"It is generally known that people tend to believe what they want to believe- even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary." ("What You Don't Know" LaBossiere, p. 18)
You don't agree?
Take an objective listen to just about any political conversation around you. It is dreadfully redundant. The liberals take their point of view disregarding anything to the right and the conservatives take their point of view disregarding anything to the left.
The current health care reform discussion, for lack of a better, more condescending term, is a specific example. The pro reformers will ignore the significance of the economic factors, while the anti-reformers will overlook the need to ethically change the current system.
"People even go so far as to downplay and ignore evidence against what they believe while modifying and even fabricating evidence to support their own view." (LaBossiere, p.18-19)
Take a listen to AM conservative talk radio and you'll see this point in less than ten minutes. The "birther" issue comes to mind.
I will not sit here and act like I am any different. I have been a culprit of this practice countless times. I won't act like I am above this or better than this. But there is a reason why I and even you are this way.
Researchers at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia made a discovery regarding the physiology behind this process which they revealed in 2006.
During the 2004 Presidential election between Democrat, John Kerry and Republican and incumbent, George W. Bush, they gathered 15 die hard Republicans and 15 die hard Democrats. They used a functional magnetic resonance imaging device to scan the brains of their voters while they were asked to assess statements made by both candidates. The statements provided were ones in which both candidates contradicted themselves. Each group was forgiving of their candidate of choice while being critical of their own. ("What Don't You Know?" LaBossiere, p. 19)
No surprise there, right?
They were using the same reasoning we expected from them, didn't they?
Well, the interesting part lies in the results of the brain scan. The results showed that the part of the brain associated with reasoning was inactive as they made their claims about the contradictions.
Instead, the part of the brain that was most active during their assessments of the candidates contradictions was the parts associated with emotional processing, conflict resolution and moral judgements.
In addition, "when a subject rendered the judgement they found emotionally comfortable (their candidate did not contradict themselves), the part of the brain associated with pleasure became active. ("What Don't You Know?" LaBossiere, p. 19)
In other words, nobody in the test examined the claims rationally. They instead "went through a mental process that rewarded them for believing the conclusion they wanted to believe." ("What Don't You Know?" LaBossiere, p. 19)
This practice breaks one of the basic elements of critical thinking. In order to think critically, you need to be objective, not subjective. Your emotions cannot play a role in your thinking. Claims need to be assessed on their own merit and not on the basis of one's feelings towards them or the source they come from.
Micheal LaBoissere goes on in his book, "What Don't You Know?" with more examples of this mental breakdown. Objectivity is critical in philosophy but it is also crucial in other aspects of life too. Objectivity is a requirement in fairness.
And right about now, many of you who don't like what this study shows are looking for holes to poke through it, reasons to deny it and refuse to accept while others who like these findings are ready to shout it from the rooftops.
Also, you are all probably thinking, "I knew it! Those damned (fill in the opposite side of the political spectrum from you) are a bunch of hypocrites." And you are right.
But stop for a second and realize they are saying that about you....and they are right too!
(Quotes taken from: "What Don't You Know" by Micheal LaBoissere. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008)
6 comments:
You write, "[O]bjectivity is a requirement in fairness." However, haven't you just shown that objectivity is really a myth? It is an ideal that we strive for it but it is not a reality. I don't really need to argue my point there as you basically did that in your post.
What needs to change is not neccesarily how we process and think, but our desire to achieve an objectivity that does not exist. Also, we need to change this belief that subjectivity is a necessarily bad thing. One's subjectivity is partially a result of experience, which I think is crucial in critical thinking and decision-making.
At work this week we had a situation where a performer did 16 shows in a row - an ungodly amount of shows. The manager was able to get him out of his 16th show but because it fell into a different pay week, it would mean that he would have to take a vacation day. In the "objective" world that people strive for, we would say he should have to take the vacation day or work that show. But "subjectivity" prevailed and he was given a day off. Which do you think was fair?
Of course, there are only two political perspectives covered here. My problem with this argument is that they only studied die-hard, partisan political enthusiasts. I'd argue that those of us outside this limited political spectrum are more complex than this.
Take John Stewart for example. Sure, he's pretty liberal on a lot of issues, but I also think he's way more pragmatic than anyone in DC. Than and he makes fun of the Dems as much as the Republicans...It's just that conservatives tend to give him a lot more material. (Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. -John Stuart Mill)
I don't claim allegiance to either party, but you know where I lean. I do consider facts and figures presented by the "other side", but I am able to discredit them or bring in information of my own to contradict.
Presidential debates are really difficult for me to take. Neither candidate ever really says what I want them to say. I pick through the lies and the half-truths to find the lesser of two evils.
Right versus left politics is really wearing on our country. If people would just claim independence and decide for themselves instead of just following the party line. Honestly, most folk who claim to be Republican are really Libertarian. I'd say the majority of people seem to be Republicrats, somewhere in the middle of it all.
Kathryn, yes objectivity seems to be a myth according to this study. My point in that sentence was exactly what you said, "an ideal we strive for...but it is not a reality." A myth.
Theoretically true moderates would be objective right? But I wonder how many of us are really true moderates.
Comoprozac:
"Right versus left politics is really wearing on our country. If people would just claim independence and decide for themselves instead of just following the party line. Honestly, most folk who claim to be Republican are really Libertarian. I'd say the majority of people seem to be Republicrats, somewhere in the middle of it all."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Kathryn, although I like your example of the need for subjectivity, when we start going down that road of allowing subjectivity to play a role in our decision making it gets real tricky.
I keep going to my classroom. Lord knows I have erred on the side of being too subjective more than too objective, but when I have done that I open the door to unfairness.
One time I can "let something go" because in that case it seems ok and fair. But then the next time I may not be able to or the situation may change slightly and I end up appearing very unfair to another student. So you have to be play by the letter of the law so to speak every time regardless of the circumstances.
It is an interesting debate now that I think about it. I need to think some more.
You're doing it again - assuming subjectivity is bad. Saying we can't go down that road. I believe we CAN go down that road, but just like everything else in the world, there are positive and negative effects. (Remember that conversation?)
It's also - according to the study you cited - an inevitability. I can't control what part of my brain reacts to something. Or at least I don't think I can - I have no concept of how to tell my brain to use this sphere and not the other, etc.
I can watch my emotional triggers, and note when I am reacting based solely on the emotional/subjective side. I can make sure before I make a decision that I have, to the best of my conscience ability, weighed the other side.
You can be as "objective" as you want in your classroom, if the kid wants to see something as unfair he will find a way - again based on your study he will approach it from an emotional point because he can't help it. And it won't matter how hard you tried to be objective.
We try to find the closest line between objective and subjective so we can defend our actions. I think this is a noble persuit, but we're kiding ourselves if any of us think we are purely objective.
I like the example of Jon Stewart. I read an interesting article about how after Cronkite's death Time did a poll and found that Stewart was the most trusted name in news right now. (It was a skewed poll if you ask me.) The article stated that this wasn't a bad thing. Stewart doesn't pretend to be "objective", he reacts emotionally to what is going on. People respond to that. And if you look at Cronkite's most noteworthy moments - so did he. The news anchors today try and be "objective" but no one believes them. And that is why they fail. Stewart wears his heart on his sleeve. (And yes, makes fun of both sides.)
(I don't like to go into the political element of this topic because it's out of my league...but I enjoy reading the discussion)
Let me be careful here. I realize I am implying subjective is bad. Maybe I mean more problematic? I guess that is bad though.
Let's go this way: pure fairness can't have subjectivity correct?
But pure fairness is impossible.
I don't mean to say that subjectivity is bad, just in the way of pure fairness. And I try to get as close to pure fairness as I can.
Now....since we can't acheive pure fairness, why even try? Just acknowledge and admit the existence of subjectivity and embrace it. It can be a good thing.
Is this all accurate to you?
I am multi-tasking so I can't keep a coherent thought in my head as I write these comments. But I can't avoid them.
Right now, I'd prefer thinking about this discussion than the political side of it anyway.
Post a Comment