A recent study done by the Emory University Health Sciences Center presents some rather interesting conclusions about political bias and opinion formation. Scientists monitored the brains of participants who were asked to draw conclusions from information presented to them about politicians in their respective parties:

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…

In other words, participants felt a rush whenever the lied to themselves about information that could not be rationally discounted. In addition, the study explained how partisan participants reacted to either Bush or Kerry.

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 [Tom] Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.

I’ve seen myself do this on several occasions. I’ll think I’m building a reasoned argument, but I’m not at all. In fact, I’m making decisions and drawing conclusions without having nearly enough information to do so. When I identify myself with a particular party or candidate, it’s very hard to step outside this mold and make decisions purely on information.

Most political speaches these days, from both Republicans and Democrats, rely on the fact that supporters don’t need or want to have policies explained to them. The emotional appeal rules the day. How often have either Democrats or Republicans spelled out the details of their plans? How often have they really, honestly, explained how they’re going to make new legislative initiatives work? We all know it’s very very rare.

And most people don’t want to make an educated decision. They want to make a decision that matches with what they’ve already solidified in their minds as true. This is easier, and as this particular study suggests, it even gives us a rush to do so.

Perhaps what I like most is the term “calcified” used in the following context:

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.”

You can read this article for yourself and if you’re at all curious about such things, I guarantee you’ll find it quite interesting.

I think we truly must demand more information from our heads of state; we must require them to earn our vote with solid, competent information. If we don’t understand their plans or they haven’t effectively communicated these plans to the public, then we’re all being significantly short-changed.

As we demand this information, we must pledge to tell ourselves the truth about what this information tells us.