The Wake

In today’s technology-driven society, innovations are abounding. The presidential election is just around the corner and people have gotten so swept up in the intoxication of it all that they didn’t stop to think about what “presidentia strategies” really imply. Naturally, technology has become a
significant portal for politicians to use in marketing themselves. Many of you probably know what it means to get an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). These scans “visualize a structure and body” so that physicians can determine differentdetriments or assets to our vitality. Neuroscience has
especially been focusing on research centered around MRIs more recently; but now they use a different scan for the brain called an “fMRI.” An fMRI measures blood flow and determines when
brain cells release; resulting in the need for more oxygen to those parts of the brain. What you would see on the “brain map” of an fMRI would be the areas that need the most oxygen lighting up on the screen. If all of this is new to you, hold onto your hats because scientists have made such headway in this department within the last several years that fMRIs are being used for political and marketing purposes to determine what people think about the way a candidate looks as well as what words give them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. We now have the capacity ahead of time to predict how an audience will react to contradictory, manipulated statements made by politicians. The findings are intriguing, but also frightening. Will this research overcome the human capacity for logical reasoning or will we trump those deep-pocket-funded machines?

Research on politics and the brain is not just simply a field devoted to neuroscience majors. Here at the University of Minnesota, my political science class “Political Psychology of Elite Behavior” has begun to discuss the effects this type of research is having on people and their political partisanship.
Last year during the primaries, fMRI studies were conducted to predict which candidates were more or less likely to make it to the big one. A few of the candidates who were used in experiments were Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson.

Most Democrats (and probably a few Republicans) either adore Hillary Clinton or absolutely loathe her. Whether you claim to like her or not, the average fMRI for people who have previously stated that they detested her actually portrayed a brain scan that represented “conflict.” In this case, “conflict”
does not mean that they want to start a conflict with her; it means that they are conflicted about whether or not they actually hate her. So, if you are a self-proclaimed Hillary-hater, maybe underneath it all and when no one’s looking you really don’t mind her that much.

John Edwards is a renowned Democrat that most Republicans aren’t too fond of. Many Democrats profess their love for him on a daily basis; but according to fMRIs, it was no surprise that he lost the primaries. What came up as the average area of the brain that needed the most oxygen (indicates
the most work) in people who already don’t like Edwards was “disgust.” Hillary Clinton probably outlived Edwards because her opposing party didn’t harbor feelings of “disgust” towards her.

Another explanation for a failed nomination is found in the brain scan results for Mitt Romney. Yes, Mitt may be an alright looking fellow who is younger than a lot of the other Republican nominees were; but, he made people anxious. A candidate who induces “anxiety” among his voters will not be likely to go very far.

For the last of the sample of primary candidates, Fred Thompson definitely had potential. While Romney seemed to make people nervous, Thompson evoked their “empathy.” If people intellectually identified with Thompson, it’s surprising that he actually didn’t go further in the primaries.

Now, what I’m sure everyone has been wondering this entire time is: what are the results for Barack Obama and John McCain? Well, you may be surprised to find out that people returned pretty much
the same results on the fMRI scan for Obama as they did for McCain. What we learned was that no one felt particularly strongly about either of them; there was an overall “low response.” Does this mean that our two candidates running for president right now are simply the ones that no one has
a huge problem with? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we be scared for the future of the United States of America if we elect an individual that people just don’t have much of a reaction to?

My personal opinion on this matter is that we really shouldn’t be scared. We could look at it from a
pessimistic point of view and propose that this research is telling us that neither of our presidential
candidates evokes a good enough response from the nation. Will they fail to inspire and motivate their citizens? I don’t think so. The problem with the research isn’t necessarily the results that are spewed out, but what they mean.

What was eerie and ironic about the research that I have not yet mentioned is that the people, even in the face of contradictory evidence, stood by their candidates. Yes, even when they were blatantly shown two quotes from their candidate dictating completely different arguments, they didn’t change
their mind. They were in a state of denial. The studies did show that they were having emotional upheaval, however. They convinced themselves through rationalization (because they are apparently so deeply attached to partisanship) that although justifying their candidate’s contradictory remarks
may be unethical; remaining loyal was the only option.

Taking this into consideration, the future of eliminating partisanship looks grim: will people ever be able to think logically and rid themselves of the emotional attachment they have to their party and their party members? I hope it’s possible for the state of the economy as well as for the state of human
integrity.

With the development and utilization of fMRIs as they have been, it seems only inevitable that the results of this type of research will be a staple in mainstream businesses, local politicians, and advertisers before long. While this seems very exciting from a scientific and technological perspective,
we might ask ourselves where to draw the line? Isn’t it an infringement of our human rights for politicians and advertisers to use information that they know will automatically manipulate our minds to make us act or think in a way that they aim to control?

Frankly, this got me wondering which negative political campaign ads have used psychological manipulation methods and were they really effective? As you probably have seen on TV, ads sponsored by Norm Coleman attacking Al Franken are some of the worst. They were taken out of context, disgustingly repetitive, and simply vulgar. I’m not even a supporter of Al Franken and it just made me feel pitiful. Obviously Norm wasn’t using the most advanced methods for psychological advertising out there, but if these ads can evoke such an emotional response; who is to say ones based off fMRI research wouldn’t make us act on a whim? Many of these ads have been circulating between John McCain and Barack Obama recently, but I think they have also realized the negative effects that the audience has responded to, thanks to what little human integrity remains.

My point in bringing up all of this is that yes, neuro-politics/marketing and the mal-use of fMRI research can be frightening and disturbing when thinking about these types of things being able to control our thoughts and actions but will they really work? I am one of the few who still has a little bit of faith in the human race, and I think (as we can see through negative political ads that have backfired on the sponsoring candidate) we are probably smarter than is sometimes expected. Science and technology are powerful tools that are used on a regular basis in today’s society, but they have not become our downfall just yet. Politicians and advertisers will probably use this form of technology in the future and they’ll probably succeed to some extent; but intuition and logical reasoning will always be there at your disposal. My challenge to you is to always use integrity for the good of the present as well as for the good of the future.