Brain Scan Researcher Advises Democrats
The L.A. Times has a story about a brain researcher who gives advice to Democrats based on brain scan studies:
“The political brain is an emotional brain,” [Drew Westen] said. “It prefers conclusions that are emotionally satisfying rather than conclusions that match the data.”
When Westen and his Emory colleagues conducted brain scans during the 2004 presidential campaign, they found that partisans of either side, when presented with contradictory statements by their preferred candidates, would struggle for some seconds with feelings of discomfort, then resolve the matter in their candidates’ favor.
The scans showed that to do this, they used the part of their brain that controls emotion and conflict. The area that controls reasoning was inactive — “the dead zone,” Westen said.
Westen writes that it doesn’t make sense to argue an issue using facts and figures and to count on voters — particularly the swing voters who decide national elections — to make choices based on sophisticated understandings of policy differences or procedures. He says Democratic candidates must learn to do what Republicans have understood for many years — they must appeal to emotions. And (talking to you, Mr. Gore) stay away from numbing statistics.
Yeah, it’s the old problem: Democrats appeal to logic and reason, and Republicans appeal to emotion. We all know that, don’t we, Republicans?
Exit question, as Allah might say: Why are all these brain scan guys all Democrats?
Neuromancy?
nk (7c00c1) — 7/9/2007 @ 6:38 amThey’re all Democrats because there is a strong correlation between intelligence/education and liberal/progressive political leanings. Now, whether Democrats have actually said or done anything to inspire the support of liberal/progressive leaning people is another matter….
That being said, I think it’s terribly detrimental to the health of our democratic republic to encourage all of our candidates to ignore reason and aim for the most “emotionally satisfying” platform.
Dylan (8a3307) — 7/9/2007 @ 6:50 am“How to Pick up Girls in Five Easy Lessons.”
Under normal circumstances I’d give the usual responset “If you need a book… ”
But this time, who knows?
Of course Clinton was a real politician. Amazing how they haven’t learned.
AF (4a3fa6) — 7/9/2007 @ 6:51 amI am on very close terms with internationally-renowned neurologists, neurobiologists, neuropsychologists and radiologists. I’ll run this study by them. I suspect that they’ll say that the researchers here are making “[too] long spokes from [very] short stakes”.
There is, however, validity in the theory that people tend to believe rather than know. That to people trying to deal with the world around them knowledge and belief are essentially the same although we may understand the difference semantically. And certainly emotion (I prefer “sensibility”) would play a part in forming a belief.
nk (7c00c1) — 7/9/2007 @ 7:04 amA strong correlation between education/intelligence and liberal/progressive leanings? Whoo hah. How does Dylan explain a John Roberts, a Milton Friedman, an Antonin Scalia or a Sam Alito–all highly educated, highly intelligent and based on the demonization that they get from the left, hardly a liberal in the bunch.
If you want to say that today’s academy tends to produce liberals, sometimes aka “highly educated fools”, then I’ll agree with you. But I find it hard to accept the idea, no matter how comforting it is to people of one political persuasion or another, that “intelligence” however defined is the exclusive property of one persuasion.
Of course one can always say–“Look at how smart that person is over there. He agrees with everything I say, so he must be very intelligent.”
That’s comforting to the speaker–but not a very bright thing to say. And yes Dylan, I’ve been all the way through the academy with 20 years of education. I must have missed your correlation.
Mike Myers (2e43f5) — 7/9/2007 @ 8:17 amI think the party out of power tends to make smart and logical arguments.
Remember term limits and balanced budgets?
Once they get into power, it’s all about buying votes with government money.
alphie (015011) — 7/9/2007 @ 8:44 amI really do commend Kos’s Crashing the Gate to you guys. There’s a great section comparing Jeb Bush’s re-election ads with those of his opponent. The Democrat aimed for knowledge with all sorts of little dollar signs and the laundry list of programs to expand. Bush ran a great piece aimed for the hearts of immigrants, opening with various Latin American flags dissolving into the Florida flag. Kos said even he was affected by the ad.
Maybe it’s a coincidence that Bush not only crushed MacBride but even got a majority of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote, but I doubt it. Thirty second spots are not for the transmission of knowledge.
We’re paying you guys a compliment: your TV advertising has been much better than most of ours. Why are you so reticent about accepting it?
Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9) — 7/9/2007 @ 9:04 amI’m always amused at the theory that Democrats are smarter. Then we get to see the SAT scores and college grades of their heros. I will agree that feel-good (or sky-is-falling) themes do better with the people who read bumper stickers for knowledge. Otherwise, global warming would have been long gone as a fad. At least Gore is smart enough to avoid debating any of the skeptics. He couldn’t get into law school but he is a climate expert.The science of emotions is old stuff. Atropine is called “belladonna” because somebody found out 500 years ago (or more) that men think women with dilated pupils are more beautiful. If you study decision theory, you learn all the heuristics of decision making. Most of them are fallacies, like the “sunk cost” fallacy. We were wired thousands of years ago to make quick decisions, often on inadequate information. Nothing new here.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 7/9/2007 @ 9:50 amRoberts and Alito didn’t exactly want to debate their skeptics during their confirmation hearings, Mike.
Not having any actual thoughts seems to be a requirement to become on of the nation’s top law talkin’ guys.
“I can’t comment on that” or “I don’t recall” is the smartest thing you can say in American politics now.
alphie (015011) — 7/9/2007 @ 9:55 amAlphie,
What confirmation hearings did you watch? Roberts and Alito made their interrogators look not fit to carry their briefcases.
Crap, I forgot! Revisionism is your side’s stock in trade.
nk (37e215) — 7/9/2007 @ 10:14 amHaha, nk,
We’re there secret hearing that I didn’t catch?
I seem to remember a list of the top 100 appeals court judges in the country released just before Alito got the nod, and Alito wasn’t on it.
I don’t think he was selected for his brain power.
alphie (015011) — 7/9/2007 @ 10:31 amOk, fair enough. Name one Supreme Court Justice who was. They are all political appointees and I do not worship at the feet of any of them.
There is a story that when Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall (whom I admire very much as a lawyer) he said roughly “Time’s there was a [n-word] on the Supreme Court”.
Still, they are superb lawyers and some of them superb judges and the Senators who pass judgment on them are mostly jokes of a lawyer who went into politics because they could not hack it in the practice of law.
nk (37e215) — 7/9/2007 @ 10:51 amWell, nk,
Our propensity to place amiable dunces and partisan yes-men in our country’s highest positions has got to hurt us in the long run.
Whenever there’s an international gathering of leaders, our guys always come off as either the class clowns or the dumb, rich kids.
But what to do about it?
We can’t make an I.Q. test a prerequisite to entering our beauty contests, can we?
alphie (015011) — 7/9/2007 @ 11:03 amI trust the electorate. I am not wise enough to rule my fellow citizens and I think that a majority of them are wiser than me. We’ve been doing ok, so far. And if push comes to shove, they (our elected leaders) are going to die someday.
nk (37e215) — 7/9/2007 @ 11:10 amI’m a big fan of democracy, too, nk.
But when you see the economies of our competitors growing 4-5 times faster than ours, year in, year out, ya gotta figure something about our system is broke.
alphie (015011) — 7/9/2007 @ 11:15 am“Our propensity to place amiable dunces and partisan yes-men in our country’s highest positions has got to hurt us in the long run.”
I don’t think that is a very nice thing to say about William O Douglas and Earl Warren. The smartest and best educated nominee in my liftime was Bork, and you know how that turned out. I suspect the nominees learned from his experience. You seem to be trotting down that “Democrats are smarter” garden path at a good clip.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 7/9/2007 @ 11:17 amNot really, Mike.
In both religion and politics, I’m agnostic.
I thought Bork would have made a hell of a justice, sad to see him go the Orson Welles route since his inquisition.
alphie (015011) — 7/9/2007 @ 11:24 am[sarcasm alert]
It is all so simple and rational. A study clearly shows that at the turn of the 20th century an overwhelming majority of captains of industry, our military general staff and top national political leaders were white and overwhelmingly Episcopalian (its not the Church of England, it is NOT!!!).
The data is clear – white Episcopalians were smartest at that time. What of certain Jewish americans? Well, what part of “white” and “Episcopalian” did you not understand?
Ah, a rational answer based upon data!!!
Next week – African-Americans and out-of-wedlock births! Rationality uber allies!
Californio (b4db1f) — 7/9/2007 @ 12:01 pmThis is news? I thought it was obvious that all elections turned on emotion.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 7/9/2007 @ 12:25 pmI think these studies miss a critical ‘bullcrep detector’ in the feedback loop. Stuff that is sufficiently illogical or that is seen as lies or pandering or unreal or impossible gets filtered.
luagha (88a84a) — 7/9/2007 @ 1:07 pmIt doesn’t make it to the emotional manipulation stage.
Roberts and Alito didn’t exactly want to debate their skeptics during their confirmation hearings, Mike.
What’s a specific example? Since when do nominees debate during confirmation hearing anyway?
Not having any actual thoughts seems to be a requirement to become on of the nation’s top law talkin’ guys.
Seems like Roberts and Alito have authored quite a few actual decisions with detailed explanations. Not that you would be familiar with any of them. Who is an example of an intelligent judge and how do you know?
Gerald A (6b39c1) — 7/9/2007 @ 1:24 pmAlphie…people who are going thru confirmation hearings DO NOT debate the members of the panel confirming them, not unless they don’t want to be confirmed. Roberts, and especially Alito, were about as conservative as Bush could have squeeked thru. They weren’t going to do anything but smile nicely and nod. Anyone who doesn’t get this shouldn’t be questioning anyone else’s intelligence.
As for the rest of the topic, it is just more stupid ways that Democrats try to explain away why they keep losing elections (’06 not withstanding, and they almost blew that even after the Republicans did everything they could to lose). The Dems have used emotion at least as effectively as the R’s through out history. A few examples:
2000, NAACP AD showing a dragging chain behind a pickup to beat Bush on not signing a hate crimes law.
2006 – Dems use images of flag draped coffins in ads to say we “need a new direction”
2004 & 2007 – John Edwards’ entire “two america’s” schtick, plus saying that if John Kerry were elected, people like Christopher Reeve would get up and walk
2000 – Al Gore telling a black audience that if Bush was elected, he would appoint “strict constitutionalists” that viewed somepeople as “2/3ds of a human being”
And of course, the most devestating emotional ad ever was LBJ’s Diasy ad in 1964.
The bottom line is that campaigns run ads that are going to get the message across most effectively. If the Dems message isn’t being well recived, I would bet it is the content rather than the packaging. Because even though Bill Clinton used to run around saying that when the elections are run on the issues, we (Dems) win, you will notice he won by coopting Republican positions on the death penalty, welfare, free trade and others.
headhunt23 (9e1243) — 7/9/2007 @ 1:33 pmAh, yes, you got me. So, you name four people who are presumably intelligent and well-educated and who are not liberal or progressive and this is supposed to invalidate my statement, eh? I said correlation, not an exact, one-to-one correspondence. You evidently didn’t go through the Statistics academy, or else you would understand what the word correlation means.
Also, there is another correlation between wealth and voting Republican, based upon the perception that Republican policies will broadly result in more economic growth (or, more and more these days, based upon a specific promise from the Republican candidate whom you make a large donation to that he’ll cut your taxes, turn the other way as you use every possible loophole to be found in the tax code, and shape foreign and domestic policy around the principle goal of helping you to maximize your profits).
And finally, I would like to point out that we were talking about neuroscientists, who receive PhD’s in Neuroscience or a related field, not lawyers or economists. There also happens to be a correlation between being a lawyer or an economist and voting Republican (this is likely to be a combined effect of lawyers and economists tending to be wealthy and the culture of their professions, which treats Liberal as a dirty word).
Dylan (8a3307) — 7/9/2007 @ 1:38 pmLawyers and economists vote Republican because Republicans, at one time, actually claimed listened to economists and lawyers about things like sound economic policies and the constitution. Unfortunately, they haven’t been listening much lately.
Phil (427875) — 7/9/2007 @ 1:59 pmComment by alphie — 7/9/2007 @ 11:15 am
Are you suggesting that we model ourselves after China or India, or merely denying the fact that our economy is growing 50% faster than Europes? Or were you thinking of Brazil’s smart judges? Or do you mean that Democracy is not the best system?
Sorry to interject.
carlitos (b38ae1) — 7/9/2007 @ 2:00 pmDoesn’t the tin foil hats most Democrats wear block the brain scanning waves?
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 7/9/2007 @ 2:31 pmAndrew L.–it was Crist who beat McBride; Jeb! was termlimited to two terms. And a major reason McBride lost was McBride–an inept and dull lawyer who knew how to beat Janet Reno in a primary, but not much else. (Inept and dull as a politician; I have no knowledge of how good he is as a lawyer.)
Jeb! had a cute shtick when he was running for his ads–the omnipresent ad was simply Jeb with an exclamation point, as if to suggest he was an exciting person to have on your side and as your governor. And truth to tell, he made a fairly decent governor. He certainly did better, and was far more competent in his chief executiveship than his brother has in his position. Had Jeb! been president, at the very least Katrina would have not been the mess it was, and the invasion of Iraq would have been done in a far more competent and realistic manner. But lots of people voted for Jeb! because he was good as governor, and many of them voted for Crist because he was the Republican successor to Jeb!. In fact, the Republican primary was a contest for the title “clone of Jeb!”.
Which is a long winded way of say, the ads actually had far less impact than in most campaigns. Also one should remember that Jeb!’s personal Hispanic connectins are to Mexico and Colombia, not Cuba, when tracking the number of non Cuban Hispanics who voted for him.
Headhunt 23, whose comment was unfortunately comment 22, please note that of the five examples you gave, three were run during unsuccessful campaigns.
However, I can say, without any bias or exaggeration, and without any trace of emotional considerations, that this study matches all available evidence and can be relied upon, since I comes from my alma mater. (Emory College, BA, 1980)
kishnevi (2dbd61) — 7/9/2007 @ 5:48 pmPerfect Sense: tin foil does not work as well as aluminum.
kishnevi, Katrina was a mess because of who actually was governor in Louisiana.
Robin Roberts (6c18fd) — 7/9/2007 @ 6:00 pmMike #8 – “We were wired thousands of years ago to make quick decisions, often on inadequate information.”
When you’re being run down by a (insert any large, pre-historic, flesh-eating animal), you either make quick decisions on a minimal amount of info, or, you die. Those that survived we call Dads.
As to this so-called scientific study: two points.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 7/9/2007 @ 8:02 pm1- Is this just another cry in the great research-funding market-place?; and,
2- With idiots like these, I think I’ll have to change my name, again.
Eugenics is back.
Davod (3392f5) — 7/9/2007 @ 11:12 pmRobin Roberts:
Katrina was seen as Federal mess precisely because of Democratic talking points and the ignorance of the MSM. As you state, the response was hampered by incompetant Democratic politicians, the Governor and the Mayor of New Orleans.
Davod (3392f5) — 7/9/2007 @ 11:18 pmCarlitos,
Ya gotta admit that China sure has an unusual way of dealing with corrupt governemnt officials:
http://tinyurl.com/2dg9ms
Davod,
Katrina will always be seen as Bush’s folly, why bother beating such a dead horse?
alphie (015011) — 7/10/2007 @ 1:47 am“There also happens to be a correlation between being a lawyer or an economist and voting Republican (this is likely to be a combined effect of lawyers and economists tending to be wealthy and the culture of their professions, which treats Liberal as a dirty word).
Comment by Dylan”
Lawyers voting R ? I cn see why economists would vote R but lawyers ???
Are you one of those brilliant Democrats ? I thought so. Check the ABA and Trial Lawyers contribution records and then go stand in the corner until class is over.
Mike K (86bddb) — 7/10/2007 @ 4:52 amkishnevi…
Well yeah…your team hasn’t won too much lately.
But my point, as you well know, is that both parties use these types of ads. Also, this type of study is just typical of the self-delusion that people of staunch minority positions like to cling to. For instance, this morning driving into work, I saw a car with the following bumpersticker: Liberals vote their hopes, conservatives vote their fears.
Now, let’s look at the fact that in American presidential politics, the more optimistic candidate has won every election since 1980, and the score during that period has been 5-2 in favor of the Republicans. Lets look at the fact that in opinion survey after opinion survey, conservatives are more optimistic for the future and more satisfied with the present.
All the self delusion and self righteous back patting that simply reinforces liberals belief that they are right and the rest of America is not worthy of them does is stop liberals from looking at where their problems actually are – in the programs and arguments they are advancing.
headhunt23 (9e1243) — 7/10/2007 @ 5:10 amHeadhunt23–then why does conservative rhetoric propound some many fears about the future, if conservatives are actually more optimistic and content? It’s an interesting disconnect. But also note that optimism and satisfaction are emotional, not intellectual judgments–or at least jugdments in which emotional outlook has a large part to play–which aligns with the findings of the research we’re talking about in this thread.
Your observation about optimistic candidates winning is of limited value. I think it is truer to say that the candidate who could most convincingly project himself as an “average Joe” won, at least since Ford v Carter. Since intellectual attainment has an elitist ring to it, this means that in almost every case the candidate who was percieved as less intelligent was the winner. (Please not my phrasing–I’m not saying that the winner was in fact dumber. I’m just describing the impression he was able to give to the American people. Voters don’t like oversmart candidates.) Dole v Carter may have come close to being an exception, but I think even that election followed the trend I’m describing.
If this is true, it bodes ill for Hillary’s chances to win the White House–unless the people are really sick of the Republican Party in 2008. So there’s hope for you yet.
This idea of mine crystallized during the 2000 campaign, when I repeatedly saw news stories in which voters were asked why they intended to vote for Bush. The most common answer was, in its negative form, that Gore was too smart for anyone’s good; and in its positive form, that Bush was no smarter than the voter was. People, in other words, identified with Bush because he was as dumb as they were.
kishnevi (e46e1c) — 7/10/2007 @ 5:37 pmRobin and Dovid: You may recall that Jeb Bush had, as governor,more than a little experience with hurricanes. True fact: After Katrina, disaster response teams from Florida were working in Mississipi before anyone from either Mississipi or the Fedgov had arrived on the scene. They were up and running in preparation for a landfall on the Florida panhandle (after all, Katrina had already run through South Florida as a Cat I storm a few days before) and when Jeb realized that they weren’t needed for the panhandle, he sent them into Missisippi.
Although counterfactual history is always speculative, I’m pretty sure that had Jeb Bush been in the White House at that time, Blanco and Nagin would have been given far fewer chances to screw up, and Federal intervention would have been much stronger both before and after Katrina struck. Besides that, there would have been no Brownie to do a heck of a job.
kishnevi (da26af) — 7/10/2007 @ 5:50 pmWell alphie, since you’re being obtuse, can you clarify – a centrally-planned economy, coupled with totalitarian communism leads to high economic growth and execution of government officials. You believe that this is:
a – good thing
b – bad thing
c – good economy = good, execution = bad
d – vice-versa
Or, are you just being stupid, bringing up growth rates for the developing world in comparison with the world’s largest economy in the context of a conversation on judges and partisan brain-scans?
Thanks for playing.
carlitos (b38ae1) — 7/11/2007 @ 4:45 amkishnevi…just a quick question…
If liberals are voting their hopes, why are they always talking about how “scary” the Republicans are?
As to intellect vs. “average joe” I think in the case of Clinton he was percieved as being smarter than either Bush or Dole. As for Ford v. Carter, I think the perception was that Ford was more the average guy than Carter was (of course, Ford was severely hampered by Nixon’s pardon, but even then he still almost won). But, I don’t think anyone would ever have said Reagan or Bush the elder were “average guys”. But, your point is not without merit. But the optimism observation goes back much further than Reagan, to at least FDR. It is a trend that is much written about in American politics.
As for your last paragraph, I understand what you are trying to say – that voters percieved Bush as being dumb. But I will point out that Bush’s grades were higher than Gore’s and Kerry’s – and Bush’s standardized intelligence scores from the military were higher than Kerry’s (I don’t know about his vs. Gore’s). So, perhaps the identification facet is more along the lines of Americans liking politicians who project as more genuine (Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43) as opposed to fake intellectuals such as Gore and Kerry. American’s can smell a phony.
headhunt23 (9e1243) — 7/11/2007 @ 6:22 am