Posted on 07/30/2007 6:04:53 PM PDT by shrinkermd
This 420 page effort contains two intertwined books. The one interests me, reports on recent neuroscience advances documenting how people come to political decisions. The one that does not interest me, is a liberal cook book with multiple recipes for winning elections.
The books differ; hence, the opinions about the entire book differ. For example, Daniel Gilbert, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states this is a fascinating book that appeals to the hearts and minds on both sides of the aisle. Dr. Gilbert is referring to the first book. On the other hand, Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic Party, believes this book is a must read if the party wants to win the presidency in 2008. Dr. Dean is referring to the second book.
If that were not enough Rush Limbaugh on the 30 July 20007 radio show pointed out that from his perspective Dr. Westen has simply encouraged a long standing “emotional” approach to political argumentation that avoids facts and issues. And, Limbaugh argues eventually issues become policies and policies become law. It is hard to dispute this argument.
Drew Westen is an esteemed and respected academic psychologist who has published over 140 papers. Presently, Dr. Westen is Professor in the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University. He teaches both graduate psychology students as well as psychiatric residents. Previously, he has taught at both the University of Michigan and Harvard University. Dr.Westen's theoretical work focuses on attempts to bridge gaps between cognitive, psychodynamic, and evolutionary psychology. Besides these efforts, Dr.Westen developed and refined the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure to help in the understanding of personality disorders. He has also contributed to the literature on eating disorders.
I document Dr. Westen’s accomplishments to avoid two things: (1) To avoid discounting his professional ability; (2) And, to avoid the natural, conservative inclination to view him as just another liberal, academic “nut” case.
BOOK ONE: As to the first book—a legitimate and persuasive inquiry on the political brain—Dr. Westen’s arguments are persuasive.
The core idea of this book is that, “…successful campaigns primarily compete in the marketplace of emotions and not in the marketplace of ideas.”Those that say ideas are the most important part of a campaign fail to realize we approach and avoid ideas because of the feelings they elicit. Dr. Westen then goes on to prove these apt conclusions both by his and other’s research efforts.
For example, in January 2006 Drew Westen and associates startled a professional meeting by showing that self-described Democrats and Republicans assessed political matters in systematically biased ways and that the conscious, rational brain has little to do with political preferences.
Westen and associates used functional magnetic resonant imaging. This is a neuroimaging technique that measures blood flow in various areas of the brain. It is a widely accepted procedure to assess brain function. Since various areas of the brain have different functions it is possible to make plausible inferences as to how people respond to this or that external stimuli.
The actual experiment involved having Republican test subjects shown contradictory quotes by President George Bush. Similarly, Democrats were shown contradictory quotes by Senator John Kerry.
The results were that both groups explained away these apparent contradictions and remained biased in favor of their candidate. Areas of the brain utilized for critical reasoning where not highlighted on the MRI scan but the deeper areas of the brain involved with emotions were. Further, parts of the cerebral cortex involved with rationalization were also highlighted.
Westen and associates concluded, “…None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged... Essentially, it appears “as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want...everyone may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret the facts.'"
The study can be found in the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:11, pp. 1947–1958. This is a professional peer-reviewed scientific journal. Since publication this study has been referenced by many including Michael Shermer who used the study as the basis for his July 2006 Scientific American.
This study results in four conclusions.
First, threatening information activates neural circuits associated with negative emotional states.
Second, what passes for reasoning in politics is actually rationalization designed to meet emotional needs.
Third, when there is conflicting information, activation occurs in the emotional area known for resolving conflicts.
Fourth, and finally, subjects reasoned with their “gut” rather than analyzing the pros and cons of the case. As a corollary, areas of the brain activated in reasoning are not used in political conflict.
When the partisan brain resolved conflict in a biased way it didn’t just feel less conflicted but those areas of the brain associated with pleasure were activated. Partisan politics is not only easy but fun! In respect to political matters, confirmation bias, as illustrated by this study, is both common and enjoyable!
Professor Westen concludes a discussion of this study with, “The political brain is an emotional brain.”
This study alone should elicit interest in this book; however, he also has many other vignettes on political matters that are both fascinating and informative. One that interested me was his discussion of “curb appeal.”
Professor Westen describes "curb appeal" as the feeling voters have after hearing or seeing a candidate. He then cites empirical findings illustrating the importance of “curb appeal.”
In the Ambady and Rosenthal study, the investigators compared first impressions of a professor with their final evaluation. Students were showed thirty seconds of film (without sound) before they began the course. After taking the course they then rated the professor as to ability and competence. The first 30 second impression was astoundingly predictive of the student’s final evaluation.
Another study showed average people could diagnose a psychopath from a brief, nonverbal, tape--- 70% of the time! And, more importantly, could not make as good a prediction if they listened to what was actually said. Psychopathic fluency works!
These two studies show we assess people rapidly, unconsciously on non-verbal behavior. This general truism has been demonstrated in politics as well.
A Princeton group had subjects evaluate opposing candidates for US House and Senate Races. The subjects were selected for ignorance of the candidates and the races. Investigators showed the subjects still photographs of the candidates. The subjects had only thirty seconds to look at both photos. The subjects were then asked to predict the election outcome. The subjects correctly predicted outcome in 70% of the time.
Likeability (curb appeal) is an important, underestimated electoral determinant. Further, “curb appeal” is often determined by non-verbal behavior; hence “curb appeal” is not easily faked.
In the 420 pages of this book as well as the 54 pages of footnotes (on the Internet) one can easily find incredibly intriguing information about politics, emotions and voter preferences.
I conclude the discussion of the first book by listing Dr. Westen’s conclusions as to why people vote the way they do. He believes voters ask themselves four general questions.
People seem to ask four questions:
If you want to win, focus on the first question and work your way down. If you want to lose, focus on the last question and work your way up. In addition, if you want to win, have a compelling narrative in mind for each of the above..
BOOK TWO:
A Washington Post editorial does a great job of delineating the shortcomings of Book Two. A few well written paragraphs by Chris Lehmann summarize the faults of book two and, consequently, the total effort:
”…The Political Brain is not, in other words, a dispassionate foray into neuropsychology, but rather another in the long and ongoing series of treatises on what's wrong with Democrats and how to fix them. Westen trots out the same basic advice to address a host of issues from abortion and gay marriage to gun control and the War on Terror. Democrats, he preaches, need more genuine emotion to enliven their campaign rhetoric and extend their brand appeal to the hotly coveted voters at "the middle of the political spectrum."
”If this sounds monotonously familiar, that's because it is. Westen, like many a self-appointed liberal consigliere, wants Democrats to toe a strict centrist line on most issues while pitching their campaigns at the mythic creatures who inhabit "Red State America..."
Both Chris Lehmann and Rush Limbaugh seem to agree on the shortcomings of this book; however, both seemingly minimize the real contribution of Dr. Westen and The Political Brain.
Most assuredly, as noted by Westen, David Hume made his famous aphorism, “…reason is a slave to emotion…” three hundred years ago. Further, not quoted by Westen is Mark Twain a hundred years ago said, “…We all do no end of feeling and we mistake it for thinking. And out of it we get an aggregation, which we consider a boon. Its name is public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God." Dr. Westen has fleshed out the sentiments of Hume, Twain, Freud and others with empirical findings. He has done this from his own work and that of others. In this respect, he is to be applauded for a fine effort.
AFTERTHOUGHT:Besides the above points I do believe Dr. Westen is correct in assuming how voters truly assess the candidates. In broad brush strokes people vote on: (1) Feelings toward the parties; (2) Feelings toward the candidates; (3) Feelings elicited by the candidates; (4) And, feelings toward the candidates' policy positions. This is an inescapable, well stated conclusion. In political matters feelings rule over reason every time.
The reason conservatives and others are upset with this book is the interjection of Dr. Westen’s beliefs and wishes into the discussion. Religion and politics are similar in that both rely on abstract reasoning. Antedating Freud and psychology Nietzsche thought this through. His conclusions seem to have merit. Nietzsche identified two different kinds of knowledge: (1)Things you know from personal experience and observation; (2)And, abstractions you think you know - the kind of thing that is reported in the paper and discussed on the editorial pages. Nietzsche called the first ”erfahrung”and the latter “wissen”
The first is the type of reasoning you do with things you know about. If you see someone walking on the ice and they fall in you might reasonably conclude that the same thing could happen to you in similar circumstances.
But if you turn your thoughts to politics or the next election you are using a different thinking process. Instead of thinking about things you know you are thinking about things you cannot know except by abstractions and what others say.
Similarly if you turn your thoughts to the afterlife you are using a different thinking process. Instead of thinking about things you know you are thinking about what you cannot know except by abstractions and what others wrote in the Bible.
It is unfortunate that Dr. Westen mixed his scientific observations with his political views. In fairness to him he is a self described founder of Western Strategies,a political and corporate consulting firm that advises Democrat leaders and candidates.
It would have been better if he wrote two books of 200 pages rather than one book of 421 pages.
This guy advises RAT candidates on their “curb appeal”.
I don’t think he can turn an Edsel into a Corvette. (Hillary)
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.