DescentBB

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/06 ... sions.html

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.

This is in regards to how people make their political decisions.

I have seen executives engage in the exact same behavior.

I've been discussing this over at Chicago Boyz.

While it's true that people on all sides are good at ignoring facts, the experiment doesn't really show that. It's poorly designed.

The setup was essentially this: take hard-core partisan Bush and Kerry supporters. Show them supposed (but usually not actual) contradictions by each guy, and have them rate the strength of the contradictions. Show them explanations for why the contradictions really aren't, and have them re-rate the contradictions. Compare to a baseline of how they rate neutral people's supposed contradictions.

Not surprisingly, the Bush supporters found Bush's statements to be less contradictory than Kerry's, and the Kerry supporters found Kerry's statements to be less contradictory than Bush's. BUT, there are at least two issues at play here: people ignoring real contradictions, and people already understanding that certain ideas are non-contradictory because they share the same ideas. This study doesn't even attempt to differentiate, which makes it essentially useless.

Consider: sometimes candidate X will say two things that appear contradictory but really aren't. Probably 90% or more of supposed contradictions, flip-flops, etc. (whether in politics or elsewhere) are of this sort -- they're ideas that really fit together, but seem not to at first glance. Now, if you already think like that candiate, you already know how the ideas fit together, so you'll immediately recognize the ideas are not a contradiction. But if you don't think like them, your reaction will be to say the ideas are a contradiction. It's not because you're good at ignoring facts, it's because you're good at recognizing how ideas you already agree with fit together, and bad at recognizing how ideas you don't agree with fit together.

The \"rah rah team\" reflex and the \"I already understand those ideas aren't contradictory because I agree with them and have thought them through\" reaction get mixed in this experiment.

A better designed experiment might go thusly: divide your hard-core partisans into 3 groups. In group A, proceed exactly as above. In group B, proceed as above, but scramble the labels, so some of Bush's statements say they came from Kerry and vice versa. In group C, proceed as above, but show no labels at all. Then compare results across groups. The difference will show the strength of the \"rah rah team\" reaction in comparison to the strength of the \"I recongize those ideas as non-contradictory because I agree with both\" reaction.

Unfortunately Lothar your experiment is not possible. Its impossible for any Bush or Kerry supporters to admit even half his contradictions.

I'll start, in 2000
\"I do not believe in Nation Building\"
- George Bush

2004:
\"I voted for it before I voted against it\"
-JFKerry


Both contradictions can be explained away by their respective party. The problem Lothar is there is no \"objective truth\" here for the scientists to refer to.

Birds, how does that make my experiment \"not possible\"? What you described is exactly what my experiment is designed to detect!

If it's impossible for partisans to admit a certain percentage of their guy's contradictions, that should make my experiment wildly successful, because you'd be able to see clearly how labelling a statement with \"Bush said this\" or \"Kerry said this\" made partisans react in their treatment of it. If they can't admit to contradictions by their own guy, putting their guy's label on the statement should have a clear impact, especially in comparison to leaving it unlabelled or putting the wrong guy's name on it.

Please reread my proposed experiment.

I understand your experiment.

Who decides though the \"objective truth\" in the experiment of what is a contradiction and what is not? That is the issue.

I will - for the right consultant's fee.

Birdseye wrote:I understand your experiment.

Who decides though the "objective truth" in the experiment of what is a contradiction and what is not? That is the issue.

Fair enough but Lothar didn't say his improved experiment was easy to perform in todays world, only that his experiment was the correct way to collect the data if you want to filter out false readings/conclusions.
I think Lothars point was to show why the experiment sited was flawed, not to claim he had a different set of data. The fact that Lothars experiment is harder to perform doesn't mean his methods wouldn't be superior or that his point is off the mark....

Birdseye wrote:Who decides though the "objective truth" in the experiment of what is a contradiction and what is not?

The form of my experiment makes it completely irrelevant. For my purposes it doesn't matter what's a true contradiction and what's not, it only matters how people react differently to statements based on the labels put on them.

That's one way in which my setup is far superior to the original -- I'm not required to determine which statements are contradictory and which are not, I only care how people respond differently to the same statements under different labels.

Genghis (in the OP) wrote:http://www.livescience.com/othernews/06 ... sions.html

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.

This is in regards to how people make their political decisions.

It shows how (IMO anyway) it's important to keep your ego in check. Train your emotions to be well practiced in being WRONG - so that it can handle it without your whole world falling down around you.

If you build your ego up to the point (as many do) that it can no longer handle being wrong, well... you're a stooge .

It's like the old addage "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". When people are get used to thinking that they are ABSOLUTELY correct all the time, they can no longer handle the possibility of being Incorrect and they may just psychologically dismiss any situation that threatens their oh so precious ego. That's what denial is all about, protecting the ego at the expense of logic.

(ie: Absolute Power corrupts absolutely because the person gets so used to having Absolute Power (it gets to the point where the very Power he weilds is directly linked with the ego - he identifys his sense of worth with the Power itself, therefore he feels he must protect it at all costs!) that any chalenge to this Power is met with the harshest resistance - as he is so used to associating the Power with his Self that he feels any challenge to his power is a direct challenge to his very self, his very BEING.)

To psychologically link your own sense of self & self worth (ego) to externals (like a political party, a sports team, a nation) that are themselves NOT under our direct control seems rather dangerous. I still don't fully understand why people do it with politics.

roid, that may all be true, but the experiment doesn't show it.

It doesn't track the difference between dismissing things because you can't handle being wrong and dismissing things because you have an adequate answer.