MRI results show irrational thinking on politics

[maurile]

Intelligent people who seldom make obvious logic errors on most other issues often seem to temporarily lose their minds when discussing politics or religion. I've noticed it often.

Here's some evidence that I'm not just imagining this phenomenon. It relates to partisan political thinking, but I strongly suspect we'd see the same results for religious thinking as well (on both sides).

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."

[madnak]

This is wonderful and unsurprising.

[soon2bepro]

This is somehow correct. But try any another subject where this people is emotionally attached to and you'll find similar results. In fact I doubt you'll find many cases where the result varies a lot, since people tend to have emotional attachment to anything they have a formed opinion for. I usually just go one step ahead and say these people can't reason correctly. Yes, that is wrong, they can, but it's so hard to find a subject where they're apt. And their reasoning capabilites are so rusty because of lack of use, that even if you find one, their performance will be mediocre at best.

[billygrippo]

this is just liberal bull [censored]!




oh wait a sec....

[Nut4Dawgs]

Like soon2bepro, I'm not surprised at the finding. We know how "emotional" people get about a lot of topics. We've also heard it said, "He's too caught up in/close to... to make a rational..."

What this study makes me wonder is if it would be possible to use an MRI as a truth/lie detector. And if so, would it be any more reliable than equipment now used.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The volunteers were asked questions that pertained to the situation, along with unrelated control questions. In all cases, the polygraph and fMRI accurately distinguished truthful responses from deceptive ones. fMRI showed activation in several areas of the brain during the deception process. These areas were located in the frontal (medial inferior and pre-central), temporal (hippocampus and middle temporal), and limbic (anterior and posterior cingulate) lobes. During a truthful response, the fMRI showed activation in the frontal lobe (inferior and medial), temporal lobe (inferior) and cingulate gyrus. Overall, there were regional differences in activation between deceptive and truthful conditions. Furthermore, there were more areas of the brain activated during the deception process compared to the truth-telling condition.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a quote from an earlier MRI lie detector study.

It seems that more emotion related areas get involved when a person is lying. The situation in this thread seems to indicate that self-deception uses a similar approach. Perhaps it contributes to the ability to disregard conflicting evidence. A skill that seems necessary to maintain specific views.

luckyme

[evolvedForm]

This is exactly the phenomenon I was thinking about when I argued about the Psychology of Faith Religious people fail to catch the errors in their logic because of a strong but hidden bias deep in their psyche.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly the phenomenon I was thinking about when I argued about the Psychology of Faith Religious people fail to catch the errors in their logic because of a strong but hidden bias deep in their psyche.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trying to stir anything up here (this comment is being made in isolation from the actual 'debate'), but I've run into a frightening amount of "staunch Atheists" that would fall into the "strong, hidden bias" category as well. It's a really fascinating concept for sure.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
Not trying to stir anything up here (this comment is being made in isolation from the actual 'debate'), but I've run into a frightening amount of "staunch Atheists" that would fall into the "strong, hidden bias" category as well. It's a really fascinating concept for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't disagree with that, but I'm sure it happens a lot less often with atheists. That said, you're point is well taken, as I am against dogmatism of any kind -- scientific included.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
but I've run into a frightening amount of "staunch Atheists" that would fall into the "strong, hidden bias" category as well. It's a really fascinating concept for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

believing in scientific theory with evidence on your side hardly qualifies.