Political Thinking

"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)

So much better than me

This was posted by my buddy Zac and I had to put it on here because this guys on here says exactly what I wanted to say in that last post of mine. It is done much better.

The Republican Hater's Ball

Please Vote With Caution

I strongly urge you to check out my good friend comoprozac's blog, Living in Misery. He has a wealth of political knowledge and has posted several good entries regarding the election.

Among them a Daily Show clip that shows that McCain's VP is a complete contradiction to what he has said thus far. He calls out OB's lack of experience but selects a VP candidate that is less qualified and less experienced than OB.

Also, it demonstrates how ridiculous it is to think Paulin is a "Hillary-voter getter" just because she is female. She is the exact opposite of Hillary in the words of Comoprozac and Jon Stewart. Anti-abortion rights, Pro-Oil, Anti-environment, Pro-War, Pro-NRA, Socially Conservative overall. She is under investigation for her own shaddy actions (unjustifiably firing her ex-brother in-law).

I would like to think our voters are more intelligent than the McCain camp thinks they are.

Check out his blog: http://in-misery.blogspot.com/2008/09/may-i-continue.html