What’s most interesting about this article is the way they bury the most important part of it at the end, as if it’s a freakin’ side note.
According to this WaPo article, Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases, social psychologists have been asking what’s behind the ostensibly sharp political divides in the U.S. In a recent study, they’ve put to use brain scans and “sophisticated psychological tests.” These forays into political/social psychology were showcased by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference.
I’m not sure why this particular finding is surprising — though admittedly, I’m not familiar with the field. It’s just that I thought it was common knowledge that political proclivities aren’t necessarily as rational as we’d wish they were. (Which is why I told Tommy at Sticks of Fire that it’s unlikely that civics lessons would mean that people would vote in ways that seemed more rational.)
The finding?
“ emotions and implicit assumptions often influence why people choose their political affiliations, and that partisans stubbornly discount any information that challenges their preexisting beliefs.“
I woulda thunk that sociologists of emotion had already covered this ground. Be that as it may…. this one will shock you — *shock* *shock* :
“Both groups (Republicans and Democrats) were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy — but only in candidates they opposed.“
NO way?! I mean seriously, even taking a gander at the people on your own side of the aisle don’t you see this? If you’re honest with yourself, don’t you see it in yourself?
Be sure you’re sitting down for this one, too:
“When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats — the scans showed that “reward centers” in volunteers’ brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.”
Now that I love. I suppose we’ll see a blossoming of 12 step groups for political partisans soon.
No?
Finally, we get to something that, while nothing surprising, is far more important. But the mushbrains at the WaPo consign it to that portion of the article that will be least read.
“Another study presented at the conference, which was in Palm Springs, Calif., explored relationships between racial bias and political affiliation by analyzing self-reported beliefs, voting patterns and the results of psychological tests that measure implicit attitudes — subtle stereotypes people hold about various groups.
That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did.“
Now, watch this. What happens next? We don’t get right into the findings. FIRST, we gotta go talk to the RNC and hear what they have to say. We don’t even have a handle on the research findings, but it is IMPERATIVE that you let the other side have their say.
And why, ferchrissake, is the “other side” considered the oh-so-scientific Republican National Committee, that bastion of non-partisan, impecabbly objective resarch? Seriously. WHY THE HELL THE RNC?
Because this article is batshit insanity served up to you as outstanding journalism!
The “opposition” isn’t the RNC. Did you people fail basic logic or something? It isn’t a problem of comparing apples to oranges — they’re both fruit. This is a problem of comparing apples to motor mounts.
Aside from which, this is the very same partisan group, just as the Democrats would be, who are irrevocably going to be BLIND to its own faults anyway! That’s what this article tells us about the research.
We should ask the unable-to-be-critically-self-reflective-RNC-leadership what their view is!? As if it’s the equivalent of scientific research.
Who knew that the bastion of postmodern thought was our very own Washington Post!
Seriously. They spend the first half of this article explaining why partisans have no objectivity or capacity to rationally defend their position. Then, they ask you to take them seriously as an “opposing viewpoint”!
No, the “opposing viewpoint” would be research that comes to different conclusions — if it exists and if you even bother to go that ‘fair and balanced’ route at all. And opposing viewpoint might be a critique of the methodology. An opposing viewpoint might be another study that revealed weaknesses in their chosen methods. Etc. etc.
The logical rebuttal to scientific findings are people within the scientific community, NOT the flipping RNC (or the Dems, were this about them!)
And we are suprised that creationist think they have something that should be considered an equivalent to evolutionary theory! We are surprised!
We finally get to the details of the reserch and the strongest statement in the whole article regarding racism is saved for the bitter end:
“For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people’s associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.”
The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces — evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush. (emphasis added)
“Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president,” said Banaji, “but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice.”
Excuse the fuck me? See, this is exactly the problem with a society where we don’t GET structural oppression. I don’t give a shit what the presdinet ™ thinks or doesn’t think. What matters is that his party appeals to people who are more racist. And why is that? Does this not matter?
These guys are not stupid! They do so by playing on themes, motifs, rhetoric, imagery, etc. that shapes and perpetuates individual-level racism. (Searching around for Joan’s quote from Roger Ailes circa 1970ish: something where he says that the party leadership may not be racist but that’s who they need to go after — the racists.)
The presdinet ™ might not have a racist thought in his pea brain, but it is nonetheless a party strategy and platform that is racializing, that supports and advances racialized oppression.
And, here we go again. First we put the caveats in there, softening the blow, so to speak, then we place the blow — the final ‘graph:
Jon Krosnick, a psychologist and political scientist at Stanford University, who independently assessed the studies, said it remains to be seen how significant the correlation is between racial bias and political affiliation.
For example, he said, the study could not tell whether racial bias was a better predictor of voting preference than, say, policy preferences on gun control or abortion. But while those issues would be addressed in subsequent studies — Krosnick plans to get random groups of future voters to take the psychological tests and discuss their policy preferences — he said the basic correlation was not in doubt.
“If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial,” he said. “We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, ‘This takes me aback,’ they are ignoring a huge volume of research.”
Gosh. I wonder why racializing stereotypes and racialized oppression exists. Gee.
