Political thought: emotion not logic. Part II

I found a great CBS News article about how political thinking is based on emotion and not logic:

When 30 self-described partisans were presented with contradictory quotes about the candidates (President Bush supporting, then denouncing Ken Lay; Sen. John Kerry supporting, then denouncing a Social Security overhaul), it was the portions of the brain that process emotion, not rational thinking, that became active. "The thinking caps went off and the feeling caps went on," is how Westen put it to me.

Normally, Westen says, a brain faced with contradictory information will fire up the zones where reason or rational thought happens. The 30 partisans in this study were presented with contradictory quotes from Bush and Kerry, but also from Hank Aaron, Tom Hanks and the writer William Styron. They processed the information about the non-politicians with the reasoning centers of the brain. It was politics that short-circuited them. ("This is your brain; this is your brain on politics.")

I blogged about the same study before, but I think the above quote does a better job of explaining it.

Some of the commenters to my recent posts have been using the emotional parts of their brains instead of the logical parts. But that's OK, I used to be like that also until I transcended partisan politics and become a utilitarian empiricist (at least that's a tag that some have given me).

Comments

[michael vassar]

Utilitarian Empiricist? Is that actually what you aspire towards? In terms of recommended political policy or in terms of personal actions? With what circle of inclusion? You do know that this involves never disagreeing with your "epistemic peers"?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/10/robert_aumann_n.html

I would like to note that I am sure FAR more people who identify as utilitarian empricists (from the originators Bentham and Mill to the current flag-bearer Singer) identify as Left than as Right.

[Austrian]

A utilitarian empirist: Someone who thinks they have a scientific ruler which can measure each person's subjective interpretation of the good and come up with a calculus to determine the greatest good for the greatest number. And do so without any conception of individual sovereignty.
Yeah, what a wonderful philosophy to hang your hat on!

[Half Sigma]

In any event, utilitarianism is behind my suggestions for the inheritance dividend and the four day workweek.

[Chris]

Interesting post. Is there a similar study regarding religious thought? Do you think the results of this study are only logical considering the comparison subject matter (Aaron, Hanks, Styron) has no real impact on our world aside from entertainment? Politics and religion tend to have more connections to our inner self and deeply held convictions. For example, I have convictions and everyone else merely has opinions.

[Kathleen]

I would be very curious to know how many were men and how many were women. Women's brains deal with emotion on both sides, men only on one side. Do you have statistics showing this? I know as a women my emotions do tend to take over when debating politics, the raising of children, etc., whereas my husband can stand back and be more rational in thought in regards to politics, work, etc.

I don't think of this as a shortcoming for women, it is just how we are made and how we deal with things. It also does not mean that I am an irrational being. Emotions are important.

This is also one reason why I would not want Hillary as President - I am sure you are chuckling at this response! Kathleen