Political Partisans Don't Think; They Feel.

[Joe Demko]

This article http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/opinion/meyer/main584753.shtml references a recent scientific inquiry into the brain activity of political partisans.  Note that the same type of brain activity was seen in both self-described liberals and self-described conservatives.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That's one of the reason I like APS so much.  Around here political issues can often (sometimes?) be discussed by partisans from both sides of the aisle without things devolving into the usual knee-jerk platitudes. 

[Perd Hapley]

Regarding the thread title, is that exaggeration, or do you really believe that?  If so, are you saying that anyone with a marked preference for one party or another, never thinks about political issues, but relies solely on feelings?

[Joe Demko]

The only kind of thinking party faithful display is doublethink.

[jefnvk]

Gotta agree for the most part.  For the most part, I line up with conservatives.  However, I don't consider myself Republican, and certainly don't consider myself partisian or extreme.

I will say, though, that both sides have those that cover their ears and start singing 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA' whenever contradictory facts are spewed their way.  No group is immune from it, not even THR/APS members (although, it does happen FAR less here).  People are all different, they aren't wrong for it, they just think different.

[Perd Hapley]

The only kind of thinking party faithful display is doublethink.

OK, so I have to ask what you mean by "party faithful." 


But what do we mean by "partisan"?  I suspect it is one of those terms (like ideology) that have become political insults, even though there is nothing wrong with being partisan or ideological. 

[Paddy]

even though there is nothing wrong with being partisan or ideological.

Until you become a captive of your ideology, that is.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

a politicain who codified this type of behavior is charlene drew jarvis someone i respected at one time.  when asked why she perpetuated the myth surrounding the circumstances of her fathers death she said "becuase it coulda happened that way " and couldn't see the flaw in her approach. more the pity

[Perd Hapley]

So what's the up-shot, then?  People identify with their chosen group, and reflexively defend it, even when they should recognize its faults?  Another very useful study, then.   

[roo_ster]

Pretty soon the some folks will discover that like folks hew to one another.

[Joe Demko]

Mostly I gain amusement from it.  Although both sides are equally guilty of not thinking, thanks to Rush Limbaugh it has been a conservative catchphrase for years that liberals don't think, they feel.  How deliciously ironic that it turns out to be equally true of the side that has had so much joy in slurring their opposition with that very description.  Mind you, I'd be just as amused to see a liberal trope concerning conservatives detonate in their faces.

[Len Budney]

Mind you, I'd be just as amused to see a liberal trope concerning conservatives detonate in their faces.

True dat.

I had a similar experience as a religious guy with a math degree: when the atheist crowd slandered my kind (and by implication, me) as irrational, it hurt. I did some painful self-examination to root out any irrationality in myself. But I also looked hard at them--and noticed their own irrational, tightly-held beliefs. They were dead certain of all sorts of things that rationally aren't proven with such certainty. Bush did/didn't steal the 2000 election; the Civil War was/wasn't about slavery; the Gulf War was/wasn't about oil; Oswald was/wasn't acting alone; the list goes on. I have opinions on all of those, but enough honesty to admit room for doubt. The atheist crowd was a cesspool of unverified assumptions, dogmatic assertions and such like.

--Len.

[Ron]

Mostly I gain amusement from it.  Although both sides are equally guilty of not thinking, thanks to Rush Limbaugh it has been a conservative catchphrase for years that liberals don't think, they feel.  How deliciously ironic that it turns out to be equally true of the side that has had so much joy in slurring their opposition with that very description.  Mind you, I'd be just as amused to see a liberal trope concerning conservatives detonate in their faces.

What does this study say about the arrogant cynics who think they are above the fray?

[Joe Demko]

I presume by "arrogant cynics," you mean to include me.  This isn't about being "above the fray."  This is about refusal to indulge in doublethink.  Doublethink is actually pretty comfortable.  If you just figure the other side is always wrong _no matter what they do or say_ and your side is always right_no matter what they do or say_ life becomes a lot simpler and more intellectually comfortable.  Now, do you prefer to think for yourself or are you happy just being comfortable?

[Ron]

I presume by "arrogant cynics," you mean to include me.  This isn't about being "above the fray."  This is about refusal to indulge in doublethink.  Doublethink is actually pretty comfortable.  If you just figure the other side is always wrong _no matter what they do or say_ and your side is always right_no matter what they do or say_ life becomes a lot simpler and more intellectually comfortable.  Now, do you prefer to think for yourself or are you happy just being comfortable?

It's not meant so much as an attack but as an observation about those who reject party politics. Those of us who have chosen to try and work inside the system are always accused of not thinking for ourselves or being emotional reactionaries.

The reality is there are many who are trying to push the parties from the inside one way or another so they (the parties) reflect our principles. It is actually a very well thought out or sound strategy considering only people from the two major parties have been elected to our highest offices in modern history.

The arrogant remark may have been harsh. I just see a lot of cynical remarks made from those who think that they hold some moral high ground because they vote for philosophically pure candidates who stand no chance of actually getting elected or changing the course of our bureaucracy.

Unfortunately those with my somewhat conservative (with libertarian overtones) philosophy have lost out in the Republican party and it is being run by big government statists. I'm still hanging in there and trying to influence the party myself.

[LAK]

Partisans don't think; they feel

"Don't think"? "they feel"?

Interesting. So if you are a conservative partisan, and you recognize that something is intellectually a nonstarter, a dead horse, and perhaps immoral and or illegal under our Constitution and you insist that legislating it into force, or allowing it to be incrementally introduced, expanded in any form is wrong and oppose it without compromise you are "feeling" and not "thinking"?

The "scientific" report here seems to be based on the idea that everything is subjective. The introduction of the word partisan into our legislature, executive and judiciary is designed to create the perception that compromise - in everything - is normal and is to be expected. Regardless of what the subject matter happens to be.

This is old hat political psychology for change.

This is not evidence that America is becoming more polarized or that we are fighting a culture war. While it may be evidence that the numbers of extremists are increasing slightly, and that their extremism and intolerance is increasing, it is not evidence that the huge, moderate middle  that part of the population able to process political information with cold reason  is substantially shrinking or becoming more bitterly divided and less tolerant.

We are fighting a culture war, or more accurately an ideological war, since the predominant ideology of a nation pretty much dictates culture along with other things.

Words like "extremism" and "intolerance" have been some of the key political buzzwords for change of the marxists that have gained political dominance in this country since WW2.

--------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[Joe Demko]

You failed to address the MRI's being identical in both groups.  Possibly you were too emotionally worked up and didn't think about it.

[LAK]

There might be a parallel in brain activity that manifests itself on a MRI scan in that on matters that one does not consider subjective - or open to compromise - the thinking has already been done. Since liberals often feel - or have otherwise decided - that all things are subjective, their "thinking" is likewise over with. The subject matter or "point" in question then becomes more a case of aggravation than anything else.

[Joe Demko]

So, basically, you are saying that it is teh dumb only when liberals do it.

[K Frame]

Ugh.

I feel like kicking some butts in this thread.

I wonder what my MRI would say about that? 

[LAK]

So, basically, you are saying that it is teh dumb only when liberals do it.

Not dumb, rather it amounts to the same thing perhaps of no significance.

If the issue is let's say for example ou involvement with a certain global ciminal cartel that calls itself th "U.N.". I've done my thinking on the matter; it is no longer a subjective matter as far as I am concerned and can not be because of .. the nature of the U.N. for one point.

If the subject comes up, I really do not need to think about it any more than I need to think whether rape and robbery are wrong.

If a "self ascribed liberal" has a claimed similar MRI scan manifestation when the subject is the same - or something different for that matter it really makes no difference to me.

Now emotionally driven people are not going to make the good leaders IMO, for the simple reason that decision making on a national level requires pure reason and logic with the constraints of morality. However, once the decision is made on a non-subjective issue it is no longer up for discussion, change or compromise. There are some absolutes.

[Matthew Carberry]

However, once the decision is made on a non-subjective issue it is no longer up for discussion, change or compromise. There are some absolutes.

Or, and this would produce exactly the same brainwaves in a person who actually believed it to be true, "There are NO absolutes, all things are subjective." (except for that absolute statement of course  )

What those MRI's show is sincerity in the belief of the truthfulness of whatever statement is being judged, that's not "feeling versus reason", it is, as you say, just evidence of a decided opinion.

Which is in fact meaningless as, in theory, I can manufacture a Skinner-box child who will believe the sky to be green in the face of all objection and his MRI will match mine in my intense belief the sky is blue.

If you "know" something, you shouldn't HAVE to fire up the old reason synapses, those are for things you don't know.

Again we have to leave the lab and look at each subject individually, ask how rational are/were they in determining what they now "know"?

I.e. are they a muddle-headed moron who, among their other political beliefs, "knows" Kennedy was killed by aliens and that The Colonel was part of the Pentavarite. 

All this study tells us of use is that apparently "centrist and/or moderate" when used for self-description, is equivalent to "undecided on the issues presented".  Well, whoopty-freakin'-do.

I assume my tax dollars somehow went into this study? 

[Perd Hapley]

I'm tired of thinking about this. 

SO IT'S TIME FOR SOME PURE, UNBRIDLED RAGE!!       

[Joe Demko]

The issue isn't whether or not you have "already done your thinking" and reached a decision on some matter. Reread the article and note that the experiment consisted of showing the self-described partisans videos of their politicos making contradictory statements. 

[MechAg94]

I have long thought that both political parties have a component of people might be described as "fanatics", but are just people who have attached themselves to that party as a part of their self-identity regardless of their personal views.