NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an interesting op-ed which was reprinted in today’s Virginian Pilot. Although aimed at the increasing divide between Democrats as this primary season drags on, the article points to a couple of different studies on human behavior, particularly as it relates to our ability to process information that is contrary to our own views.
Psychologists showed a film clip of the football game to groups of students at each college and asked them to act as unbiased referees and note every instance of cheating. The results were striking. Each group, watching the same clip, was convinced that the other side had cheated worse — and this was not deliberate bias or just for show.
[…]
Mr. Manjoo cites a more recent study by Stanford University psychologists of students who either favored or opposed capital punishment. The students were shown the same two studies: one suggested that executions have a deterrent effect that reduces subsequent murders, and the other doubted that.
Whatever their stance, the students found the study that supported their position to be well-conducted and persuasive and the other one to be profoundly flawed.
To be honest, I didn’t need a study to tell me what I’ve already witnessed, particularly in this election cycle. Otherwise rational people suspend all sense of logic when they perceive any slight against their favorite candidate. If the facts don’t mesh with what we think, instead of rethinking our position, we ignore the facts. And the effect?
“That led to a funny result,” Mr. Manjoo writes. “People in the study became polarized.”
Yep. Haven’t we all witnessed that over the past years? Take a look at this, courtesy of Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball:
The above chart shows the rate at which Democratic voters defect to the Republican Party in presidential elections. I suspect the Republican chart looks about the same.
There was a time in this country when we listened to different viewpoints and even if we ultimately disagreed with them, we understood where the other guy was coming from. Those days are gone. Now we live in a world in which we only listen to “our” side. As Kristof says, we “seek out information that reinforces our prejudices.” Conservatives have talk radio, Liberals have the blogs. Obama supporters find refuge at Daily Kos while Clinton supporters find the same at MyDD. People are more willing to believe the half-truths (and sometimes, outright lies) of an email forwarded to them by a friend than anything printed in the local “liberal rag. It is no wonder that newspapers are doing so poorly.
Recognizing that we all have biases is not enough. We have to constantly challenge ourselves to make sure that our beliefs are firmly rooted in reason, not in BS. It’s called intellectual honesty.
And we could use a whole lot more of it.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Vivian, The study reveals the effects of Modern Rhetoric: The use of language to persuade, drawing conclusions by accepting opinion as fact.
Conservatives have mastered this technique by leveraging a long-standing relationship with religion, repetition, relativism, historical revisionism, and most important Christian Nationalism. As societies are always progressive (not ideologically, but ever-changing), Conservatives are well positioned to be successful during times of uncertainty and tumult, calling upon peoples to draw closer to yesterday.
Liberals, Democrats or Progressives are unfortunately left to hold the line between today and tomorrow, championing “Change” while respecting “Progress”.
With this foundation, Americans are challenged to “Take a Position” from those who have little regard for the consideration of all facts, but a sadly profound respect for “Stance”. Conservatives have done well to compel Americans to categorize & compartmentalize our beliefs along one side or the other, ignoring the facts that aren’t consistent with either ideology… i.e. Abortion against Capital Punishment, Capital Punishment against Collateral Damage, etc. So instead considering our positions we accept the notion that Opinion is Fact and that this New Fact justifies our actions….. either way….. quite sad.
So I read your post and was going to agree with you until I read what RJohnson had to say.
I have now read it three times and I still don’t know what he or she means and I forgot what I was going to say about your post.
I’ll just go back to leveraging longstanding relationships with stuff in order to somethingorother the categorizing and compartmentalizing along one side or the other … or some junk.
My apology Dave….
Summary… I believe that we’re way too driven by Modern Rhetoric that compels to Pick A Side. Then once there, we gather the information necessary to defend our rushed stance. The masters of Modern Rhetoric seem to ease our pain by offering Opinion-turned-Fact and too many take this information, and false empowerment, and defend the constantly challenged position.
Ding. One of the things that can really turn me off of someone is realizing that they pick the reasoning to suit the team, and not the team that suits the reasoning. I understand the usefulness of my-guy-no-matter-what partisans, but I don’t respect them at all. (And we’re not short of these folks online.)
I think you took an observable, quantifiable psychological principle and leveraged your personal philosophy of political rhetoric into it, rjohnson. Which isn’t to say that you’re necessarily wrong, I just think that anyone could possibly agree that this is the logical consequence of informational biases unless you were to try broadening your point with some foundational writings (Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France would suit your argument well, I think).
I was going to recommend people head over the Waldo Jacquith’s blog and read his blurb on “our morality, shared and unshared.” I think it provides an interesting starting point for helping us to identify why we adopt the biases we do.
http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2008/04/shared-morality/
anonymous…. Your quite correct. I did apply my personal philosophy of political rhetoric and perhaps this position does require a reference to some documented foundation. Thanks.
MB…. Spot On.
http://whatilearnedthisweek.wordpress.com/
A quick test … what don’t you like about your favorite candidate.
If you’ve got nothing, then you might not be that honest with yourself or your vote.
If you resort to name-calling or reversing accusations instead of answering challenges, then there’s definitely a problem.