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.
Very good points. While I'm very conservative politically, I do not like political discussions that demonize liberals.
ReplyDeleteFrom The University of New Hampshire (you know...one of dem dere intellectual places):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.unh.edu/news/forfacultystaff/mediaguide.htm
"You have the right to have your statements published without distortion. Remember, this includes ums, ahs, slander and slang. If you don't want to sound like 'uhh, well, ya know,' speak in clear and concise English.
But maybe it was just my emotions and I imagined all the "uhhs" and "umms?"
So if (1) people aren't as objective as they believe they are and (2) people (presuming they are objective) use different criterion to determine success, they end up on different sides of the same fence. I have little (though I do have some) objection to your formulation of this problem, but I do think we can take it a little further.
ReplyDeleteFurther? How?
Objectivity and subjectivity are categories that rise out of an establishment. The specific point at which we draw the line between the subject and the object can be challenged, shifted, neglected, or even ignored entirely.
In times of crisis—be it financial, religious, political or scientific—the establishment has been questioned in some fundamental or fatal way. Is there any surprise that there is such a polarizing in political discourse these days? Die hard Obama-dramatists, mourning McCain hopefuls, and distrustful third-or-no party dissenters; each group has more than a different criteria to judge with. They inhabit different a different realm or a different world.
A Coca-Cola bottle washed up on some remote foreign tribe's beachfront is no longer a mere bottle: it is a fancy pumice stone, an object of worship, a promise of advanced culture beyond the sea. Their world is different, and I mean this in the most "real" sense I can muster.
For many, election of Barack Hussein Obama II marks not liberation from a terrible administration to a dissenter: it marks the end of their way of life, the grace-devoid plummet into socialism, the defeat of the American promise of prosperity and pursuit of happiness. Obama must be a bumbling idiot, and the evidence is there.
For others (myself included), Obama's election marks the end of America as the lower rung had known it: where "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" was a convenient lie our corporate masters tell us to show up at work, where the end of every day is punctuated disaster on the ten-o-clock news, and their kids will undoubtedly be "left behind."
These are like (the "like" is important here) different worlds entirely. Ever watch the news in a suburban city? Cheese contests, white collar crime, and ski accidents. In Los Angeles, the news chronicles the activity of rapists, murderers, and fatal car accidents—my parents are afraid to leave the house.
Here's where I complain.
For me, however, Obama's statement overshadows any "um" or "ah" he could possibly say: "So, you know, we -- we can differ on some of the particulars, but, again, the question I think the American people are asking is, do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it to do something? If you want it to do something, then we can have a conversation. But doing nothing, that's not an option from my perspective."
Besides, we just finished with an administration that coined the term "strategery." Since Bill Maher is not on the air quite yet, I'll make a new rule: you cannot criticize someone on their speaking skills if you, at any point, supported George W. Bush.
Jason: Debates without demonizing opponents... let's hope more ppl follow your example!
ReplyDeleteKey: Ppl inhabit different "worlds" depending on how they draw the line between the subjective & the objective. Agreed.
My hope is that more ppl recognize that not every "rational" person sees the world the way they do.
The goal isn't for us all to agree on a single worldview; but to avoid conflicts where we can and to understand what kinds of considerations could adjudicate the controversies that remain.
Indeed, my entire academic profession is premised on this goal.
Unfortunately, too many ppl seem content with demonizing, table stomping, ad hominen attacks and straw man arguments.
Oh, and your rule is a good one. :)