Political Bias

Commenting in my last post, last night, I linked to Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars. It was a bit fascinating to see them quote transcript passages that I would have quoted as well. The difference being, that they came away with a complete 180 degree interpretation from it, than I did. I see much the same ideological differences in how we interpret "the facts"- from the 9/11 Commission, to the Duelfer Report, to media bias, to what the President said, to Quailgate, to the good, the bad, and the beautiful (haha..catch my "bias"?) going on over in Iraq; and on and on...

Jaymeister made a good find and a nice post on the following article:

Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans both adept at ignoring facts, brain scans show

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.

I lean center-right. I admit to my partisanship. I am well-aware of times when I have cherry-picked information to support my side of the equation. Sometimes I like to engage in juvenile ad hominems (such as making comments about Helen Thomas being a ripe old fossilized prune, which have nothing to do with her politics and journalistic integrity). It's just fun as well as petty.

But for serious political opining, I think it is important to listen to the other side, and exercise our dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; not just resort to knee-jerk "ok, how do I counter the argument put forth against my side?"-sort of reaction. To have credibility, it is vitally important to listen and concede (where necessary); reason and respect. One of the worst disservices you can do for your political side, is to be disingenous, citing facts or statistics that you know to be flawed. When both sides are well-researched on their facts, sometimes it just comes down to a difference in ideology. Then, usually it's a matter of how we interpret the raw data.

We really should exercise extreme vigilance on our own prejudices, partisanship, and bias. I don't think there is anything completely wrong in engaging in partisan politics, so long as you have the conscious wherewithal to know what it is that you are doing. At least be honest with yourself. Honesty and clarity are always more important than being right.