Proof of the Obvious
January 25th, 2006 | by Dr. Forbush |How often have you picked up the paper and read about the latest scientific study and thought to yourself, “Duh, I could have told them that if they just paid me the millions of dollars in research grants?” Well it actually seems to happen quite a bit. People from the conservative side will argue that research on things that we already know is a waste of money. But, this reaction is based on emotion, not scientific measurements. Lots of science requires the gathering of scientific measurements of things that we think that we understand.
For example, people once thought that if you put a rocket in space travelling at some speed it would gradually slow down. This was based on the observation that when you throw a ball it will eventually slow down. Galileo, Newton and others did experiments that showed us that air influenced the speed of the ball and other experiments told us that there wasn’t any air in outer space. Newton determined that a body in motion remains in motion unless acted upon by another force. The air is that other force that slows to ball down.
People also thought that time was the same for everyone in the Universe, until Einstein predicted that it wasn’t, by his Special Theory of Relativity. Scientists have done experiments on particles that are known to decay with a certain lifetime. The scientists will increase the velocity of the particles and particles appear to live longer in our frame of reference, the lab. However, we know that the particle itself still decays at the same rate in its frame of reference. Scientists have measured these numbers and we know that Einstein, not common sense was right. So, we should understand that even if we believe something is obvious we should still investigate the matter by taking measurements.
This is why this study is so important. It has always seemed obvious to me that politicians and political extremists don’t actually reason their positions on an issue. Instead they react to issues emotionally. This means that it is impossible to change the position of a political extremist by using reason. Well, duh, anyone who has had the occasion to get a comment from a political extremist on their blog and has proceeded to try to convince the person of the errors in their think will soon discover the futility of their effort. The person most likely doesn’t even read your whole reply and uses cut and paste replies to try to cram their opinion down your throat. Of course these people would never concede to reacting emotionally to the issue. They believe that they “know” the truth and have the “facts.” But this study says differently.
Basically, the researchers were able to monitor the brain activity of people with extreme political views. The people were presented with opinions opposite to what their own political view was and their brain activity was analyzed. The results showed that if you had extreme political views to either side of the political spectrum, then they never even thought about the other point of view. Instead people jumped to their conclusion based on emotional feelings.
So, why is this bad? If it weren’t obvious then I’d like to point out how much effort is being wasted trying to spread extremist propaganda. If people base their propaganda on reasoned logic then these groups would not be able to survive. Therefore these extremists use emotional appeals to spread their message. Once the emotional seed is planted, then logic will not shake the person from these extreme beliefs. The far left can use the bloody baby seals to promote their cause emotionally and the extreme right can use a bloody baby fetus to promote their cause emotionally. The extreme neo-fascists appeal to the emotional times to their race and culture while the religious extremists use the emotional ties to the law that God has put down on Earth for us to follow. No logic can shake these positions, because people don’t turn on that part of the brain when they hear a point of view that they are emotionally connected to. It has always seemed obvious to me, but now we have scientific measurements to prove it.
But, this is also an issue in American politics. As our government becomes more and more polarized people become emotionally tied to the politics that they know and believe. You can see this in Washington with all of the party line votes in the House and the Senate. If our representatives actually listened to the arguments of the other side we would see members switching sides from time to time based on reasoning made from the members of congress. People would be persuaded by logic and reason to vote for the best option for their district or for the country. The results would actually be laws and budgets that make sense for the entire country, not just the wealthy and religious special interested groups that control the Republican Party when the Republicans are in control. And, similarly Unions and Environmentalists would also not control the Democratic Party. The people would realize that all of those issue and groups have valid points, but solution is rational logical thought, and not emotional reaction to the events of the day or the even the issue in question. But now we have proof that government is not run in a logical manor, and perhaps it never can be.
10 Responses to “Proof of the Obvious”
By ken grandlund on Jan 25, 2006 | Reply
I guess if we think about this rationally and add in our own experiences, we would know intuitively that this is true. Personal bias blinds reason, especially when you have some supposed vested interest in being “right.”
Part of the problem with studies ;ike this though, in my opinion, is that we often get contradictory scientific studies to refute each other. For the layman, discernign which study is more factual is the problem, and we probably use the same paths for determining which study we will accept as we do to evaluate politicians and their messages.
As such, there is no real solution or remedy, only the hope that from time to time, people will put dogma behind their better interests and recognize that the best interests for the whole are often the best interests for the one in the final analysis.
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 25, 2006 | Reply
Ken,
Point of science is that it is based on measured observables. You can create a hypothesis based on those measurements, but it isn’t a fact until it is measured.This study was not a poll, but a measurement. And, in addition science also has errors on those measurements. The study has real error bars on it. There isn’t really any subjectivity with a study that is actually measuring brain activity and the location of that activity. In this study more than one person was measured and the location of the activity is associated with emotion, not reasoning.
By windspike on Jan 25, 2006 | Reply
Back by studies or not, Doc, your last sentence says it all. Logic and reason are used and abused constantly by today’s politicians to charge the environment and polarize the people. I’m wondering how any one can be a uniter not a divider - but really, we have some examples of that in our past history, no? The folks rallied around Roosevelt, no? Shrub, on the other hand exploits this notion of emotional reasoning to split us to his advantage, and I’m, frankly, getting very tired of it.
By ken grandlund on Jan 25, 2006 | Reply
I understand the difference DOc, my only point is that this study will likely be refuted with another study at some point or accused of being junk science by those who don’t like the conclusions.
It’s a pity that things come to this, but due to our “sound bite” world and lack of rational thinking, that is the reality. I’m not disputing the validity of the study. But then again, I try to think reasonably as often as I can.
By icoman on Jan 25, 2006 | Reply
I’d like to try to understand the psychology here. We know that the discussion of politics or religion can often result in negative reactions. Earlier I posted some of the reasons why attacks on one’s religious belief systems can cause extreme negative responses but I don’t see why politics can also fire off shouting matches or worse. What this article seems to be saying is that we all use our right brain or emotional side when dealing with politics. However, most scientists agree that eventually the left brain or logical side will prevail over time. Why is the left brain supressed in political discussions?
By Bonnie on Jan 25, 2006 | Reply
I have to agree with Ken, Doc. If someone really doesn’t want to accept a study (much like an extreme political opinion) they can poke holes in the study–any study. No study is perfect. No study can forsee all the possible questions a skeptic can throw at it. If it does, it can be called over controlled! Was the study good? Probably. Does it have facts. YEAH but if someone doesn’t want to admit the facts, they won’t. However, this doesn’t mean you don’t have a point.
Loved what windspike had to say-
By Jet on Jan 25, 2006 | Reply
I think politics boils down to competitve desire to win — using whatever means necessary. As long as being a shit garners you the prize, there is no incentive to strive for logic and higher ideals. Study or no study, it’s about being the last one standing, and I don’t see our election system changing any time soon.
By OTTMANN on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
“People from the conservative side will argue that research on things that we already know is a waste of money. But, this reaction is based on emotion, not scientific measurements.”
So there are no conservative scientists? Anyway, it is true that some “research” grants are pretty stupid and a total waste of money especially when the results are what everyone already knows, so it is not based on emotion, but common sense and wisdom - two things lacking in most democrats.
By Dr. Forbush on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
Ottmann,
I guess you missed my point. What your idea of pretty stupid is likely to be different from what an expert in the field might think is pretty stupid. For example, everyone knows that some trees loose their green color in the fall. Is it because of the weather getting colder or because of the days getting shorter. Some people might think that it’s pretty stupid to spend money trying to understand this. But, the scientists that did the experiment know for certain why the leaves turn color. That information then goes into agriculture and the total understanding of fruit trees actually makes a leap forward because we now know why trees do this.
By LiberPaul on Jan 26, 2006 | Reply
OTTMAN,
You are most definetly guilty of basing your BULLSHIT on emotion. Anyone can plainly see by your last sentence..
“so it is not based on emotion, but common sense and wisdom - two things lacking in most democrats”
Yeah, but I should believe a bunch of religio-fascists who think, based upon their bullshit interpretation of their bullshit holybook, that vaccinnating pre-teen girls for HPV (leads to cervical cancer) will make them have more sex. BULLSHIT, to you and your kin.