How is it that even smart people can ignore a pile of evidence that contradicts their deeply-held beliefs. Why is it I get a rush when I’m making fun of a politician I don’t agree with—even if it’s his flubs or quirks I’m mocking, not necessarily his ideas?
Apparently, there’s a chemical reason for this.
According to the research of Drew Western, political partisans—and especially the smart, well-informed ones—not only feel better when their brains downplay contradictory political information, they actually get a little emotional “high” when the brain (unconsciously) rejects evidence that contradicts their deeply held political beliefs. In a series of brain scans of political partisans asked to consider contradictory statements by the politicians they supported, Western found that the brain reverted to the comfort zone of its long-held biases—and doing so actually made people feel good.
From Westen’s book, The Political Brain:
Once partisans had found a way to reason to false conclusions, not only did neural circuits involved in negative emotions turn off, but circuits involved in positive emotions turned on. The partisan brain didn’t seem satisfied in just feeling better. It worked overtime to feel good, activating reward circuits that give partisans a jolt of positive reinforcement for their biased “reasoning.” These reward circuits overlap substantially with those activated when drug addicts get their “fix,” giving new meaning to the term political junkie. [emphasis added.]
As Westen points out, chemicals in the brain are like drugs, “positive emotions are related to dopamine (a neurotransmitter found in rewards circuits in the brain) and inhibition and avoidance are associated with norepinephrine (a close cousin of the hormone adrenalin, which can produce fear and anxiety.)” The brains of partisans sought good chemicals and avoided bad ones. And faced with contradictory evidence, partisans’ preconceived notions were actually reinforced rather than weakened – which made them feel terrific.
No wonder my uncle and I just can’t talk politics! And no wonder we keep at it anyway—I admit it, I’ve got a chemical addiction!
But there’s a larger implication to these findings: Unless we find ways to make our facts, figures, and policy solutions resonate outside the realm of partisanship, they’re likely to bounce right off the brains of those who we’re most trying to reach. In short, we need to find ways to make good ideas feel good too, neurologically speaking.
Angry African
Now I know why the hell I am so bloody angry. 😉
jemerk
And Rush fell into this – the secret of the Ditto-heads.
A. Sabadini
And for those of us who are politically savy and active and can and do engage in debate, conceding the point when we are wrong, you know the vast majority of people who engage in a process of cognitive dissonance and its consequent resolution, what are we called? Chemicals in the brain are NOT like drugs. Drugs, like cocaine and crystal meth, are foreign to the brain and when ingested force the brain into releasing it’s natural chemicals at rate thousands of times higher than even the most manic of “political junky’s” brain. To equate drug use, even by implication, with a volitional behavior given this disparity in order of magnitutde of the neuro-transmiters involved is intellectually irresponsible and strikes me of someone trying to justify poor cognitive behavior by categorizing it as chemically addictive and thus pathological, exempting these “political junkies” from being responsible for their actions. Maybe Rush should pick up a copy of Emily Post’s ettiquette book and rejoin civilization.
truthynesslover
so much for appealing to the rational logical side of the argument.Now I understand better the mechanisms that are intefering when i try to reason with ideologs.I think that is why Obama is doing so well.He is connecting to something more than the rational,something inspiratioal,which Im sure releases endorphins too.Republicans have been on to this for a while{remember reagan}Im hartened to see the democrats figure out the neuro science behind the perceptions of reality but Im also saddened by the implacations.
David
A. Sabadani seems to be doing a great job illustrating the point the article was making.