Wednesday April 15, 2009

Today's Zinger:

One Of The First Steps To Learning And Change Is Breaking Free Of Our Mental Prison.

The Illusion:

1. Above is a series of pink dots arranged in a circle.  The dots are in motion around the circle.
2. Stare at the center cross.  The moving dot turns green.
3. Continue to stare at the center.  Watch the image as a whole and not the dots. The pink dots disappear and there is only a moving green dot.
Scroll down and stop here.   Watch the dots as described then read on.




First, there is no green dot.  All dots are pink and remain pink.  Second, the dots do not disappear.  There is no change in the pattern.

The Discussion:

The mind works in mysterious ways.  From the earliest man, a key to survival has been the ability to look for patterns and process these patterns into something that is recognizable.  This is one aspect of learning.  Pavlov was able to prove that patterns are learned in animals.  Through conditioning, animals would respond to various stimuli.  Repeated use of the same stimulus would result in the same outcome and therefore the same anticipated result and a learned behavior.

Modern man is no different.  Seeing a pattern elicits a response.  The response can be the result of a normal everyday occurrence, like moving traffic, or even a word, like politics.  I say Socialism and those on the left cry "foul" and those on the right cry "Barack Obama".  Why does this happen since very few people even know what Socialism really is? 

Last Friday's Zinger on Socialism in America and the need to Reinvent Education is case in point.  The article pointed out that a recent Rasmussen survey found a majority of Americans want Socialism.  However, when questioned what Socialism means to them they really did not suggest Socialism as defined in political science, but rather a more personal definition such as health care for all citizens or being nice to each other.  The point being,it is not Socialism that they are looking for but rather some other change from the status quo. 

The emphasis in my article was a need for better education in the United States or the majority voting block will be trapped in low paying jobs and there will be a greater push for real Socialism as the majority votes for more and more services for themselves.  It was not an indictment of Socialism nor of the peoples ignorance of real Socialism.

But that is not how many readers saw it.  To many, the article was a condemnation of social programs or an attempt on my part to label President Obama a Socialist, with all the negative connotations that the Republican party has ascribed to Socialism.  I went back and reread the article to see if I wasn't very clear in my thesis.  I take some responsibility in that the title of the article appears to put a negative spin on Socialism, but remember that titles are for the Google crowd to find relevant articles.  Reading the article, I felt like the message was clear.  Unfortunately this means one of three things.

1.)  People are reading the headline and not the article (shame on them).
2.)  I'm not as clear as I think I am (shame on me).
3.)  There is something more profound going on that transcends you and me.

Which brings me back to illusions.  An illusion is when the mind, in search of patterns, thinks something is there that is really not there.  Like the green dot spinning around the circle above, the mind can cause us to see something that is not there.  There is no difference in politics.  Both political parties have used slogans and patterns to establish a shorthand for their messages.  The Democrats use "failed policies of the Bush Administration" as justification for change.  When challenged on the failed policies they refer to, the facts do not support the rhetoric.  Republicans use Socialism as a shorthand for the Democrats growth in government.  When challenged on Socialism, the facts do not support the rhetoric. 

Functional brain imaging helps scientists understand the relationship between particular types of mental activity and particular areas of the brain, by charting which regions experience increased blood flow or metabolism or electromagnetic activity under specific stimulus.  It’s a step beyond CT scans, or CAT scans.  A 2005 study evaluated, using brain imaging, how voters with staunch political views deal with data that is in conflict with their beliefs.  The results indicate that we ignore facts that do not support our predisposed notions on politics.  Here's a link to an article that dealt with the subject in 2007.    Political bias affects brain activity, study finds

A recent Scientific American article chronicled how people react to political "triggers".  When people read or hear news about abortion, George W. Bush or Democrats, do they evaluate it fairly before reaching a conclusion?  Not at all, say two political scientists at Stony Brook University.  Milton Lodge and Charles Taber maintain that people react automatically to "hot button" terms. "Our experiments reveal that they react so quickly--in less than 300 milliseconds--that they cannot be consciously [evaluating] the information," Taber says.      Political Bias Proved. Scientific American Article

The brain reacts so quickly that the mind does not allow for a fair evaluation of the facts and then long held beliefs or historical patterns prevail.  A 2006 study of why people think the way they do about politics indicates it may be wired from the time of birth and further developed in early childhood.

Combine the political party rhetoric with a brain that is predisposed to political views and a mind that reacts too quickly to facts that challenge beliefs and you end up with people seeing and hearing what fits their mental patterns, even if its not there.  This is what makes political conversation so difficult.  How many times have you heard someone say that you can't have a conversation with a staunch liberal or a conservative because they just ignore the facts.  Well, they're right.  The only problem is both sides ignore the facts as a way to defend our inner self, not in defense of our intellectual self.

Most of us do not see ourselves this way.  Most of us see ourselves as more intellectually curious.  Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winner in Economics and Professor of Economics at Princeton (previously at Stanford and MIT) and author of numerous articles and books must be considered a very educated and intellectual man, yet he suffers from the same biases.  Dr. Krugman published a book The Conscience Of A Liberal.  publisher Norton, W.W. Company Inc. 2009.  The title should have been The Heart Of A Liberal.  In reality, Dr. Krugman ignores facts that do not support his point of view.  This is not a criticism, though many of his colleagues have levied such criticism in the past, but rather an acknowledgment that even the brightest people are not immune to political bias.

Despite scientific evidence to support political bias triggered by the brain, beliefs can still play a powerful role in shaping political opinion.  Beliefs are learned.  We have all heard about the liberal bias of the media and the liberal bias of colleges. What role do these groups have on political opinion?  They have a dramatic role which does not negate the scientific evidence but actually supports the brain bias studies.  This will be discussed in next week's ZingerKing.  Our political bias is the result of both nature and nurture.

These studies of the brain, beliefs and political leanings should cause all of us to reexamine information that comes our way.  Certainly, one of the most difficult intellectual hurdles is challenging core beliefs and a willingness to let the facts influence our decisions and not allow our feelings or past patterns to get in the way of our logic.  It almost makes me want to stop adding the section called The Facts: as the lead to ZingerKing.  Apparently the facts are not swaying many opinions.

I am interested in your views.  Do you think your are able to overcome your inner bias?  Are you willing to change deeply held beliefs if the facts support something different?  Can you listen to or read something that is counter to your thinking and remain open minded enough to truly understand the arguments?  Post a comment or send an email to roger@zingerking.com.