The Political Brain

A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product
of unconscious confirmation bias By MICHAEL SHERMER
Pace Will Rogers, I am not a member of any organized political
party. I am a libertarian. As a fi scal conservative and social
liberal, I have found at least something to like about each Republican
or Democrat I have met. I have close friends in both
camps, in which I have observed the following: no matter the
issue under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that
the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position.
This surety is called the confi rmation bias, whereby we
seek and fi nd confi rmatory evidence in support of already existing
beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfi rmatory evidence.
Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging
(fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confi
rmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and
driven by emotions. Psychologist Drew Westen led
the study, conducted at Emory University, and the
team presented the results at the 2006 annual conference
of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while
undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men—half self-described
as “strong” Republicans and half as “strong” Democrats—
were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush
and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted
themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican
subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were
of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.
The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part
of the brain most associated with reasoning—the dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex—was quiescent. Most active were the orbital
frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions;
the anterior cingulate, which is associated with confl ict
resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with
making judgments about moral accountability; and—once
subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally
comfortable—the ventral striatum, which is related to reward
and pleasure.
“We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the
brain normally engaged during reasoning,” Westen is quoted
as saying in an Emory University press release. “What we saw
instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including
circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion,
and circuits known to be involved in resolving confl icts.” Interestingly,
neural circuits engaged in rewarding selective behaviors
were activated. “Essentially, it appears as if partisans
twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions
they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with
the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of
positive ones,” Westen said.
The implications of the fi ndings reach far beyond politics.
A jury assessing evidence against a defendant, a CEO evaluating
information about a company or a scientist
weighing data in favor of a theory will undergo the
same cognitive process. What can we do about it?
In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery.
Strict double-blind controls are required in
experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the
experimenters know the experimental conditions during the
data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences
and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated
in other laboratories unaffi liated with the original researcher.
Disconfi rmatory evidence, as well as contradictory
interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues
are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence.
We need similar controls for the confi rmation bias in the
arenas of law, business and politics. Judges and lawyers should
call one another on the practice of mining data selectively to
bolster an argument and warn juries about the confirmation
bias. CEOs should assess critically the enthusiastic recommendations
of their VPs and demand to see contradictory evidence
and alternative evaluations of the same plan. Politicians need
a stronger peer-review system that goes beyond the churlish
opprobrium of the campaign trail, and I would love to see a
political debate in which the candidates were required to make
the opposite case.
Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias.
(From Scientific American Jul. 2006)

Another proof that humans are not rational beings.

Party Political Disorder will be listed in the DSM-V and Ely Lilly has a new decision-making drug, Idonnopaine, in the FDA pipeline. Pfizer is beginning research on loyalty-inducing drugs to counter the inevitable dissociative effects of treating the first disorder.

Fascinating study, but not very surprising. Marketers and politicians almost always use emotional arguments instead of factual ones, and I imagine this phenomenon is also related to why we so often hear hardcore partisans repeat party talking points verbatim. It's like some kind of Pavlovian conditioning. With proper emotional programming people's brains give them a little reward every time they repeat the mantras. "Kerry is a flip-flopper! Those damn Activist judges! Wheeee, I feel happy!"

On a related note I wonder if anyone's done a study on brain activity during ritual behavior such as religious services, pledge recitations, and so on. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a chemical reinforcement at work in the brain that makes people so enamored of their rituals, and perhaps some lack of the same response in people who are generally annoyed by ritual behavior (like me).

How comforting to know that we're all just machines to be manipulated by those who know what buttons to push.

the study mentions the reward is pleasure, that is linked to serotonin. there's the chemical connection.

And yes, the same mechanism applies to religions, choosing a car, or even what color to paint the living room.

It is nearly impossible to make a rational decision alone, since you would have to research every facts related to the question to be solved.

Humans need to question their emotional reactions and start thinking logically before acting.

Otherwise, we are just animals with a wide range of capabilities, but unable to progress as a society. Going for the emotional reward to guide our decisions is a recipe for social disasters like Rwanda, Darfur, Palestine, Tchechnya, etc...

Applying scientific method to pollitic? never happen because the power is with the emotional animals, always. No amount of rational reasoning will change the convictions of the desperate extremists, whatever their convictions are. They just can't examine their beliefs in a rational manner, because it does not bring them pleasure to do so. It is much more rewarding to them to believe they are right than to accept that they are wrong.

The solution? How do you change the behavior of a rabid animal? You don't, it's a waste of time. Only people who realise that there is something wrong with their behavior can be guided toward rational thinking.

BTW, rational thinking can be biased by the emotional reward, just like emotional reactions. It becomes irrational thinking. If the decision is selfish in nature, then it's the wrong decision.

So are you saying that selfishness is irrational?

Briana Dawson

I am not sure this is so much a matter of rational vs. emotional thinking as it is that the researchers are discounting some very important survival mechanisms. Everything we do in society involves membership in one group or another. Many of the situations they are describing are of the sort where picking one thing over the other may not really have a dramatic impact over their lives, but going against their own group definitely would.

Belonging to a group is a very important, and very emotional, aspect of anyone's life. It's also a far more ancient aspect of our lives than using algebra and iambic pentameter to make an auto purchase. Is it really so surprising that it would show up as weighing heavily in someone's thought processes?

The researchers would have served their purposes better with a cleaner study, something such as figuring out why someone could be a Red Sox fan all their lives. I would also like to note that, while scientists may describe peer review as a more "rational" approach, they also receive group support and an emotional high when they are able to refute or advance a study in some way. That this is an important system for making progress in science does not mean it is in any way suitable to running a town hall or a jury.

Anyway, this is just another case of social scientists postulating conclusions far and away outside what their data supports.

Or "Bush is a dictator! Karl Rove! Neo-con neo-con!"

What makes political hyperbole so appealling and powerful is because it's easy to remember and appears to act as a substitute for critical analysis.

I love Michael Shermer (subscribe to The Skeptic myself) but Pratyeka, some white space in your cite would have saved me a major headache.


Actually they have, Chip. Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief by Andrew Md Newberg, Eugene G. D'Aquili, and Vince Rause. It's a bit dry in places, but an interesting book.

There is also "The God Part of the Brain" (http://www.godpart.com/)

Briana Dawson

It's easy to fall into hyperbole when one is prone to blind belief, and that makes it easy to dismiss. It's also easy to label anything as hyperbole when it's repeated often enough, even if it's perfectly rational and reasoned. I agree with Ananda that there's an emotional reward for claiming the intellectual high ground and dismissing other views as lacking in critical analysis when often it's the dismissal that lacks supporting evidence. Also, I think many people have become so cynical about political discourse that any passionate voice tends to be discounted out of hand no matter how well reasoned it is. Some people strive so hard to be "reasonable" that they lose the ability to recognize any truth near the fringes.

Cynicism born of experience. I'm not sure how anyone can hold completely fast to either political side in this country right now, but many do. Both sides have more than their share of skeletons, embarrassments and outrages.


Stop being so reasonable, Chip!

Politics is an attempt to bring reason and order to social and economic relationships, but we don't often engage in politics on any level, leaders or citizens - we create partisanship and call it politics.

There's nothing "political" about the study the OP cites - this thread ought to be entitled "The Partisan Brain", which is a different sort of mental animal.

ROFL Ananda!

Will that be an Axis I or II disorder?