flaws in democratic decision-making

a new study suggests that political decision making and analytical thinking may be opposed, illustrating the neural substrates of confirmation bias (tendency to ignore facts opposing your view and seek those confirming it).

in the study, staunch political party members evaluated data critical of their candidate - george w or john kerry's - position on an issue. brain scans revealed no activity in areas of conscious analytical thought, but instead in emotional circuits including conflict and disgust. reward centers took over when subjects came to their decisions.

we are a jaded polity; most of us (justly) feel that politicians manipulate facts. i'm not sure the study says much more than that. once someone's convinced, by whatever method, that her party or candidate is usually correct, that trust makes her likely to be skeptical of any information contradicting the party tract. it's energy and time efficient; it's farming out work to an institution you trust.

so does this say something horrible about us? should we feel guilty for not being analytical enough? not necessarily. at most, it illustrates one of the dangers of direct democracy. perhaps we aren't really cut out to make decisions for everyone.

unfortunately, the study did not look at independent or swing voters, or even party folks who are less involved. i'd also like to see if brain activity differs between issues of greater or lesser personal and worldwide importance, and unfamiliar issues.

thanks to tenacious jdt for the link.

Labels: decision making, ideology