Partisanship
 

I have noticed many people have "filters" for information that convince them that people who disagree with them are stupid or evil. I very consciously set about to keep reexamining my premises and conclusions by reading as widely and diversely (is that a word?) as I can, and sometimes it does change an opinion of mine. But apparently that's not very common. Here is an article that discusses some research about what happens when people (especially well-educated people) take partisan positions:So a lot of the discussion here consists of attempts to get people to fight their neurotransmitters. Maybe some self-awareness can get people to calm down?

Interesting. I wonder if the same effect exists for religious beliefs.

loquitur, until the same "study" measuring techniques are applied to judges and juries, I'll have to remain skeptical. I hope you agree that Drew Western's study is meaningless without comparison of results of studies measuring how people with strong opinions, compared to people who claim impartiality, perform under similar laboratory measurment, control, and observation:

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.

host, it seems to me that confirmation bias should correlate strongly with the phenomenon in Western's study. If you filter information in order to confirm your pre-existing opinions, the filtering makes you feel better because it allows you to see confirmation whereever you look. At least that seems logical to me.

It also underscores why it's a constant effort to see clearly and force yourself to consider other viewpoints and opinions.

I have to wonder if the methods really measure what they think they measure.

In a series of brain scans of political partisans asked to consider contradictory statements by the politicians they supported,

I see this more as a rationalization type of thing. You hear someone say X and then they say Y, you brain is at first confused then rationalizes a reason for why he said X and Y, which relaxes you as the confusion is gone and makes you feel "better".

By the logic presented I should be reading the daily KOS and the NYT's daily when in fact I have no such desire, getting this 'contradictory' information makes me more annoyed than feel good.

I do like the concept of political opponents being forced to argue the others side in a debate, that would be enlightening for all. I learned quite a bit doing that in my 'model UN' days in early highschool, I got one of the Soviet block states :P

And you know, I'd like to be able to say that's a conservative phenomenon. I've seen studies that show that conservatives are less willing to hear viewpoints they disagree with than liberals. But I know for me, I end up downright FUMING after watching Fox News for half an hour.

Oh, absolutely. I did something similar in high school debate.

that folk would invest positive affect from information that is symmetrical with their views and tend to exclude dissonance isn't exactly rocket science.

the claim is close to a "duh" point.

it is self-evident that there has to be a kind of affective dimension to information gathering--melanie klein called it "epistemophilia" which i think is a nice word so i write it down here. if there was no affective register like this, we would not be functional at all.

politics being a type of information about the world (mostly experience-distant information and ways of thinking about collective control in these contexts) it kinda follows.

but i dont think all political committments are therefore equivalent: there is considerable variation at the level of overarching ideological relation to dissonant information: a hypothetical trotskyiste might find all information that revolution is not about to break out everywhere under the heroic leadership of a particular trotskyiste organization problematic...an american conservative of the total hardline stripe would have an equivalent problem with information that indicated there were structural problems with the american economy, say.

both share a political disposition toward information that reinforces a sealing-off of sources---for the trot the notion of being surrounded by the bourgeois press, for the us hardline conservative, the notion of being-surrounded by the "liberal media"....[[btw this cuts in all kinds of directions...these are only examples]]

these are kinds of meta-investments, organizing committments that provide information sorting and selecting with its own charge. if your political viewpoint leads you to a kind of facile suspicion of all sources which do not operate from a viewpoint similar to your own, you are going to run into problems that a more open view will not. the problem with the more open view is that it requires work to read critically--self-enclosing views enable one to avoid that work.

you can link how the political subject is defined to this: for example if the center of your politics is a question of identity, then information which indicates threats to that identity--however these threats end up being construed--is going to be a problem for you. etc etc etc....

so it is self-evident that there is an affective register that plays out across political viewpoints. but it does not follow that therefore all political positions are identical. nor does this claim make "partisanship"--however that is defined--arbitrary---the claims is circular. obviously this is the case. nor does it follow that all types of political committments are equal--there are different politics of information that follow from different political positions.

so.....

Roachboy, if you were told to sit and read Hayek, how would you react?

i've read alot of hayek, actually. i've read alot of political economy. i've read a ton of conservative philosophy, fascist texts etc.
i'm not particularly concerned about narrow partisan divisions, personally.
even if i disagree with particular positions, i think it's better to know how the adversary operates, what the moves are, why they are as they are.

the only thing that generates static for me really is one-dimensional or stupid analyses. well that and a lack of style.

i have fairly strong views, but they're not based on what you think.
roachboy is alot more narrow than is the person who pulls the strings.

Well, that resonates over here. Perhaps that's why I want to throw something through the screen when Fox News is on. Although I also want to throw something through the people who WATCH and BELIEVE Fox News.

Yeah, I find stupidity exasperating, too. I find most partisanship to be extremely stupid because it's just a variant of the ad hominem fallacy.