Is Partisanship an "Addiction"?

[staticstopper]

<[ This is a post and comment from my friend Alan: >]


At last, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the human
brain is being put to good use. I have not been able to stop
chuckling at this one.

"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."

As I've been saying for years, political parties -- or indeed any
ideological system or group with which one might identify --
represent a form of addictive behavior and possibly even brain
damage.

The one hopeful thing in this is that it IS "possible to override
these biases", as Westen says, by engaging in "ruthless self
reflection", saying "I know what I want to believe, but I have to
be honest." That IS possible, though difficult. It is much easier
and more comfortable to continue being a liar.

--AEL

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

DELICIOUS SNIPPETS, with emphases added:

Test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached
TOTALLY BIASED CONCLUSIONS by IGNORING INFORMATION that could not
rationally be discounted.

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.

There are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when
unwelcome information is being rejected.

The study points to a TOTAL LACK OF REASON in political
decision-making.

"NONE OF THE CIRCUITS INVOLVED IN CONSCIOUS REASONING WERE
PARTICULARLY ENGAGED.... The result is that partisan beliefs are
calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,"
Westen said.

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.' "

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/

MSNBC Home ¯ Technology & Science ¯ Science

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds

Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain
scans show

Jim Bourg / Reuters file

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.

c 2006 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.

......

Functional brain imaging helps scientists understand the
relationship between particular types of mental activity and
particular areas of the brain, by charting which regions
experience increased blood flow or metabolism or electromagnetic
activity over time. It's a step beyond CT scans, or CAT scans,
which can map the brain's structure but not its functions. Click
on the labels above to learn more about three technologies used
for functional brain imaging. Source: University of
Washington, Macalester College, Encarta

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24find.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print

January 24, 2006

A Shocker: Partisan Thought Is Unconscious

By BENEDICT CAREY

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."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Kolesar]

1. I have observed that in myself

I can drop bad press about my candidate right out of my mind. When I read the NY times article a few days ago, I thought: yes, that's me.

[staticstopper]

2. Cool that you're honest

I try to be too.

I love these partsian Dem sites, yet I know I miss out on some info...but I hate most conservative rhetoric.

I want to call myself an "independent" but I wish there were a way to add - "but I think Republican policies usually stink."

Thanks for the reply.

[PBass]

3. It's interesting stuff

But I wonder if it doesn't subtly suggest that somehow there is no real right or wrong political position, just brain activity. Because I certainly don't believe that.

And in my own case, when Bush was elected (selected, whatever) in 2000, even though I didn't vote for him I was willing to give him a chance, and I did. I had been sort of blissfully ignorant of political details for years before that, so I was not familiar with George Bush, and I had no pre-determined opinion of him. Little by little I have been polarized by his terrible policies, his relentless lying, the incompetence (of not just him but most of his team), and so on.

Anyway what I am getting at, is that it seems to me that my comprehension of political events are what's driving whatever chemical reactions might be happening in my brain, and not vice-versa.