A Shocker: Partisan Thought Is Unconscious

M

midcan5

Member
This topic fascinates me. Having grandchildren today I marvel at the human being, the language and the development, but I still wonder why so many believe so many silly things, and like Dixie argue vehemently and endlessly for them. Seems much of what we think is rational is really just about feeling and emotion, patterns set in the brain through evolution and experience - through our biology and our lives. But still how do we do better when so many fight better.

By Benedict Carey

"Researchers have long known that political decisions are strongly influenced by unconscious emotional reactions, a fact routinely exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. But the new research suggests that for partisans, political thinking is often predominantly emotional."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24find.html

Interesting stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/health/research/03brain.html?_r=1&em

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01human.html

Edelman and Churchland are excellent. [remove space]

h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp3LEGcHsPo

h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8-RhC5slzk
 
True. This is why meaningless slogans like "change" work on morons.

Politics still matters. Systems of government are substantially different as to warrant meaningful debate, however.

I always think of this quote:
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James

The quote is perfectly illustrated by your average braindead turbo lib who believes discrimination against individuals based on race and gender is a solution to racism and sexism.
 
You can't make a difference in politics if you don't accept certain facts about people and what they respond to. It's disappointing to me too. Facts are so important and so few people really respond to them.

I don't want to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make my mark, but you can't sit in an ivory tower and expect people to be satisfied solely with facts and figures. A small number of people will be motivated by that, and those are great allies to have, but the rest require different methods.

People make political choices for irrational, emotional reasons. They also do this because of their moral outlook (whatever that may be) and what makes them angry enough to participate. Gross numbers of the population who support or oppose a proposition are less important than the net numbers of very irate people who actually do something about whatever they support or oppose.

People ask things of their government because of the way they feel, mostly. But in a way, it's not that different from a lot of the other things we do with our lives. We buy in to a story about a certain thing that appeals to what we would want for ourselves.

Commerce is also like that in that sense, or even the relationships we choose. We also ask things of our significant others and spouses, or choose them, based on things we sometimes can't quite explain but make sense to us in emotion or aspiration.

And just like commerce or relationships, sometimes people get what they want and not what they need. But ultimately, the onus is on the idea people to do a better job explaining why they would want it, not the "consumer" for wanting something they feel they can live with.
 
Last edited:
Adam Weinberg said:
You can't make a difference in politics if you don't accept certain facts about people and what they respond to. It's disappointing to me too. Facts are so important and so few people really respond to them.

I don't want to appeal to the lowest common denominator to make my mark, but you can't sit in an ivory tower and expect people to be satisfied solely with facts and figures. A small number of people will be motivated by that, and those are great allies to have, but the rest require different methods.

People make political choices for irrational, emotional reasons. They also do this because of their moral outlook (whatever that may be) and what makes them angry enough to participate. Gross numbers of the population who support or oppose a proposition are less important than the net numbers of very irate people who actually do something about whatever they support or oppose.

People ask things of their government because of the way they feel, mostly. But in a way, it's not that different from a lot of the other things we do with our lives. We buy in to a story about a certain thing that appeals to what we would want for ourselves.

Commerce is also like that in that sense, or even the relationships we choose. We also ask things of our significant others and spouses, or choose them, based on things we sometimes can't quite explain but make sense to us in emotion or aspiration.

And just like commerce or relationships, sometimes people get what they want and not what they need. But ultimately, the onus is on the idea people to do a better job explaining why they would want it, not the "consumer" for wanting something they feel they can live with.
Click to expand...

Yes. Drama itself is about emotional manipulation. A narrative, a story. You hollywood types know all about this.

But couldn;t we raise the level of the discourse?
 
The only way to raise the level of discourse is to use the same "storytelling" tactics to appeal to what's best in people and not what's worst.

Otherwise, you're not even part of the discourse, you're just having a conversation with yourself on your own terms.

In directing classes, they often teach that characters have a central motivation in their life called a "super objective". A certain few characters in storytelling want to live life on their own terms, but these people are rare and give up on being accepted, respected, or perhaps even loved (other super objectives) in order to do that.

Well, in politics, your ideas have to be accepted, respected, and even loved sometimes. So, you can't just do it however you want to and still win.

Different people have different ideas of what those appealing values are, so while you can't please everybody, you have to bring enough people together who share enough of a common cause to make the difference you want to make.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
The only way to raise the level of discourse is to use the same "storytelling" tactics to appeal to what's best in people and not what's worst.

Otherwise, you're not even part of the discourse, you're just having a conversation with yourself on your own terms.

In directing classes, they often teach that characters have a central motivation in their life called a "super objective". A certain few characters in storytelling want to live life on their own terms, but these people are rare and give up on being accepted, respected, or perhaps even loved (other super objectives) in order to do that.

Well, in politics, your ideas have to be accepted, respected, and even loved sometimes. So, you can't just do it however you want to and still win.

Different people have different ideas of what those appealing values are, so while you can't please everybody, you have to bring enough people together who share enough of a common cause to make the difference you want to make.
Click to expand...

i guess that;s why the children always become the lowest common denominator. Our children will die in jihad, or from cancer, if we don't do what we're told.

God save the children.
 
midcan5 said:
This topic fascinates me. Having grandchildren today I marvel at the human being, the language and the development, but I still wonder why so many believe so many silly things, and like Dixie argue vehemently and endlessly for them.
Click to expand...

LOL, just Dixie?
 
Thanks midcam , a very nice morning read.

The video links dont work but I will go to youtube and look.
 
evince said:
start with yourself and maybe we can.
Click to expand...

Im way above you. You think totalitarianism is new? This evil is as old as time, and you're brainwashed for beleiving the collectivist spew.

Collectivism allows us to dehumanize the victims of statist/fascist murder.
 
Southern Man said:
They haven't changed in 200 years so what makes you think they can change? Voters don't want a guy that tells it like it is.
Click to expand...

Maybe they've experienced it so little they're not used to it.

But sure, side with the one who advocates manipulation and lying just because it's "how things are done".


Voters do want someone who tells it like it is.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Maybe they've experienced it so little they're not used to it.

But sure, side with the one who advocates manipulation and lying just because it's "how things are done".


Voters do want someone who tells it like it is.
Click to expand...

Some voters do and you and I are two of them. However the vast majority are weenies or don't pay close enough attention.
 
AssHatZombie said:
They pay more attention than you think.

See how elitism is worming it's way into your thinking?
Click to expand...

LOL Good point but here's what I tell my kids whenever they complain about some idiot that they met or happens to be in a position of authority. "The average IQ is 100, so for every person with an IQ of 140 there are four out there with 90, 8 with 95, or 16 with 97.5 and so on. We are vastly outnumbered." :palm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top