Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Partisan thought is unconscious?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Partisan thought is unconscious? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/100357-partisan-thought-unconscious.html)

Partisan thought is unconscious?

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/sc...find.html?_r=2

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the source of this artice or the content within it, what do you think of the idea itself? That partisan bickering is not really based on any real thought? That once you've picked a side, you stick with it, regardless of the topic. Without taking the time for some serious self-analyzation, you're only saying what you've trained yourself to say and not what you would actually think if you were really honest with yourself.

Sports. Politics. Religion. Why are reactions so strong when these topics are discussed?

Quote:

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. Bush. But each group let its own candidate off the hook.

After the participants read the contradictory comment, the researchers measured increased activity in several areas of the brain. They included a region involved in regulating negative emotions and another called the cingulate, which activates when the brain makes judgments about forgiveness, among other things. Also, a spike appeared in several areas known to be active when people feel relieved or rewarded. The "cold reasoning" regions of the cortex were relatively quiet.

Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional.

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."

I think that the complete lack of compromise between democrats and republicans on a national level give this idea a lot of credibility. People buy in to a certain way of thought so deeply that they are unable to analyze it critically, but will defend it vehemently.

I agree 100% with the last line of the artice :

Quote:

He added, "It speaks to the character of the discourse that this quality is rarely talked about in politics."

this should be merged with this thread
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=100270
Both Parties Ignore Inconvenient Facts

and yes this is a good reason to abolish all parties

i bet there is something substantial behind the theory... but i don't think i understand the method. why wouldn't the partisan backers respond very differently to the mere mention of the candidates? each name must have a host of memories associated with it, conceptions that may have been based on very rational decisions made long ago. how can the conductors of the study be sure the test subjects are reacting solely to the test-stimulus and not the years of prior political involvement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

If you recall, Irate, they also used a well known name, "Tom Hanks", who to my knowledge has expressed no political affiliation of any kind. The same results occured. Roachboy is correct in his statement in the other topic similar to this that we can't judge the results until the research paper is published.

Old Old thread, but when i read this it reminded me of this one...

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=53946

because that was exactly the point I was trying to make, albeit ineffectively, when starting that one.

It must be an American thing. Political parties around the world are open to compromise. Look at Belgium, for example. Their entire political system is based on compromise.

I can also point to Canada. Just read some of the politcal discussions in the Canada forum or better yet, wait and see what happens with our current government. Yes there will be disagreements, but not in the "bug-eyed and irrational" way that this article describes.

I would suggest that in the world of binary politics that is the US, there is a lot more at stake. There is no alternative. It is one party or the other. Get yourselves some third or fourth parties and it might alieviate the stress in the system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the source of this artice or the content within it, what do you think of the idea itself? That partisan bickering is not really based on any real thought? That once you've picked a side, you stick with it, regardless of the topic. Without taking the time for some serious self-analyzation, you're only saying what you've trained yourself to say and not what you would actually think if you were really honest with yourself.

That's often how it works. When people have built entire schemas of morality and judgement on shaky ideas\beliefs, it is easier and more comfortable to ignore the cognitive dissonance (if the person even realizes it is there) and just stand firm in what you have believed in the past. This isn't just a problem in politics. It's a lifelong human problem - one we have to fight all the time to be educated and enlightened human beings.