Scientific Proof!

[noiseradio]

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

I KNEW it!

[wardo68]

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

I KNEW it!

"my brain hurts..."

[Extreme Honey]

lol omg

[alexv]

Why would it surprise anyone that a test carried out on "staunch party members" would show that they reach "partisan" conclusions and ignore evidence that would question those conclusion? The study summarized here does not, as it claims, demonstrate a "lack of reason in political decision-making". It just shows lack of reason in political decision-making by people who have already made up their minds. Is that news? Haven't we always know that people reason to emotionally biased judgements when they have a vested interest in how to interpret the facts? Dah!!

[noiseradio]

Actually, it demonstrates that people who are strictly partisan fail to use that part of their brain which reasons whenever their positions are challenged by data which contradicts the position. It's not that they discount it because they have reasoned the data is wrong. It's that their brain shuts down somewhat when the data challenges their preconceptions. And that they're addicted in a sense to shutting out reason. They're not using as much of their brain power as those of us who are open minded about political discourse.

I'm guessing you read the article but that your brain wouldn't allow you to see that part of the data.

(I'm so sorry. I couldn't resist the obvious dig).

[alexv]

Noise, I read the article and because I was agnostic as to its content going into it I am assuming that my brain was working normally as I "reasoned" over it. But hey, you never know.

In any case, I suspect that the experiment's finding, ably summarized by you since you correctly limit it to people who are 'strictly partisan", would be a surprise to no one. What it "demonstrates" has been common knowledge for centuries. People who have made up their minds, and care deeply about an issue, do not generally engage in reasoning which would lead them to question their deeply held beliefs. I think I knew that in grade school. And much of the discourse in the Annex here at EC Central bears it out on a daily basis, across all sides of the political divide.

What bothered me about the article, after reading it, not before reading it, Noise, is their conclusion that the test shows "lack of reason in political decisionmaking". That is not what it shows: it shows lack of reason in "partisan" political decisionmaking. Altogether different.

[noiseradio]

What bothered me about the article, after reading it, not before reading it, Noise, is their conclusion that the test shows "lack of reason in political decisionmaking". That is not what it shows: it shows lack of reason in "partisan" political decisionmaking. Altogether different.

Good points all around. I'd suggest that, in a de facto sense, that political decisionmaking has beenpartisan political decisionmaking in the political climate of at least the last two decades. The decisions have been made by leaders who were strictly partisan, in the Congress and the White House. There has been very little (and increasingly less) bipartisanship or centrism. Candidates love to position themselves as centrists or moderates, but we haven't had a true centrist in office for half a century. So while there may be reason in political decisionmaking among those who are not strictly partisan, those people have no real voice or power and haven't for ages. Ergo, I think the article's conclusion matches reality.

Also, I think it's not just that strictly partisan people aren't using their brains' reason centers; they have made themselves incapable of doing so when evidence to the contrary is presented. You can see this every time there's a televised debate between a Zionist Israeli and a member od the PLO. When either side makes the excellent point that their enemies have committed atrocities, the other side counters with other atrocities. No one will deal with or apologize for any individual instance because it's easier to throw another dart. It's why my Dad, who called for Clinton's head on a platter for lying under oath wants to excuse "Scooter" Libby for much more serious crimes, saying out loud that perjury isn't that big a deal and unable to see why his position now and his position 8 years ago are completely incompatible.

And I wasn't really accusing you of not reading the article before you made up your mind. I was just using that as the framework for a joke based on the article's premise. Sorry if my "I was only kidding" disclaimer wasn't clearer.

[alexv]

Noise, your disclaimer was clear. No offense taken. I am just congenitally unable to pass up any occasion to reply to a statement sent in my direction. Part of my legal training I think.

Ergo, I have to disagree with your last points. Remember, the article describes tests done on politically partisan people, not "politically partisan decisionmakers". The political decisionmaking which you claim has in recent decades become increasingly partisan, is not the political decisionmaking that the testers were testing. I would agree with you that political decision-making by politicians is often partisan, although I would quibble with the notion that it is more partisan now than in our past. It only appears that way because the political process is now covered much more closely than in the past, and the coverage magnifies the differences. I happen to believe that our "decisionmakers" in Congress over the last 20 years are far superior to their counterparts in the first half of the 20th century.

I don't know what you mean by us not having a centrist in office for half a century. I need a definition of what you consider a centrist to address that. Sounds like the beginning of a promising discussion.

On your point about Zionists and Palestinians not being able to address themselves to reality I also have a problem. I certainly don't blame either side for going off the deep end. The issue there is not simply a political issue. The Zionist/Paestinian conflicts (I use the plural intentionally) are "biblical" (no pun intended) in scope, and I do not blame either side for failing to not be partisan or to act rationally.

Your Clinton dad example I understand, politics are certainly polarizing. My dad was incapable of thinking anything bad about Nixon or anything good about JFK. When I tried to show him the JFK was in fact a hawk (a positive in his world view), he said that was part of the "communist conspiracy". But still the test that the article makes so much of was not done on people like your dad or my dad. If they had done it, and gotten the same results my reaction to the article would have been different. Something like: jeez, here I was trying to bring some sense to him and it was all in the neurons.

[miss buenos aires]

I thought the most interesting thing about the article was not that rational thought shuts down, but that people actually get high off of it! Everything else is just gravy.

[noiseradio]

That's the most fascinating part to me as well. And I think it's the part that finally makes sense to me. It's not just that partisans willfully (or even subconsciously) shut down their ability to reason in political debate, it's that they are addicted to doing so. They do it compulsively, and breaking them of the habit would be nearly impossible, I would think (based on other addictions).

Alexv, I don't have any major problems with your last post. I'd argue only that similar tests run on decisionmakers would almost certainly yield identical results, as any five-minute sample of their appearances on Crossfire-style talk shows will attest. But I already made that argument, so there's no point repeating it.