A Scientific Explanation for Tea Baggers and Birthers

“My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.” Apparently, there’s more to that cute little expression than one might think. Indeed, when it comes to the way humans’ brains work, it seems to be an accurate description, according to some scientific inquiry conducted in 2005-06 — long before the rise of the Tea Party, and just about the time U.S. political discourse devolved into dismissive partisanship.

According to an article from the Boston Globe, facts can and often do, to use the scientific term, “backfire”:

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

The ramifications of this for an erstwhile democracy like ours are serious, as was evidenced during last summer’s series of “townhall meetings.” You remember — the yelling, the screaming, the epithets, the shouting down of our elected officials who simply were trying to chat with constituents. Facts really become the immutable truth smashing into the immovable object when they collide with our beliefs:

Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.

Combine that fact/belief dichotomy with a profound ignorance of how our government works and you’ve got the makings of the selection of Alvin Greene to be the Democrat U.S. Senate candidate in South Carolina despite the fact that he did not campaign. At all. Political pundits speculate that Greene won the party nomination because a majority of South Carolina voters simply voted for the first name on the ballot.

The Globe article notes that In 1996 Princeton University’s Larry M. Bartels argued, “the political ignorance of the American voter is one of the best documented data in political science.” Well, duh!

Scientists now speculate that one reason we are this way is because our brains are wired to be that way, which could provide a whole generation of dummies to adopt the “I can’t help it, my brain is bad” explanation for their political platform:

Generally, people tend to seek consistency. There is a substantial body of psychological research showing that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing their pre-existing views. If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as “motivated reasoning.” Whether or not the consistent information is accurate, we might accept it as fact, as confirmation of our beliefs. This makes us more confident in said beliefs, and even less likely to entertain facts that contradict them.

I understand the “motivated” part, but they lost me at the “reasoning” bit.

Researchers now are looking for ways to rewire our bad brains and get us to accept new information as facts. One study showed:

that people who were given a self-affirmation exercise were more likely to consider new information than people who had not. In other words, if you feel good about yourself, you’ll listen — and if you feel insecure or threatened, you won’t. This would also explain why demagogues benefit from keeping people agitated. The more threatened people feel, the less likely they are to listen to dissenting opinions, and the more easily controlled they are.

That comes straight out of the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck demagoguery playbook.

According to some researchers, sometimes it helps if you give people new information in a very direct “hit ’em between the eyes” manner. But usually only if you are a researcher, preferably wearing a white coat. And don’t think that more and better education is going to help, either. Research found that just because you had some college education didn’t mean you were any more susceptible to common sense or truth. An April New York Times poll found that Tea Party supporters were both better educated and wealthier than the general public. Go figure.

Some researchers say the best way to combat this factual-denial syndrome is to demand quality, clarity and accuracy from those who supply facts to voters. Good luck with that. There’s a whole network devoted to making certain that quality, clarity and accuracy, not to mention fairness and balancedness are the last things broadcast. And there’s no way to shame those people into becoming responsible broadcasters, either — they’re shameless. And they have bad brains.

But there is hope. Well, kind of. OK, not really. But at the end of the NYT article, the reporter pointed out to a Tea Party supporter that if she opposed “big government” programs, she should be willing to give up Social Security and Medicare, the two biggest government programs. Her response shows a glimmer of hope that change is possible:

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

Nah, that was just the temporary short-circuit of a bad brain.