wide variety of information sourcesânews outlets with differing politics, friends and neighbors, political elitesâand are processing the information through different brains, with very different commitments and beliefs, and different psychological needs and cognitive styles. And ironically, the fact that scientists and other experts usually employ so much nuance, and strive to disclose all remaining sources of uncertainty when they communicate their results, makes the evidence they present highly amenable to selective reading and misinterpretation. Giving ideologues or partisans data thatâs relevant to their beliefs is a lot like unleashing them in the motivated reasoning equivalent of a candy store. In this context, rather than reaching an agreement or a consensus, you can expect different sides to polarize over the evidence and how to interpret it.
Motivated reasoning thus helps to explain all manner of maddening, logically suspect maneuvers that people make when theyâre in the middle of arguments so as to avoid changing their minds.
Consider one classic: goalpost shifting. This occurs when someone has made a clear and factually refutable claim, and staked a great deal on itâbut once the claim meets its demise, the person demands some additional piece of evidence, or tweaks his or her views in some way so as to avoid having to give them up. Thatâs what the Seekers did when their prophecy failed; thatâs what vaccine deniers do with each subsequent scientific discrediting of the idea that vaccines cause autism; thatâs what the hardcore Birthers did when President Obama released his long-form birth certificate; thatâs what the errant prophet Harold Camping did when his predicted rapture did not commence on May 21, 2011, and the world did not end on October 21, 2011.
In all of these cases, the individuals or groups involved had staked it all on a particular piece of information coming to light, or a particular event occurring. But when the evidence arrived and it contradicted their theories, they didnât change their minds. They physically and emotionally couldnât. Rather, they moved the goalposts.
Note, however, that only those who do not hold the irrational views in question see this behavior as suspect and illogical. The goalpost shifters probably donât perceive what they are doing, or understand why it appears (to the rest of us) to be dishonest. This is also why we tend to perceive hypocrisy in others, not in ourselves.
Indeed, a very important motivated reasoning study documented precisely this: Democrats viewed a Republican presidential candidate as a flip-flopper or hypocrite when he changed positions, and vice versa. Yet each side was more willing to credit that his own partyâs candidate had had an honest change in views.
The study in question was conducted by psychologist Drew Westen of Emory University (also the author of the much noted book The Political Brain ) and his colleagues, and itâs path-breaking for at least two reasons. First, Westen studied the minds of strong political partisans when they were confronted with information that directly challenged their views during a contested electionâBush v. Kerry, 2004âa time when they were most likely to be highly emotional and biased. Second, Westenâs team used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brains of these strong partisans, discovering which parts were active during motivated reasoning.
In Westenâs study, strong Democrats and strong Republicans were presented with âcontradictionsâ: Cases in which a person was described as having said one thing, and then done the opposite. In some cases these were politically neutral contradictionsâe.g., about Walter Cronkiteâbut in some cases they were alleged contradictions by the 2004 presidential candidates. Here are some examples, which are fairly close to reality but were actually
Motivated reasoning thus helps to explain all manner of maddening, logically suspect maneuvers that people make when theyâre in the middle of arguments so as to avoid changing their minds.
Consider one classic: goalpost shifting. This occurs when someone has made a clear and factually refutable claim, and staked a great deal on itâbut once the claim meets its demise, the person demands some additional piece of evidence, or tweaks his or her views in some way so as to avoid having to give them up. Thatâs what the Seekers did when their prophecy failed; thatâs what vaccine deniers do with each subsequent scientific discrediting of the idea that vaccines cause autism; thatâs what the hardcore Birthers did when President Obama released his long-form birth certificate; thatâs what the errant prophet Harold Camping did when his predicted rapture did not commence on May 21, 2011, and the world did not end on October 21, 2011.
In all of these cases, the individuals or groups involved had staked it all on a particular piece of information coming to light, or a particular event occurring. But when the evidence arrived and it contradicted their theories, they didnât change their minds. They physically and emotionally couldnât. Rather, they moved the goalposts.
Note, however, that only those who do not hold the irrational views in question see this behavior as suspect and illogical. The goalpost shifters probably donât perceive what they are doing, or understand why it appears (to the rest of us) to be dishonest. This is also why we tend to perceive hypocrisy in others, not in ourselves.
Indeed, a very important motivated reasoning study documented precisely this: Democrats viewed a Republican presidential candidate as a flip-flopper or hypocrite when he changed positions, and vice versa. Yet each side was more willing to credit that his own partyâs candidate had had an honest change in views.
The study in question was conducted by psychologist Drew Westen of Emory University (also the author of the much noted book The Political Brain ) and his colleagues, and itâs path-breaking for at least two reasons. First, Westen studied the minds of strong political partisans when they were confronted with information that directly challenged their views during a contested electionâBush v. Kerry, 2004âa time when they were most likely to be highly emotional and biased. Second, Westenâs team used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brains of these strong partisans, discovering which parts were active during motivated reasoning.
In Westenâs study, strong Democrats and strong Republicans were presented with âcontradictionsâ: Cases in which a person was described as having said one thing, and then done the opposite. In some cases these were politically neutral contradictionsâe.g., about Walter Cronkiteâbut in some cases they were alleged contradictions by the 2004 presidential candidates. Here are some examples, which are fairly close to reality but were actually
Similar Books
