|
The currently accepted model of the mind includes a design of neurons that is fundamentally about the strengthening and weakening of connections between abstract ideas or concrete objects.
So, a connection exists between two things (a lever is pulled, BZZT food comes out of a slot) gets reinforced (Hey... EVERY TIME the lever is pulled, BZZT food comes out of the slot!). Each time that gets reinforced, the neural pathway connecting lever and BZZT food gets stronger, and the expectation (pull BZZT food, pull BZZT food) gets stronger.
What's interesting is what happens when something happens that ISN'T pull BZZT food. Imagine pull BZZT... no food. The first few times this happens, the connection is actually STRENGTHENED dramatically--attention is suddenly drawn to the expectation by its very violation, and that results in more neural activity over that neural link that models the "pull BZZT food" phenomenon. Over time, if the food just stops coming entirely, the connection is weakened to the point of disappearing entirely. However, if it's BZZT nothing, BZZT nothing, BZZT nothing, BZZT food!!, BZZT nothing, BZZT food!!, BZZT nothing, BZZT nothing, BZZT food!!, then the connection is made vastly VASTLY stronger. Behaviorists call this input "intermittent reinforcement", and it results in a rat that frantically pulls the lever in his every waking moment.
This model is verifiable both in observable behavior and in observed neural electrical activity.
Now substitute "Obama is good" for "pull BZZT food". Or "Hillary is the devil". Or "McCain will keep me safe". Whatever channel is already laid down will be strengthened by the intermittent reinforcement of that message. New messages will serve only to reinforce that message--provided that message gets occasional reinforcement too.
Voila: partisanship.
|