Humans, Indeed
Remember the old phrase, “Don’t talk religion or politics”? If you stay away from such topics, you’ll get along; there will be no arguing. Like many clichés, it doesn’t tell all…there are plenty of other causes for conflict (in the family in which I grew up, that’d be sports). Also, like a lot of clichés, there is a bit of truth in it. I’ve noticed that some topics immediately trigger a passionate response. People are invested in their ideas and eager to convince others. So…
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immoveable object (so to speak)? I wondered about this, so I asked my friendly neighborhood psychologist, and he explained it all to me. Wonder of wonders, there are really good reasons why this happens.
First, a word about cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology is very good at predicting and explaining human behavior. It is NOT good at explaining an individual’s behavior. Therefore, everything I’m about to convey concerns humans in general…but I am not talking about you specifically. Ok, all set? Here we go, delving into the fascinating world of the human mind….
Part I: Here’s a classic study: a class is shown about 30 words that revolve around the concept “sleep:” bed, tired, night, moon, etc. After a minute (to push people past the general time limit on their short-term memory), they are asked to list all the words they remember. Many of the people include “sleep” as having been on the list, even though it was not. That’s because of how we organize information in the brain. We put stuff together that goes together. Every word on the list is related in most people’s minds to sleep, and so when asked to think about the related ideas on the list, many people also think about sleep. They often are absolutely sure they heard the word mentioned. The technical term for this is semantic mapping; a series of connections between related concepts that is one of the major ways we organize information in memory.
So what, you might say? Well, semantic mapping is not really my point, but it’s the basis for…
Part II - Confirmation bias: This is largely based on the connections mentioned above, and it works like this: if I hear a central phrase or word, my mind automatically drops into a series of related associations. I automatically interpret any new information through the lens of these associations. For instance, if I hear the phrase “Walt Disney World,” I associate that with such things as sun, fun, relaxation, food, rides, customer service, hotels, heat… a positive series of connections for me. So if I were to hear a report critical of WDW, I’d hear it with all those ideas already in mind. Therefore, changing my perception of WDW would be very difficult.
Confirmation bias suggests that it is mentally more difficult for people to comprehend ideas that contradict what they already think about something. This is especially true if the topic in question is one about which we have strong and long-standing ideas. We literally have a cognitive bias to pay more attention to information that confirms what we think and less to that which challenges what we think. We will even go so far as to alter conflicting information we hear in order to better fit our current beliefs.
I find this fascinating. There are really good reasons why we struggle to discuss controversial topics, and those reasons include the human brain. I’ll leave you to do whatever you want with this information; I’m not going to lecture anymore. Personally, I’m off to the WDW website…
Be brave. Be human.
Susan
April 2nd, 2007 23:15
You know Susan, these are the kind of Mickey Mouse posts that we can do without. The Plutocrats who run WDW are just another part of the problem. And as far as relying on so-called cognitive science to support your argument, I think the whole thing is just daffy, and your neighborhood psychologist is probably a quack. If you see him coming again, duck!
Best-
Nick
April 3rd, 2007 07:50
Nick, Nick, Nick…
This comment just shows your lack of awareness. Everyone in the know knows that Daffy is Looney Tunes, not Disney. You’re being a feather brain.
And Goofy.
Susan : )
April 3rd, 2007 09:36
“The plutocrats that run WDW…”
Is that an organization run by Mickey Mouse’s dog?
Speaking of running, I generally run when I start to hear words like “plutocrat” thrown around. It generally means an argumentative unemployed person is in the house.
And as for your assessment above, I completely disagree with you. It’s wrong. You can’t make me believe it!
Okay, so maybe it’s right….
Dan
April 3rd, 2007 09:43
Susan, Interesting read!
I know that advertisers rely on the cognitive approach to subtly feed suggestions to viewers. Good web masters arrange content in a similar way.
Six years ago, I personally had a tough time suggesting to a God fearing christian that Jesus Christ could have been married. My suggestion was met with a strong NO. And when questioned how did they know that it was so, the person countered that it said so in the bible! [That he was not married..:)] On an aside, we all had to wait for Dan Brown to be popular first..
And Nick in the above post, seems to map any cartoon to Disney! If thats not cognitive lets take the quack subject out of universities totally.. What do you say?
April 3rd, 2007 09:45
Hi S. W.-
“Speaking of running, I generally run when I start to hear words like “plutocrat” thrown around. It generally means an argumentative unemployed person is in the house.”
Or someone just obsessed with puns…Does that ring a Belle, Nick? Sometimes your puns are Beastly…
Susan
April 3rd, 2007 09:52
Hi Lakshmi-
I’ve heard about advertisers using cognitive science to attract customers. There’s even a professional journal devoted entirely to advertising toward children. But I’d never thought about web design (my computer world is tied up in “please let it work.” ). I just don’t give a thought to other aspects until someone brings them up. Then it seems so obvious. It makes sense that good designers would use cognitive science as one tool to create workable sights…Thanks for the info.
Susan
April 3rd, 2007 16:48
Susan wrote:
“Hi S. W.-
“Speaking of running, I generally run when I start to hear words like “plutocrat”
Punning or otherwise, I haven’t used that word in years. I think you meant to address this to Nick.
April 3rd, 2007 17:22
Susan,
The information in your post is fascinating and quite useful, because it points up how important it is for people to listen critically to what politicians say. Political strategists, Karl Rove being a prime example, exploit associations with words and terms by defining or demonizing. It’s part of what they refer to as “framing the debate” or issue.
I immediately thought of a Newt Gingrich sound bite shown during the past couple of days, in which he lambastes Nancy Pelosi for going to see Syrian leaders in Damascus.
To paraphrase, he said that a San Francisco liberal is in the worst possible position for negotiations.
Now, in right-wing Republican parlance, the word “liberal” was demonized a long, long time ago. Remember when George H.W. Bush repeatedly referred to “the L word.” The inference was that liberalism is so awful, so beyond the pale, that its very name must be treated like a dirty word. One mustn’t even say the whole word in polite company.
The political purpose was to form strong negative associations, so that in the future just tagging someone as a liberal would be enough to make a good many people discount his/her intentions, ideas, abilities, etc. It’s been quite effective for them and is at the root a much of our political polarization since.
In the Pelosi refrence, Gingrich purposely upped the ante by adding “San Francisco.” In the minds of conservatives across the country and especially Bible belt Christians, this raises the specter of drug-abusing hippies and especially of large numbers of openly gay people engaging in “abominable acts” in bath house orgies.
That’s quite a stretch for Pelosi, who’s a devoted wife in a long, stable marriage, a loving mother with so many children and grandchildren, not to mention that she’s a devout Catholic.
Yet for many people of the sort who gave us George W. Bush’s presidency, among other things, saying “San Francisco liberal” punched all the right buttons to frame things in an us-vs.-them, he’s right, she’s wrong, she’s loony, she’s bad context — facts and background thereafter being beside the point.
Another point about Gingrich’s cynical attempt to frame and mislead bears mentioning, because it’s so typical of reasonable-sounding misinformation (or outright lie) being snuck in. The speaker of the House doesn’t conduct foreign policy. She cannot and would not go to Damascus, Syria, or anywhere else to “negotiate” with foreign leaders. She’s there to listen and discuss, period. No deal-making possible or planned.
Listen carefully and critically, folks. Even very short sound bites that on first hearing seem mildly disapproving can be highly corrosive and wildly misleading.
April 3rd, 2007 20:37
Hi S. W.-
Good catch on the Gingrich quote. I’m going to be keeping my ears open during this campaign for this kind of word game, whether from Democrats or Republicans…or anyone else.
Susan
April 6th, 2007 08:19
Hi All-
I’ve noticed another bit of sloppy cognitive mapping wherein the current culture wants us to equate “money raised” with “candidate to pay atttention to.” The Obama people called me and tried to get me all excited about the buzz about Mr. Obama and asked wouldn’t I like to donate $100 to keep it going. I told them I might be making a small donation (very small, believe me) to someone, but that would be *after* I hear the policy speeches and the interviews.
It is a hope that, while the Internet will certainly be used to create more “buzz”, that it might also be used to get the word out about the best candidates, not just the richest and most funded. As we go into the Silly Season, maybe we can post links to thoughtful discussion and advocacy sites (should there be any) for different candidates here to help inform the debate?
Nick
April 6th, 2007 08:22
[…] course it’s not that simple. As cognitive psychology showed us in the Human, Indeed post, our brains are not wired to immediately accept new information. But equating peace with […]
April 6th, 2007 09:00
Hi Nick-
I like your idea of posting the addresses of informational sites. I’m not very good at finding websites: I hope others who are will provides us with links for a variety of candidates. I will do my fumbling best…
Susan