I heard about a fascinating study about our natural partisanship which extended an older study I had read about as an undergraduate. In the older study, where both sides of an issue are presented, people very strongly tend to think their side presented more accurate and compelling data. Of course this is not too surprising, given a person is likely to agree with those that confirm their internal thoughts. What makes it even more interesting is that when both sides are presented, one would think this would draw a person closer to the middle. I would have thought that seeing the other side would lead a person to understand the other side is presenting a rational point of view and this would lead to a more moderate position. This is exactly the opposite of what happens! Hearing both sides tends to reinforce the position someone already has and leads her to believe more strongly in their position.

The study covered on NPR further extends this to cable networks, where “neutral” points are presented and then the details of the study are filled in by each of the sides. However, the authors of the study were able to show that it was nearly totally irrelevant whether or not the data was present and/or how strong the data was. Instead, what you thought before or what you would feel if a particular outcome was to be the case dictated how you would feel about the incident and the data.

Needless to say, our current cable news format merely exacerbates this natural flaw in our thinking. One may say that ratings drive this… I suppose people generally enjoy hearing people yell back and forth more than anything. But even worse, the blogsphere, which is supposed to be journalism by and for the people, does not even bother with presenting the other side. It is up to the individual to seek out the other side (though I suppose it would not matter even if that individual chose to since the study says it’s unlikely that it would convince a person of the other person’s point of view). Instead, we get this vicious circle of people continuing to feed each other’s core beliefs and simply reinforcing what they already believe without even the appearance of impartiality.

My question ultimately comes down to how can we get out of this endless loop. I have dreamt that there would be some kind of actually balanced program wherein the reporter would present a set of facts and the partisans would be forced to, in some kind of cruel and unusual exercise, defend the other side’s position immediately after making her own point. However, I am not sure how this gets around the natural human behavior to believe what supports your own position and discards the opposing side’s facts. Thoughts are welcome.

"To those who pit Americans against immigrants, citizens against non-citizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

1. It's a cool product
2. I actually know ScottGu
3. It gives unprecedented insight into what developing an actual product looks like.

"For fourteen houses back, the young man held Leonard in his arms like a bride. He hoped Leonard would ask him a question, any question, but Leonard was quiet. The young man answered in his head: Son, he said, and the word rolled around, a marble on a marble floor. Son, he wanted to say."

The oil companies today vowed to outlaw all environmental policies in order to ease their drilling in formerly wildlife protected areas. When asked if this would negatively affect generations to come, a representative replied, “We have access to all your computers and will delete your hard drives if you do not allow us to do what we want. See!” (Note, only works on a PC)

has a certain blend of economic and personal self-sustainability to which the Republican message appeals particularly.

1. Farmers are not considered self-employed and/or farmers are not only located in rural areas because that is an area of the country in which they can actually do their trade
2. All counties have equal population density and therefore large red areas have more people than small blue areas
3. All people in the Republican areas are entirely Republicans (and vice versa) OR
   All Democrats in the Republican areas were not self-employed (and vice versa)
   
4. All Red areas are equivalently red, all green areas are equivalently green and all yellow areas are equivalently yellow.
   
5. Success rate of these entrepreneurs in all areas is the same

Open Letter To The Democratic Party: How You Could Have Had My Vote

What a wonderful essay. This goes to forward my friend's comment about how close the two sides are and further exhibits my naiveté. The most interesting thing for me is that I totally agree with her on nearly every point, and I came down to being a Kerry supporter. For the points we don’t agree on, allow me to elucidate:

• I make a lot of money… a lot more than her anyway. Yet, I would be more than willing to give up some of it to the government to get other people off of poverty or help the middle class. I did not see Kerry’s view as demonization… just pandering to the majority, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
• I do not view terrorism as a major concern. It’s like being concerned about a meteor strike. Yep, it could happen. Yep, if we spent enormous amounts of money we MIGHT stop it. But the organizations were already in place to stop it (and did) before 9/11. And now that 9/11 has happened, we’ll be that much more sensitive to it. But ultimately, I look at countries like the England, Israel and Spain, who have had to deal with far more attacks for a far longer time and I see more logic in the way their government works than we are showing. Basically, I think we need to make sure our internal forces (FBI, police, etc) are strong and well-funded, and then put it out of our mind.
  
• Without terrorism, the environment and science become my two biggest issues. This is not really a point of difference; more a prioritization difference. Nontheless, I had to go with a candidate who supported my positions on these two issues more closely.
  

If it’s any help, I want your vote for candidates who support my issues first and foremost. I want it in 2006 and 2008 and 2010 and every election thereafter. Help me understand how to make you happy to give it to me.