Reply
Mon 19 Apr, 2004 10:18 pm
Okay you anti-Drudge people, please try to overlook the source of this post and focus on the content. I have been thinking about it and wonder:
1) Does it bother me that politicians might use this kind of research to decide on the content of campaign ads?
2) Is there a real difference in the 'wiring' of Democrats & Republicans?
CAMPAIGN ADS TESTED WITH BRAIN SENSORS
Mon Apr 19 2004 19:31:19 ET
Drudge Report April 19, 2004.
New campaign ads are being tested on how they affect blood flow in the brain, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Page Ones Tuesday.
Newsroom sources tell DRUDGE how NYT reporter John Tierney has filed a 1100 word story on the possible future of campaign strategy development.
A subject lay inside an MRI machine, watching commercials playing on the inside of his goggles as neuroscientists from UCLA measured the blood flow in his brain.
Instead of asking the subject -- a Democratic voter -- what he thought of the use of Sept. 11 images in the first Bush campaign commercial this year, the researchers noted which parts of his brain were active as he watched -- and that they were different from the parts that had lit up in earlier tests with Republican voters.
The researchers don't claim to have figured out either party's brain quite yet, since they haven't finished this pioneering experiment.
But they have already noticed intriguing patterns in the way that Democrats and Republicans look at candidates.
Researchers zeroed in on 9/11 images and their particular effect among Democrats on the amygdala, the part of the brain that responds to threats and danger. Tested Democrats responded to the Sept. 11 images with noticeably more activity in the amygdala than did the Republicans.
"The first interpretation that occurred to me," one scientist conducting the test tells the NYT, "is that the Democrats see the 9/11 issue as a good way for Bush to get re-elected, and they experience that as a threat."
Developing...
The test seems like a joke. Physiological reaction to stimulation can be indicative of the effect it has on the person and not necessarily an indication of different wiring.
Yeah I don't know how many people were involved in the study and Drudge's 'heads up' promo didn't give much detail.
However, just our limited sampling here on A2K would suggest that people aligned with one camp or the other can hear the same speech or read the exact same data and arrive at widely different conclusions about what they saw, heard, or read. I hope somebody really is doing a study. I think the results might be fascinating.
(I just hate to give the campaign ad producers more ammunition to play on people's emotions rather than giving us substance and real information.)
I may be mistaken; but it seems to me your average, I repeat average not anyone in particular, democrat is a little more emotional than your average republican. Could this explain a slightly different reaction... and couldn't it result in a slight variation?
IMO there are so MANY variables, that at this time, there is absolutely no way that you can really draw any worthwhile conclusions. But, if you sell the idea to the political gurus who buy these ads that the commercials DO work, and then sell the commercials to the public.............................................
People definitely arrive to different conclusions based on the same data. My point is that measuring the physiological reaction only says that much, and doesn't indicate whether the difference is inherent wiring or the product of one's positions and experiences.
In other words, do Republicans and Democrats arrive at different conclusions based on the same data? Yes.
Are they wired differently? This study will not be able to determine that.
Don't burst my bubble, Craven. I'm wanting a reason that we all see things so differently.
Foxfyre wrote:Don't burst my bubble, Craven. I'm wanting a reason that we all see things so differently.
Foxfyre, do you think that religion has anything to do with the way messages are received?
It seems to me that those with minds trained to accept through faith, dogma that goes against rationality, would have a tendency to more easily accept ideas like "trickle down economics" or a "Sadam 9/11 connection".
I dunno Mesquite. Maybe in the example given of 9/11 itself, a very religious person might see Armaggedon while a non-religious person might see Republican conspiracy. There are some to this day that swear the GOP 'made up' the plane flying into Pentagon and insist that never happened.
If this is a serious scientific study, we may get some answers.
There may well be fundamental differences, but to prove that they are hardcoded means to first solve the nature/nurture debate.
Ain't gonna happen, the reason being that it's both nature and nuture.
There are Christians who are very traditional in their private religious and moral beliefs but are liberal and democrats in their government belief.
People are born differently generally even in their own families and culture and it would be interesting to know why.
I don't doubt that Craven is correct here, but I still think it merits thinking about it. And good point Revel. Trying to lump all Christians into the same pot is just as dumb as trying to dump all Republicans or all Democrats into the same pot.
Foxfyre wrote:I dunno Mesquite. Maybe in the example given of 9/11 itself, a very religious person might see Armaggedon while a non-religious person might see Republican conspiracy. There are some to this day that swear the GOP 'made up' the plane flying into Pentagon and insist that never happened.
re bold text: The old deflective horseapple again eh?
Foxfyre,
I was not trying to lump all Christians into the same pot. I am well aware that there are many like Revel here on A2K that do not follow in lockstep with the religious right. There are also many non-religious conservatives here that that seldom deviate from the party line.
The post wasn't directed at you Mesquite. I was agreeing with Revel.
Craven is dead right about the hard-coded question... but I'm not sure it matters as far as using the findings for campaign ads. Example: the pathological liar who effortlessly beats the lie detector test has a measurable difference in brain activity.
It matters not at all if he was born that way or learned it. The results remain the same.
quit blowing that goddamn cigar smoke in here
I love the smell of a good cigar.
Yeah, I do too. Maybe it's that face that's the problem.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace