Talboito.com

Writing in the New York Times, UCLA psychiatrist Joshua Freedman manages a sort of Brooksian feat.

His discussion revolves around a study finding that voters seem to bond emotionally with both the candidate they support and the candidate they oppose. To decide their vote even the most rabid partisan must overcome their initial well regard for the opposition. I have not read the results in question. Mr. Freedman’s account could easily square with actuality.

Yet, Mr. Freedman takes this ball and runs straight off a cliff with it:

So, Democrats, admit that you admire the confidence and decisiveness of President Bush. And Republicans, concede that you would like a president to have the depth of knowledge and broad intelligence of Mr. Kerry. Now that f.M.R.I. is revealing our antagonisms as a defensive ploy, it is time to erase the red and blue divide.

fMRI reveals not a wit of Mr. Freedman’s conclusion. As described, the study reveals components of any human decision. There is an emotional response coupled with what we might call reason. Some central executive resolves any conflict into a decision.

Neurophysiologically we expect to see emotion represented by activation in the limbic system, reason by activation in the prefrontal cortex and conflict resolved by activation in the anterior cingulate cortex. Mr. Freedman claims all these conditions in his account of the experimental results.

Furthermore, fMRI is not a mind reading device. It merely correlates relative change in neural activation to an experimental condition. fMRI does not expose the meaning of its measurement.

Sure, Democrats have an emotional reaction to President Bush. They might even have formed the strong emotional connection with the President Mr. Freedman suggests. Nevertheless, fMRI provides Mr. Freedman no insight into the content or cause of that connection.

Tags: 1 Comment