance of solving our problems. We don't argue philosophical differences, ideologies or approaches...we argue what the truth is.

Depends on what one means by "the truth". Right now, all "the truth" means is "my opinion". I do think that rational people should be able to agree on facts, but we can't even do that right now. We will not be able to start dealing with our existential problems until both sides can be intellectually honest and far less narcissistic.

Good reads. The way i view it (aside from the sound assertion above regarding cognitive dissonance) many just don't cross check information. They become information loyalists. They will cling bitterly to bias information and don't bother to listen to anything else on a subject.

So yeah, they sincerely believe what they spew more often than not. And when confronted with conflicting information, immediately takes on a defensive position to insulate themselves from inner conflict over their loyalist information source.

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

why? simply put many are intellectually lazy, a casual glance at day time TV is proof positive.

Yeah, I definitely agree that intellectual laziness is another primary factor.

.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This topic won't be very popular here, but what the hell.

I remain absolutely fascinated by the partisan mind - how a Partisan Ideologue (PI) arrives at a point where they appear to created a intellectual vacuum from which they simply cannot escape. PI's are so attached to their beliefs that they appear to be truly sincere when they automatically utilize spin, denial and diversion when confronted with simple facts. I've often wondered if this is just a big game, but after looking into the eyes of PI's - kind of like looking at the face of a Middle East religious zealot - I'm coming to the conclusion that they really do believe most of what they say.

There are many books out there about the power of the subconscious mind, and how we can essentially convince ourselves of many things simply by repeating them and buying into them. That has to play a part in this behavior, and it's obviously exacerbated by the intellectual commitment to people and networks like Fox, MSNBC, Limbaugh, Maddow, Hannity, Schultz, et al. These "pundits" are people who have a vested interest in feeding into this condition, and their "followers" clearly don't see it.

Here's an interesting piece I found while Googling "the psychology of partisanship" - many links, so I'm not the only one wondering about this - it links partisanship to self-esteem, which is something I've thought makes sense:

Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyalties Over Facts? : It's All Politics : NPR

From the piece:

Along with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, Nyhan said, he's exploring the possibility that partisans reject facts because they produce cognitive dissonance — the psychological experience of having to hold inconsistent ideas in one's head. When Democrats hear the argument that the president can do something about high gas prices, that produces dissonance because it clashes with the loyalties these voters feel toward Obama. The same thing happens when Republicans hear that Obama cannot be held responsible for high gas prices — the information challenges their dislike of the president.

Nyhan and Reifler hypothesized that partisans reject such information not because they're against the facts, but because it's painful. That notion suggested a possible solution: If partisans were made to feel better about themselves — if they received a little image and ego boost — could this help them more easily absorb the "blow" of information that threatens their pre-existing views?

Nyhan said that ongoing — and as yet, unpublished — research was showing the technique could be effective. The researchers had voters think of times in their lives when they had done something very positive and found that, fortified by this positive memory, voters were more willing to take in information that challenged their pre-existing views.

"One person talked about taking care of his elderly grandmother — something you wouldn't expect to have any influence on people's factual beliefs about politics," Nyhan said. "But that brings to mind these positive feelings about themselves, which we think will protect them or inoculate them from the threat that unwelcome ideas or unwelcome information might pose to their self-concept."

While I expect personal insults in response to this thread (from PI's, of course), please note again that I'm not the only one fascinated by this topic. Holy crap, folks are doing research and studies on it.

Anyway, thoughts?

.

Some thoughts:

1. Great idea for a threat - rep coming your way.

2. I'm not surprised research is on going. Some of which is likely based on learning more effective propaganda techniques; if that is not the intent it will likely be a result.

3.

A. Intuitively and empirically I've come to believe the more partisan the person the greater their propensity to counter (or try to) facts and ideas which conflict with their own using logical fallacies - ad hominem attacks, the use of the red herring, appeals to authority and emotion; a few seem to seek legitimacy with the use of the thesaurus and cute little wordy pejoratives ("LOLiberal" being one of the most common).

B. Similarly some resort to profanity and vulgar attacks of a perverse sexual nature against those who offer opinions which they cannot accept.

4. As a defense mechanism the very partisan also appear to be willfully ignorant; they avoid the feelings noted in the OP by refusing to read, watch or listen to anything which does not support their opinions.

5. While it's hard, I pity those who cannot or will not think critically and challenge their beliefs.

Agree on all points, thanks.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

Be careful of what you wish for...you might get it.
- I have no idea

If we can't deal with the truth, then there is no chance of solving our problems. We don't argue philosophical differences, ideologies or approaches...we argue what the truth is.

Depends on what one means by "the truth". Right now, all "the truth" means is "my opinion". I do think that rational people should be able to agree on facts, but we can't even do that right now. We will not be able to start dealing with our existential problems until both sides can be intellectually honest and far less narcissistic.

YES.

Now, my question is "why"? It's looking more and more, at least what I've seen so far, to be a self-esteem issue. These people have an emotional, visceral reaction to having their views challenged, and react by clinging even more tightly to those views. Such behavior provides them with "a port in the storm", and that feeling is cemented by reinforcement from those who share their views.

.

why? simply put many are intellectually lazy, a casual glance at day time TV is proof positive.

Yeah, I definitely agree that intellectual laziness is another primary factor.

.

Maybe we need to start with this truth. But we also need to understand just what it means in human terms...

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thomas Jefferson