An interesting thing happened on Twitter last night, as Obama gave his first prime-time news conference.
People were completely polarized in their reactions. On the side, people were saying things like:
@singlegirl: "Whoa. Our Prez is volunteering info and explaining what he means - coherently - to a reporter. Still not used to that."
@prunedaler: "Wow -- measured, thoughtful answers, in complete sentences -- who IS this guy?"
On the other side, people were saying things like:
@swaynette:“WOW! could he actually say something?! It would also be great if he could talk in more than four-word sentences and fewer ums!”
@susan_s_smith:“he has been fumbling over quite a few words”
Moreover, when these two sides noticed that the other side was viewing things so differently, they responded with exasperation:
@ BlondeBlogger: “Am I watching the same conf? RT @alejandroalton: It's so nice to see a leader who doesn't fumble over his words and is confident”
@cgrin: “Are you guys even watching the same speech?”
@rpeete: “we are definitely watching different broadcasts.”
I’m less interested in figuring out who’s right and who’s wrong in this dispute, and more interested in figuring out why these two sides were SO polarized that they disagreed on even some of the most basic facts.
Of course, many on each side will be tempted to just dismiss the other side as ideologically-driven and blinded.
However, that analysis comes too cheap. Both sides can make it. And once each side realizes this fact, it’s obvious how unsatisfying it is.
In my view, there are a couple factors that help explain this polarization:
1. The first is that, in the context of political disagreements, people are much less “objective”, “neutral” or “rational” than they think.
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen offers substantial evidence that voters perceptions are usually determined, not by dispassionately weighing facts, but on the basis of emotional factors.
In one study, Westen’s research team used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to investigate a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the 2004 presidential election. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate, and fMRI was used to see what parts of their brain were active.
According to Westen, "we did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
2. The second thing to note is that, even when we ARE being "rational", different individuals are often relying on completely different "evaluative standards" in judging the success (or failure) of a political speech.
To illustrate, let’s return to the dispute about whether Obama was fumbling over his words.
According to one side, the “ums” and frequent pauses were evidence of his speech being labored and unconvincing.
According to the other side, the very same “facts” are a consequence of his speech being thoughtful and convincing.
Professional academics and intellectuals, for example, who are used to the regular occurrence of “ums” and labored pauses in academic talks, are more likely to see things the second way, and judge the speech on the basis of intellectual criteria such as: Do the details in Obama’s answers provide good evidence for his stated conclusions?
Others, meanwhile, are deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their standards. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh, speaking for many Americans, has gone on record, saying “universities are just indoctrination centers for liberal ideology.”
But then, absent intellectual standards, the number of “ums” and pauses – features that even a six year-old could recognize – become increasingly relevant.
The reason for such widespread distrust of universities and intellectual standards is a story for another day. The point here is simply to highlight the role that emotions and background standards play in our evaluation of political speeches.
People were completely polarized in their reactions. On the side, people were saying things like:
@singlegirl: "Whoa. Our Prez is volunteering info and explaining what he means - coherently - to a reporter. Still not used to that."
@prunedaler: "Wow -- measured, thoughtful answers, in complete sentences -- who IS this guy?"
On the other side, people were saying things like:
@swaynette:“WOW! could he actually say something?! It would also be great if he could talk in more than four-word sentences and fewer ums!”
@susan_s_smith:“he has been fumbling over quite a few words”
Moreover, when these two sides noticed that the other side was viewing things so differently, they responded with exasperation:
@ BlondeBlogger: “Am I watching the same conf? RT @alejandroalton: It's so nice to see a leader who doesn't fumble over his words and is confident”
@cgrin: “Are you guys even watching the same speech?”
@rpeete: “we are definitely watching different broadcasts.”
I’m less interested in figuring out who’s right and who’s wrong in this dispute, and more interested in figuring out why these two sides were SO polarized that they disagreed on even some of the most basic facts.
Of course, many on each side will be tempted to just dismiss the other side as ideologically-driven and blinded.
However, that analysis comes too cheap. Both sides can make it. And once each side realizes this fact, it’s obvious how unsatisfying it is.
In my view, there are a couple factors that help explain this polarization:
1. The first is that, in the context of political disagreements, people are much less “objective”, “neutral” or “rational” than they think.
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen offers substantial evidence that voters perceptions are usually determined, not by dispassionately weighing facts, but on the basis of emotional factors.
In one study, Westen’s research team used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to investigate a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the 2004 presidential election. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate, and fMRI was used to see what parts of their brain were active.
According to Westen, "we did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
2. The second thing to note is that, even when we ARE being "rational", different individuals are often relying on completely different "evaluative standards" in judging the success (or failure) of a political speech.
To illustrate, let’s return to the dispute about whether Obama was fumbling over his words.
According to one side, the “ums” and frequent pauses were evidence of his speech being labored and unconvincing.
According to the other side, the very same “facts” are a consequence of his speech being thoughtful and convincing.
Professional academics and intellectuals, for example, who are used to the regular occurrence of “ums” and labored pauses in academic talks, are more likely to see things the second way, and judge the speech on the basis of intellectual criteria such as: Do the details in Obama’s answers provide good evidence for his stated conclusions?
Others, meanwhile, are deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their standards. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh, speaking for many Americans, has gone on record, saying “universities are just indoctrination centers for liberal ideology.”
But then, absent intellectual standards, the number of “ums” and pauses – features that even a six year-old could recognize – become increasingly relevant.
The reason for such widespread distrust of universities and intellectual standards is a story for another day. The point here is simply to highlight the role that emotions and background standards play in our evaluation of political speeches.
