PDA

View Full Version : Left Brain, Right Brain - No Brain?




CCTelander
07-13-2009, 09:28 PM
I thought this was extremely interesting. Comments?




Release date: Jan. 24, 2006
Contact: Beverly Cox Clark at 404-712-8780 or beverly.clark@emory.edu


Emory Study Lights Up the Political Brain


When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.

The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "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." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions — essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted — not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward — similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "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."

During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.

Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.

Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.

While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.

The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.

The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "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 says.

Coauthors of the study include Pavel Blagov and Stephan Hamann of the Emory Department of Psychology, and Keith Harenski and Clint Kilts of the Emory Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.

http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/PoliticalBrain1138113163.html

Rael
07-13-2009, 10:22 PM
This is interesting. It proves that both Dems and Republicans are idiots.

heavenlyboy34
07-13-2009, 10:43 PM
This is interesting. It proves that both Dems and Republicans are idiots.

lolz;):D

RideTheDirt
07-13-2009, 10:47 PM
This makes a lot of sense.

CCTelander
07-13-2009, 11:08 PM
Personally, I think this is precisely the kind of information that could lead to ultimate success, if we take it to heart and learn how to effectively use it.

Mini-Me
07-13-2009, 11:18 PM
Personally, I think this is precisely the kind of information that could lead to ultimate success, if we take it to heart and learn how to effectively use it.

I agree. It reminds me a bit about this essay (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm), which I read some time ago thinking, "I wonder if this guy is a libertarian?" After looking around on his site, it turns out I wasn't too far from the mark. ;)

emazur
07-13-2009, 11:27 PM
great find

CCTelander
07-14-2009, 02:03 PM
I agree. It reminds me a bit about this essay (http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm), which I read some time ago thinking, "I wonder if this guy is a libertarian?" After looking around on his site, it turns out I wasn't too far from the mark. ;)

Haven't had a chance to read it in depth yet, but I did scan it over and it looks interesting. I've read a lot of stuff on this topic over the years, and I really do think it's a critical area that most never even consider.

One thing's for sure, beating our heads against the wall of people's deeply held beliefs and defensive natures isn't really going to cut it.

acptulsa
07-14-2009, 02:20 PM
lolz;):D

Careful. That would apply to any partisan.

Well, we pretty much knew this. The trick, I think, is either to couch your political talk in ways that circumvents this. Partly this is done by avoiding naming candidates' and parties' names as much as possible; partly it's done by sneaking in under their defenses in other ways. In other words, try to have a reasonable discussion, not a political discussion.

ChaosControl
07-14-2009, 02:23 PM
If you've ever discussed politics with hardcore republicans/democrats you definitely have seen this in action. I am not in any way surprised by this.

Kraig
07-14-2009, 02:44 PM
I wonder if Ron Paul would be any different.

acptulsa
07-14-2009, 02:47 PM
I wonder if Ron Paul would be any different.

Pretty easy to tell he is. When someone says the word 'Republican' to him, does he go brainless and start yelling like Limbaugh?

Thought not.

Kraig
07-14-2009, 02:51 PM
Pretty easy to tell he is. When someone says the word 'Republican' to him, does he go brainless and start yelling like Limbaugh?

Thought not.

No, obviously you would have to use what he is loyal to. The Constitution, the founding fathers, maybe some Austrian economic figures, stuff like that.

CCTelander
07-14-2009, 02:51 PM
Careful. That would apply to any partisan.


This is an EXCELLENT point.

It's also good to keep in mind that the same thing applies to people's NON-political beliefs. Those non-political beliefs often have a PROFOUND impact on their political beliefs, and that's something that few advocates seem to recognize. It can be possible to "plant a seed" that results in people actually changing political beliefs without ever even discussing politics, if you can identify and subtlely undermine particular non-political beliefs that impact political beliefs, if that makes any sense.



Well, we pretty much knew this. The trick, I think, is either to couch your political talk in ways that circumvents this. Partly this is done by avoiding naming candidates' and parties' names as much as possible; partly it's done by sneaking in under their defenses in other ways. In other words, try to have a reasonable discussion, not a political discussion.

One excellent way to get around those kinds of knee-jerk defensive responses is not to directly challenge anything, but to simply ask carefully thought out questions. Basically use the Socratic Method.

CCTelander
07-14-2009, 02:55 PM
No, obviously you would have to use what he is loyal to. The Constitution, the founding fathers, maybe some Austrian economic figures, stuff like that.

On his site, Marc Stevens cites an example wherein RP was asked outright whether or not the constitution was a "social contract." RP's response was that he was aware that Lysander Spooner agrued against the idea, but that HE (RP) thought it was indeed a "social contract."

EVERYONE is susceptible to this kind of thing. It takes a real effort on the part of the individual to avoid it.

Kraig
07-14-2009, 02:57 PM
EVERYONE is susceptable to this kind of thing. It takes a real effort on the part of the individual to avoid it.

I know just curious, plus if they know they are being testing, they might be less willing to put effort into really thinking things through and it seems to me that would make an emotional response more likely.

CCTelander
07-14-2009, 03:06 PM
I know just curious, plus if they know they are being testing, they might be less willing to put effort into really thinking things through and it seems to me that would make an emotional response more likely.

I don't claim to be any kind of an expert on this kind of thing, but I have read a lot about it over the years, mostly associated with marketing and sales.

From what I've read, it seems that all people make the vast majority of their decisions on the basis of emotion, rather than logic and reason. Even people who highly value logic and reason tend to make most descisions based upon emotion, and then resort to logic and reason to justify the descision. They tend to be "right" more often more because their emotional responses are better informed to begin with, rather than because they actually use reason and logic as the sole means of reaching their descisions.

This being the case, it becomes obvious why facts, logic and reason are almost never sufficient to cause anyone to change their mind on deeply held beliefs. Even people who are otherwise reasonable and logical seldom seem to be swayed by facts.

It's definitely something to keep in mind.

CCTelander
07-15-2009, 01:07 AM
bump

acptulsa
07-15-2009, 06:56 AM
It can be possible to "plant a seed" that results in people actually changing political beliefs without ever even discussing politics, if you can identify and subtlely undermine particular non-political beliefs that impact political beliefs, if that makes any sense.

Makes perfect sense. A complex thought well articulated, even. And what's more, it can be pulled off--or, at least, I've done it before. Takes time, patience and a willingness to really, really listen.

CCTelander
07-15-2009, 07:07 AM
Makes perfect sense. A complex thought well articulated, even. And what's more, it can be pulled off--or, at least, I've done it before. Takes time, patience and a willingness to really, really listen.

Thanks.

You're right that it "takes time, patience and an ability really, really listen." I've managed it a time or two myself, but it's not something that happens every day.

This whole topic is one of the reasons I believe that the focus of the whole "Liberty Movement" has been off-target for decades.

The most effective advocacy will always be one-on-one, with people whom one knows well enough to be able to take advantage of this kind of information when dealing with them. You can't effectively use this kind of stuff with strangers. Or, at least, it's MUCH more difficult.

CCTelander
07-16-2009, 09:36 AM
bump

Theocrat
07-16-2009, 09:46 AM
I thought this was extremely interesting. Comments?





http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/PoliticalBrain1138113163.html

The whole study is built on the false assumption that human beings are nothing more than electrochemical processes inside our brains. They forget that humans have souls, and it is from that capacity that reasoning, judgments, and emotional appeals take place when formulating political opinions and ideals. Ultimately, those beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is "a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted," as one late philosopher put it.

It has nothing to do with neurons firing on the left nor right side of our brains. Such occurrences in the brain are, at best, latent effects of what is initiated by our intellect, will, and emotion from our souls. That kind of research is not only oversimplified in understanding human thinking processes, but it totally misses the mark about human nature.

heavenlyboy34
07-16-2009, 09:49 AM
The whole study is built on the false assumption that human beings are nothing more than electrochemical processes inside our brains. They forget that humans have souls, and it is from that capacity that reasoning, judgments, and emotional appeals take place when formulating political opinions and ideals. Ultimately, those beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is "a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted," as one late philosopher put it.

It has nothing to do with neurons firing on the left nor right side of our brains. Such occurrences in the brain are, at best, latent effects of what is initiated by our intellect, will, and emotion from our souls. That kind of research is not only oversimplified in understanding human thinking processes, but it totally misses the mark about human nature.

You've got something of a point. However, there is still no way for science to test for the soul (that I know of). This is a great failing in science, State politics, and several other fields.:p

CCTelander
07-16-2009, 10:38 AM
The whole study is built on the false assumption that human beings are nothing more than electrochemical processes inside our brains. They forget that humans have souls, and it is from that capacity that reasoning, judgments, and emotional appeals take place when formulating political opinions and ideals. Ultimately, those beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is "a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted," as one late philosopher put it.

It has nothing to do with neurons firing on the left nor right side of our brains. Such occurrences in the brain are, at best, latent effects of what is initiated by our intellect, will, and emotion from our souls. That kind of research is not only oversimplified in understanding human thinking processes, but it totally misses the mark about human nature.

You know, I actually agree with SOME of what you say here. For example, when you state that "beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is 'a network of presuppositions ... in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted,' " I agree 100%. Since I don't have the context, I'm not sure what the actual author means by "not tested by natural science," so I'll reserve judgement on that part.

In any event, the study cited completely supports the idea that "beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is 'a network of presuppositions ... in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted,' " and at least provides some clues as to how people make decisions.

It also provides anyone willing to actually take the information to heart with some clues as to how to approach people in cases where deeply held beliefs are at stake. Which could lead to a higher success rate.

Ultimately, nothing that you've said really mitigates against the basic findings. People DO make decisions based more on emotion than on reason. Knowing this can be a huge advantage when attempting to persuade people to accept a more liberty friendly position.

Your attempt to discount these kinds of findings because you think they don't conform to your own theological belief structure doesn't really help in any way, and is much more likely to cause division than to further the cause of liberty.

CCTelander
07-16-2009, 11:02 AM
You know, I actually agree with SOME of what you say here. For example, when you state that "beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is 'a network of presuppositions ... in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted,' " I agree 100%. Since I don't have the context, I'm not sure what the actual author means by "not tested by natural science," so I'll reserve judgement on that part.

In any event, the study cited completely supports the idea that "beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is 'a network of presuppositions ... in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted,' " and at least provides some clues as to how people make decisions.

It also provides anyone willing to actually take the information to heart with some clues as to how to approach people in cases where deeply held beliefs are at stake. Which could lead to a higher success rate.

Ultimately, nothing that you've said really mitigates against the basic findings. People DO make decisions based more on emotion than on reason. Knowing this can be a huge advantage when attempting to persuade people to accept a more liberty friendly position.

Your attempt to discount these kinds of findings because you think they don't conform to your own theological belief structure doesn't really help in any way, and is much more likely to cause division than to further the cause of liberty.

It just occurred to me that if the author of that quote meant, by his comment "not tested by natural science," that people often form those presuppositions without critical analysis, or consulting reason and logic, then I agree with that part as well.

The thought just hadn't occurred to me when I wrote my last post.

Thesemindz
07-17-2009, 09:23 AM
The whole study is built on the false assumption that human beings are nothing more than electrochemical processes inside our brains. They forget that humans have souls, and it is from that capacity that reasoning, judgments, and emotional appeals take place when formulating political opinions and ideals.

The study wasn't built around that "false assumption" at all. Thus far, the soul, if it exists at all, is impossible to prove or to subject to empirical testing. So the scientists didn't ignore it, they simply left it out of their experiment. They were looking at the specific effects of specific behaviors on specific parts of the brain. It wasn't a study about the soul, so they didn't look at the way the soul effects or is effected by political thought.


Ultimately, those beliefs are derived from a worldview, which is "a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted," as one late philosopher put it.

It has nothing to do with neurons firing on the left nor right side of our brains. Such occurrences in the brain are, at best, latent effects of what is initiated by our intellect, will, and emotion from our souls.

Do you then reject all science in favor of a religious world view? Is there nothing that physics, biology, neurology, or anatomy has to offer us? I don't disagree that people form opinions based on their experiences, but does that necessarily discount the way that those experiences might affect the brain and body?

The brain releases a number of chemicals into the body at all times. As a self defense instructor, I could go on and on about the many chemicals, such as adrenaline, epinephrine, cortisol, sugars, etc, which are released into the bloodstream during fight or flight situations. Those chemicals have very real effects on the human body.

Are you completely discounting the possibility that other human behaviors, such as political discourse, may also trigger the release of chemicals which may affect human behavior? Are you saying that those chemicals might not have pleasurable, or even addictive, side affects which may encourage people to continue to participate in those activities which result in the chemical "high" but avoid those activities that do not?


That kind of research is not only oversimplified in understanding human thinking processes, but it totally misses the mark about human nature.

It isn't an attempt to explain the "human thinking process." It is an attempt to show how some specific activities affect specific parts of the brain.


-Rob

CCTelander
07-17-2009, 03:08 PM
The study wasn't built around that "false assumption" at all. Thus far, the soul, if it exists at all, is impossible to prove or to subject to empirical testing. So the scientists didn't ignore it, they simply left it out of their experiment. They were looking at the specific effects of specific behaviors on specific parts of the brain. It wasn't a study about the soul, so they didn't look at the way the soul effects or is effected by political thought.



Do you then reject all science in favor of a religious world view? Is there nothing that physics, biology, neurology, or anatomy has to offer us? I don't disagree that people form opinions based on their experiences, but does that necessarily discount the way that those experiences might affect the brain and body?

The brain releases a number of chemicals into the body at all times. As a self defense instructor, I could go on and on about the many chemicals, such as adrenaline, epinephrine, cortisol, sugars, etc, which are released into the bloodstream during fight or flight situations. Those chemicals have very real effects on the human body.

Are you completely discounting the possibility that other human behaviors, such as political discourse, may also trigger the release of chemicals which may affect human behavior? Are you saying that those chemicals might not have pleasurable, or even addictive, side affects which may encourage people to continue to participate in those activities which result in the chemical "high" but avoid those activities that do not?



It isn't an attempt to explain the "human thinking process." It is an attempt to show how some specific activities affect specific parts of the brain.


-Rob

All very good points.

I think that sometimes fundamentalists are in WAY too much of a hurry to dismiss things that they THINK are unsupportive of their own dogma. Many tend to have a kind of knee-jerk reaction in that regard.

In this case the findings of the study aren't really in any way opposed to Christian views. How anyone could perceive otherwise is difficult for me to imagine.

CCTelander
08-03-2009, 08:00 PM
bump

Vessol
08-03-2009, 08:29 PM
Uh guys. I don't know about you..but Republican and Democrat are not hardcoded in our brains.

The same would apply to hard core Ron Paul supporters too.

CCTelander
08-05-2009, 09:47 AM
Uh guys. I don't know about you..but Republican and Democrat are not hardcoded in our brains.


No one is saying that they are. Just that once a particular position is adoptde by a person, they react, evaluate information, and make decisions in specific, predictable ways. Knowing how people do these things can be an invaluable tool when one is attempting to persuade them of something.



The same would apply to hard core Ron Paul supporters too.


Absolutely. It applies whenever people have deeply held beliefs of any kind.

CCTelander
10-24-2016, 03:16 PM
bump

Suzanimal
10-24-2016, 03:36 PM
Haven't had a chance to read it in depth yet, but I did scan it over and it looks interesting. I've read a lot of stuff on this topic over the years, and I really do think it's a critical area that most never even consider.

One thing's for sure, beating our heads against the wall of people's deeply held beliefs and defensive natures isn't really going to cut it.

I quit arguing with people. I try to find something I can agree with them on and then (after I gain their trust) I drop a few truth bombs and walk off. I know I've made a few people think - which is good but I can only claim one full on convert. He works for my husband and drives him nuts with the RP videos, lol. Mr Animal was a neocon when we met but once I convinced him to quit listening Rush (said it gave me a "headache";)), he's come around quite a bit.

CCTelander
10-25-2016, 02:50 PM
I quit arguing with people. I try to find something I can agree with them on and then (after I gain their trust) I drop a few truth bombs and walk off. I know I've made a few people think - which is good but I can only claim one full on convert. He works for my husband and drives him nuts with the RP videos, lol. Mr Animal was a neocon when we met but once I convinced him to quit listening Rush (said it gave me a "headache";)), he's come around quite a bit.


That's actually an excellent approach to take. Most people didn't come to be liberty advocates in one giant leap. It usually takes a while and happens in small steps alon the way. Especially if they've been part of the matrix all their lives. +rep

otherone
10-25-2016, 03:43 PM
Absolutely. It applies whenever people have deeply held beliefs of any kind.

deeply held=poorly investigated

P3ter_Griffin
10-27-2016, 03:45 AM
From my perspective this means that we should consider advocating the benefits of liberty and libertarianism versus explaining the immorality of government. So finding why it is this person finds the need for coercion and government and explaining to them how their desires can be better achieved in liberty.

But for people who's deeply held belief is that government needs to occupy this role providing for their desires???? It seems like the only way to approach them would be to combat their deeply held belief.