This Is Your Brain On Politics

[cui bono]

Ever wonder why fear-mongering seems to work so well at the polls—while appeals to reason often leave the electorate cold? A new book <“The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation by Drew Westen> ”applies neuroscience to politics to figure out why the Democrats struggle to push the buttons in voters’ brains.

Web-exclusive commentary
By Sharon Begley
Newsweek
Updated: 9:47 a.m. PT June 27, 2007

<snip>

Westen’s thesis is simple. “A dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work.” That’s true when it comes to choosing a significant other, buying a car, and choosing a president. Madison Avenue has known this for decades. Democrats haven’t. Instead, their strategists start from an 18th-century vision of the mind as dispassionate, making decisions by rationally weighing evidence and balancing pros and cons. That assumption is a recipe for high-minded campaigning—and, often, electoral failure. But by recognizing the strides that neuroscience, psychology and, in particular, the science of decision making have made in recent years, Westen argues, politicians can tap into “the emotional brain” that guides most political decisions.

If you think your political decisions are coldly rational, think again. Even when we “rationally” assess a candidate’s position on, say, tax policy or immigration, emotions shape our judgment. (In 2000 the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, famously hostile toward federal intervention in state matters, overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and put the former in the White House. Go figure.) “Behind every reasoned decision is a reason for deciding,” Westen writes. “We do not pay attention to arguments unless they engender our interest, enthusiasm, fear, anger or contempt . . . We do not find policies worth debating if they don’t touch on the emotional implications for ourselves, our families or things we hold dear.” Something you “hold dear” can be, for instance, a principled position in favour of sending more troops to Iraq; you can tell yourself that that position resides in an emotion-free zone, but in all likelihood it reflects feelings of pride, fear, commitment and the like—emotions, all.

<snip>

When voters are hooked up to brain-imaging devices while watching candidates, it is emotion circuits and not the rational frontal lobes that are most engaged. When voters assess who won a campaign debate, they almost always choose the candidate they liked better beforehand. The rationality circuit “isn’t typically open for business when partisans are thinking about things that matter to them,” Westen notes. Yet “this is the part of the brain to which Democrats typically target their appeals.”

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19461257/site/newsweek/page/0/

[cui bono]

1. no rational OR emotional replies?

more...

Westen has penned powerful sound bites and mini-speeches that Dems could use to justify their core positions on perennial issues. Abortion, and bills outlawing it (as GOP platforms have long called for) or requiring parental consent? “My opponent puts the rights of rapists above the rights of their victims, guaranteeing every rapist the right to choose the mother of his child. . . My opponent believes that if a 16-year-old girl is molested by her father and becomes pregnant, she should be forced by the government to have his child, and if she doesn’t want to she should be forced by the government to go to the man who raped her and ask for his consent.” Tougher gun restrictions? How about an ad showing a parade of Arab-looking men walking into a gun store, setting their money on the counter and walking out with three or four semi-automatics each, with this voice-over: “My opponent thinks you shouldn’t have to show a photo ID or get a background check to buy a handgun. He thinks anyone who wants an AK-47 should be able to buy one, no questions asked. What’s the point of fighting terrorists abroad if we’re going to arm them over here?”

[canetoad]

3. Isn't this EMO stuff exactly what we don't want in politics?

The War on Terra being the finest example.

Fine - replacing knowledge and considered judgement with mind-fuck media bites will always work for a percentage of the voters on both sides, but it sells short the people who have a mind and wish to use it.

[Nikki Stone1]

4. What the article basically implies is that using the "thinking" mind has to be a conscious choice

We're wired to respond emotionally first. Since the cognitive and emotional systems run on the same set of neurotransmitters, it's hard to separate them out.

[canetoad]

5. Not disagreeing with that

But taken to it's distasteful conclusion, could it not mean as polling day approaches the electorate is bombarded with increasingly shorter, more emotional messages, the ultimate winner being the one who gets the last bite in?

Whoops, that happens already.

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Well, yeah, which is why television should be avoided whenever possible

:)

[cui bono]

8. And since it is happening already, what is the best way to combat it?

That's actually 2 questions now that I write it. How do you combat it from happening and how do you combat the opposition from making it work?

The dilemma is that if Dems use the same tactic of appealing to emotions to fight back then of course it gets perpetuated, which is going to make a lot of us nauseus. But since it does seem to work, and if the author's premise is that we're hard wired for it and he's correct, then if only one "side" doesn't use it they'll always have to struggle to win. And unfortunately I think that's what the book says, that we're hard wired for it. That even the most rational intellectual cannot help but be influenced this way to some degree.

In fact, it could even be intelligent design put in place to make the Reps win. Or can we evolve out of it? ;)

Seriously though, even if it's not the outrageous type of ad, the Dems really need to think about this and at the very least learn to frame issues and start using appropriate words to help with that.

BushCo's denial of subpoenas = COVER UP

Iraq war = OCCUPATION

etc...

[canetoad]

9. Effectiveness of emotional political ads

is not something confined to one side or t'other. On the continuum from left through centre to right, there will always be folk who react viscerally first and intellectually second, if at all.

One part of me says that if this works, then go for it. The trouble with that is it tacitly allows the opposition to employ the same methods and this could backfire super-seriously.

[cui bono]

10. Right. I didn't say it only works for one side,

I was saying if only one side uses it then the other would be at a disadvantage. Kind of like what keeps happening since the Dems don't want to resort to that. But I don't think it has to be done in a crass and tasteless way. It can be done with class and style.

Thom Hartmann used to talk about this type of thing. In fact he says he wrote a book about it on air by talking it out. He didn't speak about emotions so much, but about how to get messages across by wording them a certain way, by how you deliver the message, etc... He played a couple ads by Bush and Kerry and analyzed them and explained why the Bush ad was far more effective.

IMO, this is where the Dems are sorely lacking. There's nothing wrong with packaging the right message in order to get it across more effectively, to make it resonate.

It would be great if substance and functionality were all that mattered but it isn't. That's why there's so much variety in everything. People want something they like emotionally as well as something that works well.

[canetoad]

11. I'm probably not the best person to be talking to

about the ethics of advertising. I'd happily send them all to Gitmo where they would fuck with no more decent heads :)

The matter of integrity comes into it, being able to look yourself in the face after the event. Win at all costs, but how do you tally the ultimate cost of appealing to base instincts?

6.15am, time to walk the pooches as they are doing laps of the room. Will try to get back to ya later.

[cui bono]

12. I agree actually. But if someone like Kucinich, who I greatly admire

and who I think has spectacular ideas used it to help get his message out in a way that would get people to listen to it and respond then I think it's great. So rather than lowering his level of discourse he just packages up better to make people look and listen. I don't think acknowledging emotion pull has to mean you cut out the substance.

Doggies! What kind? I just fed mine lunch. She's a sweet pit bull. :loveya:

[canetoad]

13. Pair of JR x's

Known far and wide as the Terrorists. Shockingly bad little anarchists :)

[Nikki Stone1]

2. Very interesting

:kick:

[Uncle Joe]

6. This explains the Mass Corporate Media's

"War Against Gore" He empowered us by championing the internet, they see the Internet as a threat against their monopoly on information. Information being power, money and influence, they see this as slipping way, naturally their one sided coverage of him reflected their disdain while they ignored or covered up for Bush's obvious shortcomings, thereby empowering him to power.

The same dynamic works for Exxon and many of the energy companies, they feel threatened by Al Gore because he speaks the truth regarding the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change, their emotions trump their reason. Because when global warming climate change hits the fan, who will be around to buy their fuel?

Thanks for the thread cui bono

Kicked and recommended.