Insane i wonder whatz running threw these sheeple brains lol, Obtain your Doctorate in the Political Revolution yes to all you sheeple..

 

Personally, I think treatment should include some sort of beating or mild electric shock
 

why not uncondition them with some gool ol clockwork-orange drug induced nausea every time their candidate lies? 

it makes me feel sick watching them...

 

Fabulous post!  Great job!  Political addict here, for sure.  ;)

I remember you enjoying the one I posted that I got from Jeremy a couple of months ago.  Scary stuff.  They will be rounding up us all!  Ahhhhh!!!!!!

 

I wrote todays blogs, and i've been more geared to doing mostly exclussives lately.

T/Y!

 

As always, highly entertaining.  Keep up the good work.
 

This just proves what I call "Clarke's 4th Law:"

Anyone who actively seeks political office should automaticly be disqualified.

[In case you're wondering, the other three are:

1. Whenever a respected elder scientist says something is possible he (or she) is usually right.

2. However, when a respected elder scientist says something is impossible he (or she) is almost always wrong.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic.]

Stop.Think.Resist.

-KZ

 

In this world today it is hard to not question your own sanity in a world that seems completely insane; and this article helps to prove just how ignorant modern society is.

We could rant for hours at the total lack of integrity and responsibility that exists in the world today and it seems as if the average person simply wouldn't listen - They don't have time for all that liberal-skeptic-hooha, it's all just a smear campaign, etc ; exactly as your article stated.

The problem is that, for the most part, they don't listen. No one listens, it's simply talk,talk,talk,work,work,work and at the end of the day how could they possibly fathom that the world they feel to be right is completely wrong. They have no concept of responsibility, of a responsibility to the world and the global community - they only see in black and white; black being losses, white being gains.

The sad thing is that, however thought-provoking or TRUE the evidence may be, they simply don't care to hear it. The average person drinks his politics in the morning with two cups of sugar and government issue cream, and that's all the politics he wants to drink that day - the same one he's had every other day of his life.

I don't mean to rant, it's actually a point of praise.
In this world of pigs and sheep it's entirely too easy for the intelligent community to feel  like outcasts. It's entirely too easy to get lost wondering if the entire world is stupid or maybe you're just naive and a little loony.

I repost your articles in my bulletins (with credit given of course) in hopes that my "friends" will just READ them, I don't ask them to agree - although I'd like to think they would; but in all honesty, I don't think they really care. We're lost in a society of distraction and our leaders are taking advantage of it, and taking advantage of us.

Your theories on bias are very real, you can see them in almost any debate these days, where one side doesn't really care if what they're saying is true, simply that they're talking louder than their opponent.

Cheers.

 

Well said and thats how it is, sad but true. So sad and threatening that I intend to challenge every major psychology expert I can find to attempt to debunk this. If they cant it should give me some sort of leverage and even support to make this a major sociology and psychology issue to hopefully be delt with.
 

 

Honestly, I dont have any objections to what you said. Thanks for the support!
 

I like this write, GREAT write.  I had read about the MRI work they had done and snickered to myself loudly like  whacko.  Not in the least surprised of the results they found IN the politicians!  Yes.
 

I too believe that treatment should include electro-shock and beatings. I would like to volunteer my expert services for the latter
 

Bias is a part of being human, very well said, BUT in the case of politics it is a threat to everyone including those biased therefore it is a disease. There are seriously advanced cases of political bias and literally all of our founding natonal doctrines have been almost completely sacrificed as a result, FACT.
 

Sorry I missed your comment until now.

That could actually help, but removal of the presidency may be more effective. Then people wont become so affixiated on the "figurehead", they'll have to actually know about their local leaders and it'd remove the power from the "one" man that has proven absurd 2 presidencies in a row now. Also, people need to stop tolerating corruption and BS and they wont be able tot do it.

 

I'm delighted you brought this research to light. You've clearly worked hard on the surrounding text and interpretation, but there's so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

Attempting to cast the bias of the individuals in Westen's study as equivalent to legal insanity way overreaches the mark. The mental process whereby people with strong political biases deny information not consistent with their views is hardly the same as "severe mental disease or defect." I'm a forensic psychologist, and trust me, that argument would be laughed out of court. The definition of "unsound mind, memory" given by the lectric law source you cite is well out of date (nobody uses 'lunacy' anymore), misses the point by specifying a permanent adventitious (i.e. coming from without, as opposed to say, genetic) insanity, and is irrelevant here because it has to do with matters such as appointing a caretaker to look after somebody's finances. Note that, in regard to the insanity definition, the severe mental disease or defect must lead to an inability to distinguish between right and wrong. That's Right and Wrong in the moral sense, for example a murderer would not attempt to hide evidence of the murder because they were so divorced from reality as to not appreciate that murder was wrong and they would be in trouble for it. Hardly the same thing as ignoring negative information about your favorite candidate.

The MRI's of subjects in the study showed increased activity in the brain's pleasure centers when they ignored such statements. Yes, drugs also light up these areas, but so does exercise, a good meal, or masturbation. Only a wonk who hasn't actually done drugs would say "they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view," (and note that that statement wasn't made by the study's authors, but whoever wrote the story at MSNBC). You take the overstated exaggeration even further with "they enter states of bliss or glory."

Yes, the findings show some broad similarities to addiction, but your statement "the study shows their scientifically addicted" is a huge overstatement, and completely overlooks the diagnostic criteria for addiction (you recoup some points for specifying later on that it isn't the same as physical addiction). Remember, all Westen said was that the study had "CURIOUS PARALLELS to addiction."

Now to "The average political person usually seems to fall into the line of binary  thinking." This assertion is not only unsupported but largely meaningless because you don't specify what you mean by "the average political person." If you check Dick Meyer's write-up of the Westen study, you'll find this, "In 1972, even though the country was heated up over Nixon and Vietnam, only 4.9 percent described themselves as either extremely liberal or extremely conservative. That rose to 6.6 percent in 2004." And when asked to rate the opposition candidates on A CONTINUUM SCALE of 0 to 100, less than 25% of self-identified extreme liberals or conservatives used "zero" ratings. Contrary to your assertion, true binary thinking and political extremism are in fact quit rare.

I appreciate your concerns and the general thrust of your thought, but your absolutism,  exaggerations, and over-generalizations make you hard to read, much less take seriously:

"They have absolutely no desire to know the truth about much of anything." (Actually, the study participants were able to distinguish contradictions made by neutral figures.)

"...there would be mass hysteria if all news outlets were to continually broadcast that bias study for several weeks straight." (Please. Most reports pointed out that the key finding - people don't hear what they don't want to hear - is hardly revolutionary. Now we've got a little neurologizing to go along with it.)

"Obtain your Doctorate in the Political Revolution. It all begins here." (Should I add grandiose to overstated and overreaching?)

 

"hard to read, much less take seriously" there it is again - Denial.  you are proving his point by trying to make excuses why you can ignore any fact that contradicts your own opinion...

excellent blog.

 

 

"The mental process whereby people with strong political biases deny information not consistent with their views is hardly the same as "severe mental disease or defect.""

I didnt say that someone would get off a crime because of their political bias affiliation, but the day may come when people are fmri tested (fmri is good for a lot more than political bias testing) for various issues in regards to various crimes and those test results may influence the way people are sentenced and treated. Would you argue against that? Do you not think that testing should be utilized asap to get people proper treatmet instead of being institutionalized? Do you not think that fmri may revolutionalize psychology as we get better and better understandings of the brain and the technology? Sorry to go off topic but I've been thinking about that today and you appear to be the right person to ask.

Would you say that these people, of varying degrees of bias, aren't in a state of insanity when they cant hear the truth from even the mouth of the person in question? How can someone be totally sane if they cant see the truth? I was probably a bit broad with my statements of insanity, but are you saying that these people arent politically insane? Wouldn't the political sections of their brain make function in overall sanity of the person? If so wouldn't you say that they're at least partially insane? If some is deeply biased wouldn't that indicate that they may also be deeply biased on other issues, and maybe they should undergo further testing?

"Note that, in regard to the insanity definition, the severe mental disease or defect must lead to an inability to distinguish between right and wrong. "

You are saying that they don't have servere mental defects preventing them from distinguishing between right or wrong?

"That's Right and Wrong in the moral sense, for example a murderer would not attempt to hide evidence of the murder because they were so divorced from reality as to not appreciate that murder was wrong and they would be in trouble for it. "

What about when there are decietful and sadistic leaders and people misjudge them for good hearted people that really care about us? You dont see that as harmful behavior, based on moral sense? I'm not saying that people should go to prison for life here, and that this is exactly as serious as that. A Bush supporter could support Bush virtually no matter how bad he was, and they wouldnt even try to hide it because they wouldnt be able to comprehend that he's not actually the greatest president in the world. Would you say that the politically biased can judge from right or wrong? Are you suggesting that there's only deeply insane and not variations? Should only deep insanity be treated and not variations?

"The MRI's of subjects in the study showed increased activity in the brain's pleasure centers when they ignored such statements. Yes, drugs also light up these areas, but so does exercise, a good meal, or masturbation. "

And people get addicted to drugs, food, masturbation and... even excercise.

"Only a wonk who hasn't actually done drugs would say "they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view," (and note that that statement wasn't made by the study's authors, but whoever wrote the story at MSNBC). You take the overstated exaggeration even further with "they enter states of bliss or glory.""

Did you measure the depth of the firing of the reward centers? They're addicted to the glory of when "they're" "right", as I described. In the current state of politicians and politics the only way the subjects could get consistent "glory" would be to be in an almost absolute state of denial. "they feel as if theyre personally right. When they hear negative news about their guy they automatically start searching for reasons it must be false its all just a smear campaign by the right/left. "  Would you say that they aern't satisfied when "they're right"   and they can go present it to their opposties or whatever? Wouldn't that be satisfaction? Does satisfaction fire the reward centers in ones brain???

"Now to "The average political person usually seems to fall into the line of binary  thinking." This assertion is not only unsupported but largely meaningless because you don't specify what you mean by "the average political person." If you check Dick Meyer's write-up of the Westen study, you'll find this, "

Good find, that you for entering that here.

"The good news may be that the partisan lout in your office who absolutely will not listen to reason may not be at fault; he may just be a slave to his ventromedial prefrontal cortex. The bad news is that these louts may be becoming more prevalent and more loutish."

It sounds as if it is indeed a mental disorder if Dick Meyer knows what he's talking about. Even he presents it in a drug like manner: "("This is your brain; this is your brain on politics.")".  Does this, "30 adult men who read candidates' quotes while strapped down in MRI machines didnt even fire up the thinking parts of their brains.", sound sane to you?

""In 1972, even though the country was heated up over Nixon and Vietnam, only 4.9 percent described themselves as either extremely liberal or extremely conservative. That rose to 6.6 percent in 2004." "

You forgot to finish quoting that paragraph: "Though the baseline percentage is small, a 30 percent increase still potentially effects a couple of million votes.". MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT CANNOT THINK RATIONALLY ON MATTERS THAT INVOLVE THE OUTCOME OF EVERYONES FUTURE.

Those are just "extreme" biased people anyways, and how many people would even want to admit that they're extremists? Does that mean that only 6.6 percent are affected by this disorder? Would you say that ultimately 100 percent isnt affected by this disorder when political things happen that may noot have if it wernt for people like this??

How about some other statistics?

It would appear that a significant number of the 100+ million that voted had their minds made up as soon as july that year:

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=133

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=80

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=151

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=2

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=3

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=51

http://www.zogby.com/features/featuredtables.dbm?ID=29

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

ttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/

Does this sound like decisions from who can decide from right or wrong: "But in 2004, lots of people gave out zeroes. They were surprise, surprise self-described liberals and conservatives, and they gave zeroes out to their ideological enemies" ??

""They have absolutely no desire to know the truth about much of anything." (Actually, the study participants were able to distinguish contradictions made by neutral figures.)"

Thank you for pointing that out, I dont mind clarifying and unlike the politically biased I can learn from new information. How's this: "They have absolutely no desire to know the truth about about their own prefered leaders even though in a sense those leaders represent them. Their ability to judge between right or wrong actually threatens their credibility and the wefare of their own future." ?

""...there would be mass hysteria if all news outlets were to continually broadcast that bias study for several weeks straight." (Please. Most reports pointed out that the key finding - people don't hear what they don't want to hear - is hardly revolutionary. Now we've got a little neurologizing to go along with it.)"

It was ran and probalby ignored by those it should have mattered to. If it was an ongoing discussion on TV, radio, Interent, print etc it would be a big deal. There are other channels but if all media outlets and discussion avenues were being bombarded with the message it would be a serious deal. Millions would be in denial at first and would probably find themselves stressed out in realizing that their idea of what's real is just a dream. They'd could change the channel but then find Fox news talkng about it, they could change it again and fing South Park running a parody spoof of it with maximum satire about it, they'd turn off the TV and go get on the internet to find someone emailed them an article about it. In the morning it would be on several of the radio stations and t work people would be talking about it and it'd also be in the newspaper, again. On and on they could only run for so long and eventually they'd snap or go into deeper denial. Millions of people would be undergoing this and that could be considered mass hysteria.

"Obtain your Doctorate in the Political Revolution. It all begins here." (Should I add grandiose to overstated and overreaching?)"

How so? If this successfully becomes a major social issue that would mean millions possibly finding themselves and that would be a revolution by it's first definition:

Revolution
Noun
1. A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving; "the industrial revolution was also a cultural revolution".

 

I forgot to point out that all of those polls would suggest that there is indeed binary thinking across the board. Look at those statistics and tell me how many independants are in those totals. What have the election right/left trends been like since before 2000?

 

 

I'm assuming the Zogby statistics are meant to address the question of what proportion of the population is politically extreme, or as you say, subject to black/white binary thinking. The first set of stats is for the question "How strong is your support for your choice for president?" With 74% responding "very strong" that's certainly discrepant with the data from the CBS story I cited. I don't know how to resolve that. It would certainly be interesting to get fMRI's on those folks. If they showed the same brain patterns as Westen's self-identified "partisans" then we are in trouble indeed. Alternatively, it may be that Westen's sampling method and criteria selected a smaller, even more extreme subset of the people than the 74% identified by their Zogby poll responses. I've asked Westen for a copy of the original paper, and it will be interesting to see how he went about selecting his subjects.

The second series shows responses to the question "Bush or Other" as varying between 42-46% from 10-18-03 through 6-5-04 This is, at minimum, consistent with conventional political wisdom that elections are won by swaying the small number of undecideds. But what does it really tell us about how many people think only in black and white and ignore contrary information? For example, the data tell us nothing about what percent of Bush supporters recognize that he is a hypocritical lying asshole, but believe that it is more important not to change commanders in chief during war time. Or what percent recognize Bush's contradictions but still think that a bad Republican is better than a good Democrat? Nor do they tell us what percent of Bush supporters are even exposed to information that would indicate he is a poltroon, much less how they would or would not process such information if exposed to it. The data are simply inadequate to support or refute your assertion.

Of greater interest is the response on 2-25-05 to the question "If it was possible to elect George W. Bush for a third term, would you vote to re-elect him or would you vote for someone else?" With only 29% saying re-elect, it seems safe to say that at least some of the Bush supporters from the previous polls had revised their opinion based on newly acquired information. But the set of interpretive problems I described above continue to apply. Additionally, we don't know how many of these people are opposed on philosophical grounds to three term presidencies per-se. The fact that Bush's current approval rating is 36% (an all-time low) suggests that at least 7% of the population may fall into this camp.

Likewise, Clinton's approval rating going from a high of 63% to a low of 43% tells us that at least 20% of the population are able to change their opinions in light of new data, but -and this is the key issue- absent a direct measure of a person's inability to process negative information about a political figure, the simple fact that they have not changed their minds about the figure does not necessarily mean that they are unable to do so.

"I'll skip the rest of the data to get to your "does this sound like decisions from who can decide right from wrong." There's a line in a George Bernard Shaw play where the young hothead declares "At least I know the difference between right and wrong," to which his acerbic father in law scoffs "The question that has confounded the greatest thinkers and philosophers from every era, and you alone have answered it."  The point is that issues of political "rightness" and "wrongness" are tricky, and issues of philosophical rightness and wrongness are trickier still. LEGAL rightness and wrongness is mo better defined, and doesn't have jack squat to do with people's political beliefs or even their (in)ability to incorporate negative information about their favorite politician. The Westen study is simply not relevant to legal definitions of insanity, nor is how people vote.

Your first reformulated sentence re; "absolutely no desire to learn the truth" is a definite improvement. The second sentence is subject to the right vs. wrong observations in the preceding paragraph. Detecting behavior that is contradictory to a person's statements is not the same as judging between right and wrong.

As to mass hysteria, I might argue the converse: If (the study) were a big deal there would be an ongoing discussion on TV, internet, print etc. The study is illuminating, but not revolutionary. Again, it is a commonplace that people hear what they want to hear. Behaviors and cognitions are predicated on neurophysiology, so it's hardly surprising that different neurons light up in correspondance with different cognitive processes. (Just the same, I love this study. I'll describe why at the end).

My "grandiose" comment was geared more toward your self-promotion; obtaining doctorates, and it all beginning here. Again, the fMRI paradigm is illuminating, but hardly revolutionary, for the reasons I mentioned above. If this test came into wide-spread use as a personal challenge to see if you've got your cognitive shit together, and people made it a goal to pass, then yes, that would be revolutionary. But note that even without the fMRI, the cognitive data alone demonstrate that partisans do not process contradictions about their heroes. It remains true regardless of whether fMRI data are in hand.

As to fMRI evidence being used to assess criminal culpability and potential for rehabilitation, yes, I think it is potentially a very useful tool.  As usual, a lot more research needs to be done, but I think it's very promising.

As to proper treatment, way fewer people are institutionalized now than 20 years ago. Pharmaceutical companies are scrambling like hell to come up with new and better treatments and to the extent fMRI - as one of many brain/behavior technologies - is helpful, I'm sure it will be fully utilized. And yes, I'm a rabid fan of better psychology through study of brain-behavior-cognition relationships. fMRI is but one of many promising technologies moving us forward in that domain.

"Insanity" is way too strong a term to throw around about people who are close minded or biased. By contrast, everybody is *irrational* at some time and to varying degree. Such lapses in cognitive acuity occur fairly regularly in "normal" individuals and more frequently as you travel into the neurotic spectrum of disorders. But "insanity" really is reserved for the psychotic spectrum of mental illnesses, where lapses in judgment, thinking, and reality testing are severe and pervasive. Probably none of the politically biased people in Westen's study hallucinate. And most people who hallucinate know that murder is Wrong (capital, legal W -as opposed to 2+2=5 is wrong-) and don't do it. Relative to Westen's subjects "legal insanity" is in a whole other solar system.

For the reasons above, terms like "politically insane" don't really have meaning. Likewise, technically speaking, nobody could be "totally sane" (at least not all the time). It's an ideal, rather than a practical state. And yes, personality and cognitive correlates of politically biased people would be a fascinating area of study. There is already some good work on how uptight, insecure children tend to become Republicans whereas secure, socially capable children tend to become liberals.

So, in answer to "You are saying that they don't have servere mental defects preventing them from distinguishing between right or wrong?" Correct. I'm saying they have minor-to-moderate mental defects that impair their rationality. As such they are very much human. (Think in this respect how "love is blind," or how irrational people get about religion).

As to "What about when there are decietful and sadistic leaders and people misjudge them for good hearted people that really care about us? You dont see that as harmful behavior, based on moral sense?"  People often misjudge and are frequently deceived. It's very unfortunate, but I doubt it's harmful per-se, in the active sense of the word. And yes, some people are just stupid, short-sighted or misinformed (and hence Bush supporters :)

"MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THAT CANNOT THINK RATIONALLY ON MATTERS THAT INVOLVE THE OUTCOME OF EVERYONES FUTURE." Yes, it's equal parts depressing and scary. By now you will anticipate my observation that not thinking rationally is not the same as being insane; it's merely being irrational. On the other hand, remember the dictum that elections are decided by swaying the swing voters who reside in the middle. So if supporters become partisans who in turn become zealots, it's not likely to really affect elections.

On balance, I find the trend toward increasing polarization very disturbing, especially with the proliferation of Faux News outlets that pander to such types, reinforcing their pathological thinking and creating even more of them. I think it's amazingly great that such people can be identified in experimental protocols, and even better that there are now neurological concomitants to point to in identifying and educating people about this threat. I've taken issue with you here because I think the term "insanity" and recourse to an addiction model are inaccurate, and as such, won't further our efforts to educate people about and combat this phenomenon.

Ha. Con Air came on as I was writing this, and I picked up the following line: "What if i told you that insane was working 50 hours a week at a desk in a building for 50 years, then being told to fuck off and going to a retirement home where you hope you die before you're no longer able to make it to the bathroom."

Anyway, thanks again for posting this study, and for the intellectual exercise!
 

" I don't know how to resolve that. It would certainly be interesting to get fMRI's on those folks. If they showed the same brain patterns as Westen's self-identified "partisans" then we are in trouble indeed. Alternatively, it may be that Westen's sampling method and criteria selected a smaller, even more extreme subset of the people than the 74% identified by their Zogby poll responses."

Only time will tell, so in the meantime I intend to push this issue as far as possible to help keep this stuff from being forgotten. Even just going by that extremist statistic you pointed out it appears there are milions of people affected by it.

I've asked Westen for a copy of the original paper, and it will be interesting to see how he went about selecting his subjects.

I planned on emailing him also, but I've been to caught up since I wrote this blog. You'll probably hear back before I so post whatever up in here if possible. You may enjoy this: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/pops/26/6. I havent been able to read it yet though but it should be interesting.

Most of those polls were to demonstate that there's binary. There is the Independant party and some of those polls show how they're like 1percent. The system is mostly geared toward binary right/left, and it seems people even choose to keep it that way (or the big parties play dirty tricks to keep the Ind.'s down and out?). The reelect Bush poll was show an example of how many people still worship him. It is reassuring to see 20% change their opinions, but there's still that 43 percent that didnt seem to mind him lying to our nation underoath. It really seemed to set the standard in tolerance now that we see Bush lying virtually all the time. What's next following that graph? Imagine if it could actually get worse... I don't want to, I'd rather focus on eliminating the tolerance of deception.

There's a line in a George Bernard Shaw play where the young hothead declares "At least I know the difference between right and wrong," to which his acerbic father in law scoffs "The question that has confounded the greatest thinkers and philosophers from every era, and you alone have answered it." 

All Democrats are insane, but not one of them know it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. - Mark Twain

The Westen study is simply not relevant to legal definitions of insanity, nor is how people vote.

Ok ok, it technically means they're insane, or the political portion of their brain is legally insane with extremists and partially political insanity in many millions of others. Can we find common ground there? Borderline insanity? At least on political issues? Does "insanity" mean only absolute insanity or are there variations and degrees of insanity? Whatever this 'insanity' may be, would you argue that it doesn't need to be taken seriously by society?

As to mass hysteria, I might argue the converse: If (the study) were a big deal there would be an ongoing discussion on TV, internet, print etc. The study is illuminating, but not revolutionary.

I'd argue that it not that it isnt a big deal, it's that the people don't want to know and the establishment doesn't either. I find tons of articles, many dealing with 'brains' and such, that are absolute irrefutable fact and they usually get ran once (usually everyone runs the same article too) and then it gets forgotten, and that's even with stuff that's cool and interesting. So then you take something that addresses ignorant people and... I'm very curious about how many people actually read and took in that study and if it was actually on TV? I wouldn't be very surprised if it were less than a million.

My "grandiose" comment was geared more toward your self-promotion; obtaining doctorates, and it all beginning here.

Believe it or not my presence here is quite selfless, but I'm not afraid to point out where I stand out from the rest. I could argue that it does start here, the idea of a political revolution based on these findings. It's entirely possible that other may have the same ideas about it but I couldn't find anything about it and I know how to search. I couldn't find anything else, beyond Westin's statements, pointing out the seriousness of treating this as an addiction and disease. I have strategy to make this an issue, because this is too important to let everyone forget about. Considering the foundatioon of the ideals and doctrine of this nation, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that our country and our system wouldn't be in half of it's trouble if it wasn't for this disease. Do you not agree that this could or should be considered both addiction and disease? 

What do you think of my draft treatment program? I intend to build whatever the program becomes into this new account "Political Bias Recovery Center" I created just for this. So far the plan is to cram it with all sorts of documentation, audio, video etc and list everything in sections according to the step by step program. I already have another person to help maintain it but your more than welcome to join if you'd like to help this effort while keeping expert balance. I'm not sure what your main interests are but I'd say this effort could use all the experts it can get so the invitation is there.

If this test came into wide-spread use as a personal challenge to see if you've got your cognitive shit together, and people made it a goal to pass, then yes, that would be revolutionary.

Yes it would... and not only in the way the people think but also how the politicans would think about trying to be corrupt.

But note that even without the fMRI, the cognitive data alone demonstrate that partisans do not process contradictions about their heroes. It remains true regardless of whether fMRI data are in hand.

It's a step above though, and in its 'simplicity' it makes it irrefutable wouldn't you say? How cost effective would a test like this average? I actually want to get ahold of more matieral that studies bias using diferent tests.

As to proper treatment, way fewer people are institutionalized now than 20 years ago.

You should note that use of of the term is in slang for when kids go to juvinille and then find themselves always getting locked up for the majority of their lives, the cases where they hate being locked up but cant function outside of jail because they're "institutionalized".

Well the probation rate has gone up but so has the inmate count as well.

On December 31, 2004 --

-- 2,135,901 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails -- an increase of 2.6% from yearend 2003, less than the average annual growth of 3.4% since yearend 1995.

-- there were an estimated 486 prison inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents -- up from 411 at yearend 1995.

-- the number of women under the jurisdiction of State or Federal prison authorities increased 4.0% from yearend 2003, reaching 104,848 and the number of men rose 1.8%, totaling 1,391,781.

"Insanity" is way too strong a term to throw around about people who are close minded or biased.

I can see your reasoning, and it is rather abbrassive, but within definitions I can still see a case for insanity in the political regards:

Insanity is either:

• mental illness, lack of sanity, or
• a legal plea, see insanity defense.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/insane

"The insanity and incompetence defenses refer to possible defensess by excuse; via which, a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were mentally ill or mentally incompetent at the time of their allegedly "criminal" actions. This defense is based on a principle that punishment is only reasonable if the defendant is capable of both controlling their behavior and understanding that they have committed a "wrongful act". It is argued that some people, suffering from mental disorders, are not capable of knowing or choosing right from wrong, they should not be punished. A defendant making this argument might be said to be pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity""

Basically, my reasoning was that they cant control themselves for their own well being and if selecting the wrong leader was "illegal" they wouldnt even realize that they're "breaking the law" by blindly making the wrong choice. I'm not sure if there's any decision making process involved with many of these cases.

For the reasons above, terms like "politically insane" don't really have meaning.

Have I not presented a case for it having meaning? It just seems rather absolute to say that only a person with advanced and frightening diseases could be considered insane. It seems there would be degrees and variations. Maybe from your perspective you view it different. It really seems like you describe all legal insanity as a binary of either mentally retarded or not. These legal definitions seem to paint a different picture, if you have something better to look at I'd appreciate the clarification:

The McNaghten Rules

The McNaghten rules (England, 1844) state that a person "...is not guilty of a crime if, at the time of the crime, they either didn't know what they were doing, or didn't know that what they were doing was wrong." This rule was later adopted within the US.

 The Irresistible Impulse

There is also an idea of an irresistible impulse, which argues that a person may have known an act was illegal; but, because of a mental impairment, they couldn't control their actions. In 1994, Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty of a crime, when her defense argued that an irresistible impulse led her to cut off her husband's penis.

 The Durham Rule

The Durham Rule (1954) states that "... an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect". After the 1970s, US jurisdictions have tended to not recognize this argument as it places emphasis on "mental disease or defect" and thus on testimony by psychiatrists and is argued to be somewhat ambigious.

 Psychosis and Schizophrenia

In practice, a finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity" almost always requires that the defendant have been in a state of active psychosis (at the time the law was broken) and usually such findings involve a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia.

The Substantial Capacity Test

The Substantial Capacity Test was defined by the American Law Institute, in its Model Penal Code: Official Draft and Explanatory Notes. This argues that insanity should be defined as a lack of substantial capacity to control one's behavior. Substantial capacity is defined as: "the mental capacity needed to understand the wrongfulness of [an] act, or to conform...behavior to the...law." This is related to the McNaghten Rule and the idea of irresistible impulse.

 The Brawner Rule

The Brawner Rule (1972) argues that insanity should be decided by a jury. Under this proposal, juries are allowed to decide the "insanity question" as they see fit.

Temporary Insanity

The notion of temporary insanity argues that a defendant was insane, but is now sane. A defendant found to have been temporarily insane will often be released without any requirements of psychiatric treatment. This defense was first used by Representative Daniel E. Sickles of New York in 1859 after he had killed his wife's lover, Philip Barton Key, but was most used during the 1940s and 1950s. Since then, however, it has been becoming less successful.

I could see ways bias could apply many of these, but I also understand how rare and difficult it is for people to get off on, or should I say prove "insanity" from case to case. The catch is you have to prove that these apply and did apply during the crime. With this fMRI it would seem possible that people could start proving different things would it not? There is one technicality that I'm stuck under, it isn't illegal to vote for the wrong person!

On balance, I find the trend toward increasing polarization very disturbing, especially with the proliferation of Faux News outlets that pander to such types, reinforcing their pathological thinking and creating even more of them.

Join the fight for truth, freedom and sanity(lol).

Con Air came on as I was writing this, and I picked up the following line: "What if i told you that insane was working 50 hours a week at a desk in a building for 50 years, then being told to fuck off and going to a retirement home where you hope you die before you're no longer able to make it to the bathroom."

Actually, I was watching a movie (Demon Hunter) and he mentions "The legal definition of insanity is not being able to determine right from wrong" and then I recalled the politcal bias thing. I was already partially done with "Skeptinazi Ideology" and it was too perfect.

Likewise.

 

 Y'know it's tough to sift through the bevy of psycho-babble, and really impressive medical-speak, but once you do, what is learned?

  Immagine that: People who belive in aspects of a particular brand of thinking do so because they belive it to be "correct".

 But what's this? Furthermore, humans also happen to feel that brands of thinking which oppose and contradict what they feel is "correct" are incorrect. GASP!

 Something else to remember is that this "phenomina" (please!) is not limited to the two political parties of the united states. I'd immagine a communist gets that same "rush" as would a Bathist...anyone with ideas, beliefs and a concept of right and wrong...who DOSEN'T that include?

  Perhaps more appropriate studies to be sited in the blog of this user would be those of Patrick Leman, a psychologist at Britain's Royal Holloway University of London. Leman studies conspiracy theory, which is why his findings seem to be very fit for post considering the nature of "ignoranceisntbliss"'s page.

 Calamitous events (or the perception of such) always spawn conspiracy theories (and the nuts who espouse them). You can find people who think the Pope had Abraham Lincoln whacked, meaning even new theories belong to an old tradition. The Bush haters are nothing new, nor are those who give comfort and aide to their own enemies. This war isn't anymore "unjust" than any other. These people are nothing more than the genesis of this dissent and "unfounded guilt" that has existed since the western world, America, and the United States in particular have risen to power.

  According to Professor Leman, American's gowring distrust for standard media, politicians, and "those big bad" corporations plays a role. "If you feel out of the loop on all these things, you're more likely to belive these institutions are conspiring against you," he says. "As society becomes more fragmented, belief in conspiracy theories will become more wide-spread." He and his collegues have studied conspiracy theories and theorists the world over, and have concluded that indeed some people have a psychological NEED to belive in conspiracy theories.

 Throw onto that, that it's become "hip" and has always been popular amonst the young (and the old who long to be young) to be "anti-establishment" and you've got legions of what I like to call "pop-paranoisists".

 

"Immagine that: People who belive in aspects of a particular brand of thinking do so because they belive it to be "correct"."

It's more than just that, they refuse or dismiss information and facts that contradict their ideal "reality". They even refuse to accept it from the mouth of the person that the ideal is centered around.

"Something else to remember is that this "phenomina" (please!)"

Phenomenon

Noun

1. Any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.

2. A remarkable development.

1. Is kinda shaky, but it could apply since there's no reasoning involved.
2. You wouldn't this is a remarkable development?

 I'd immagine a communist gets that same "rush" as would a Bathist...anyone with ideas, beliefs and a concept of right and wrong...who DOSEN'T that include?

Good point. It does include just about everyone, especially on topics such as religion. The difference here is religion, or political systems such as comunism is that it's ideals that are represented by greater entities and not actual PEOPLE that can and do contradict those idel such as in the case of (binary) politics where someone like Bush can contradict themselves and directly contradict their ideal. Jesus Christ isn't down here contradicting Himself, nor can "communism" contradict itself. In the case of political bias these leaders can and do contradict themselves and when they do the biased LIE to themselves even when it's the actual person lying to them personally. Before we move on, the differnce between politics and other ideal biases is irrational and insane choices in regards to politics can jeoparize the entire world and our very future.

"Leman studies conspiracy theory"  ...  "Calamitous events (or the perception of such) always spawn conspiracy theories (and the nuts who espouse them). You can find people who think the Pope had Abraham Lincoln whacked, meaning even new theories belong to an old tradition."

So does that mean that conspiracies dont exist?

"The Bush haters are nothing new, "

What abotu people who were Bush supporters and politically biased on the Republican side waking up to the lies and the deceptions? That is me. I used to be the average, apathetic Bush guy until I opened my eyes.

"American's gowring distrust for standard media, politicians, and "those big bad" corporations plays a role."

They should show distrust, because 6 megacorporations own 95+percent of all major media. There isnt enough distrust believe it or not.

"He and his collegues have studied conspiracy theories and theorists the world over, and have concluded that indeed some people have a psychological NEED to belive in conspiracy theories."

I'm very skeptic believe it or not, and it took me quite a while to even think that the .gov was capable of alot of things I discuss here.

"has always been popular amonst the young "

Could it be that the young arent as BIASED in their idealisms to worship (bias does indicate blind faith) the govenrment and/or their way of life? Maybe, look what age gap historically is out there doing the major (where bias isnt concerned) protesting (Vietnam for starters).

I wont argue that there arent people who are biased into believing that conspiracies MSUT exist, and there are also those who are biased in the other direction.

At the end of the day which is more dangerous?
1. Thos ewho are "paranoid" and watch oru paranoid government back?
2. Those who refuse to believe there is any threat and therefore ignore and dismiss every potential controversy that goes against our best interests?

But, since you MUST attack the ideas, notions and possibilities that I present here at S&A, feel free to challenge ANY conspiracy related blog or content within this 'site'. That is a challenge.

 

"At the end of the day which is more dangerous?

1.Those who are "paranoid" and watch the "paranoid" government back?

2. Those who refuse to belive there is any threat and therefore ignore and dismiss....?"

  Don't negate that most conspiracy theorists are both all at once. Iraq anyone? Refusing to entertain the idea of a murderous dictator with heavy anti-u.s. sentiments and a total disregard for international law and weapons inspectors as posing a threat. At the same time, paranoid and "open-minded" enough to belive a man they view as "an idiot" is clever enough to pull off the biggest conspiracies in history, and yell silly "no blood for oil!" chants.

 I mean c'mon...isn't there a number 3? lol

 

 It would appear to me that it's a "lose lose" situation for anyone who voted for or is a member of a prominent political party as far as you are concerned.

 I say that it "appears" that way, because I'm addmitedly quite confused.

 It seems to me that when someone claims a particular candidate, party, or religion, that you then hold them to (impossibly) prestine standards and (outdated?) ideals as though they were written in stone in a charter of ole, and NEVER to be deviated from. You demand a single minded focus with zero tolerance for straying.

 Then you call them "sheeple", "binary", "blind" etc.

 

  However, those who are not "sheeple", and do not blindly subscribe to the entire ideology across the board, but rather have a firm grasp of modern democracy and choose parties/candidates who's policies they can best identify with...well you criticize them too. You demand an open mind and disreguard for "party lines".

 Then you call them "contradictory" and "hypocritical" etc.

 The church going anti-gay marriage Bush supporter is a blind sheep, and the pro-choice millitant who voted Bush is a contradictory hypocrite.

  Definatley seems like a dammed if you do dammed if you don't scenario. Or maybe you just want things both ways for yourself?

 

 

First I must state that I wasnt trying to sound arrogent with my "challenge" at the end there, I'm just tired of people judging me and my conclusions without challenging or questioning why I have these conclusions first. If people actually questioned or challenged, preferably on a respectable and intelligent level, I could clarify and add to all of my assertions and conclusions. Problem is, many seem to pop up with sharp and usually disrespectful criticisms yet wont answer my challenge or questions in relation to whateve rissue. They usually come in the wrong avenues and challenge things unrelated to the topic at hand while trying to use the unrelated issues (that they cant seen to dispute even when challenged to back up their case against me) to try and win their point. Sadly, that's how that last post appeared to be.

 

In our current state of politics we are damned if we do or damned if we dont, but not the way you present it.

To those who take a good look, and are capable of seeing how it is in this era, the state of affairs has brought forth a hybrid system.

They fight about issues like gays and the rest (Bush has actually endorsed gays politicians AND "press reporters"[lol]) of the things that emotionally fire up their followers, but in the menatime the Fed works together to pass laws and such that go against our best interests.

I have numerous blogs that identify and address this and your more than welcome to try to shed light on those, and i actually dont mind clarifications from outside the box. I try my best to ensure that I'm correct about things before I post but if I am not then I'd still like to know. I honestly dont have time to go back and check and update every listed blog and it bothers me, and challenges are the best way.

Anyways you dont seem to get the whole point: the leaders know that their followers pick and choose their realities and dismiss their (leaders) actions/words that threaten the followers ideals/realities. They spin us with emotional topics such as gays and things like cloning (while NOT reporting their AI ambitions) and work together for their big government goals, while all bowing to "corporate America". Democrats used to be big government NOT Republicans; Reps used to be big business NOT Dem's.

Most people are so obessed with the idea that we're the most free and "best" country, while being obsessed with supporting their leaders 'actions', that they are incapable of noticing/acknowledgin/realizing the true threat and what it may really mean, or DOES really mean to America.

It all allows these men to do virtually whatever they want, and you know what, if there was a conspiracy -no matter how bad and obvious to the learned - they could get away with it and people wouldnt accept the notion of it.

Blah. I really dont appreciate your dishonor in smearing this political focused blog with conspiracy talk. I did seperate this blog from skeptinazi ideology for a reason. For those who didnt notice, refuting this blog is the key to refuting the skeptinazi ideology blog.

 

 I never offered much in the way of dissagreement. I haven't refuted the claims made in this blog, just the harsh misleading language, overly derogetory tone and usage,and the percieved conclusion.. My response to what is actually learned from this article was "yeah...and?" or "so what?", not out and out "bullshit!".

 While dragging "conspiracy" alone into this would have been odd, I feel that as your article discussed the human mind and inclinations, that my inclusion of studies showing that some people have a psychological need to search out conspiracies...was quite appropriate, as was my reminder that this "phenomenon" is not unique unto Dems and Reps as I'm sure many readers belive.

 

dear god... please make the whole jesus coming back "thing" true!!!!