photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/35922789_10156440940077264_13315658

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/35922789_10156440940077264_1331565811675955200_o_10156440940067264.jpg MOTIVATED REASONING

Young men are often weak, and will seek self medication in narratives.

Aristocracy = Agency = Action (Dominance)

-vs-

Priesthood = Justification = Inaction (Submission)

–Cognitive strategy–

The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”.[2] This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”.[3]

–Mechanisms–

Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability, in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations.[4] More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational[5] or affective processes[6] to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning “was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation”.[3] This section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal.

–Goal-oriented motivated reasoning–

One review of the research develops the following theoretical model to explain the mechanism by which motivated reasoning results in bias.[7] The model is summarized as follows:

Motivation to arrive at a desired conclusion provides a level of arousal, which acts as an initial trigger for the operation of cognitive processes. Historically, motivated reasoning theory identifies that directional goals enhance the accessibility of knowledge structures (memories, information, knowledge) that are consistent with desired conclusions. This theory endorses previous research on accessing information, but adds a procedural component in specifying that the motivation to achieve directional goals will also influence which rules (procedural structures such as inferential rules) and which beliefs are accessed to guide the search for information. In this model the beliefs and rule structures are instrumental in directing which information will be obtained to support the desired conclusion.

In comparison, Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (2000) introduce an empirically supported model in which affect is intricately tied to cognition, and information processing is biased toward support for positions that the individual already holds.

This model has three components:

On-line processing in which when called on to make an evaluation, people instantly draw on stored information which is marked with affect;

Affect is automatically activated along with the cognitive node to which it is tied;[8]

A “heuristic mechanism” for evaluating new information triggers a reflection on “How do I feel?” about this topic. The result of this process results in a bias towards maintaining existing affect, even in the face of other, disconfirming information.

This theory of motivated reasoning is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber’s The Rationalizing Voter (2013).[9] Interestingly, David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data.[10] This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.Paul FranklinKurt, and all of you (us – me) forgive my panic and erratic thought, which seems unthought of by anyone else probably only for being asleep, but this is… important?

There is a dangerous inversion of black and white, in a popular old wives’ tale repeated by men, that if you take the ‘red pill’ things get worse for being real, as a result of your being honest, sincere? The truth -aggravatingly universal in this example – our (common) reality is both beautiful and fulfilling, not by virtue of any perversion, inversion, lens, distortion, divorce or separation, but straightforwardly.

Things are there for the taking when you wake up. And I think reality has been switched, substituted, and become a property of the subjective interpretation of the thing instead of the exact same thing.

The ‘sacrifice’ we are expected to make (heros), enjoining hardship, suffering, deprivation, and gaining brotherhood, appears only flattering to (male?) egos while selling them (us) a false ‘Zion’ (of austerity)?

Heroes will be egged on by this popular culture to turn their bullets against themselves – though perhaps, in these circumstances you can’t miss?

The main trick is to come as close to telling the whole ‘truth’ as we can, and omitting the least; or turning something’s completely upside down while pointing out how every detail is in its place, then turning the lights out… .

Btw. Only the fates of others look black to me now. And did I tell you, it’s been a great pleasure (and that goes for the rest of you)! For which and much else I must thank Mea Culba! May I wish you (and all of us) the best!

btw If I seem unfriendly it’s partly because Blue=cuddly disarmed fraternity … but you can take things too far.

Cheers!Jun 20, 2018 7:19pmPaul FranklinI was surprised to see this, I’d only thought about posting it!Jun 20, 2018 10:05pmMOTIVATED REASONING

Young men are often weak, and will seek self medication in narratives.

Aristocracy = Agency = Action (Dominance)

-vs-

Priesthood = Justification = Inaction (Submission)

–Cognitive strategy–

The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled “motivated reasoning”. In other words, “rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe”.[2] This is “a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives”.[3]

–Mechanisms–

Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability, in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations.[4] More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational[5] or affective processes[6] to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning “was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation”.[3] This section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal.

–Goal-oriented motivated reasoning–

One review of the research develops the following theoretical model to explain the mechanism by which motivated reasoning results in bias.[7] The model is summarized as follows:

Motivation to arrive at a desired conclusion provides a level of arousal, which acts as an initial trigger for the operation of cognitive processes. Historically, motivated reasoning theory identifies that directional goals enhance the accessibility of knowledge structures (memories, information, knowledge) that are consistent with desired conclusions. This theory endorses previous research on accessing information, but adds a procedural component in specifying that the motivation to achieve directional goals will also influence which rules (procedural structures such as inferential rules) and which beliefs are accessed to guide the search for information. In this model the beliefs and rule structures are instrumental in directing which information will be obtained to support the desired conclusion.

In comparison, Milton Lodge and Charles Taber (2000) introduce an empirically supported model in which affect is intricately tied to cognition, and information processing is biased toward support for positions that the individual already holds.

This model has three components:

On-line processing in which when called on to make an evaluation, people instantly draw on stored information which is marked with affect;

Affect is automatically activated along with the cognitive node to which it is tied;[8]

A “heuristic mechanism” for evaluating new information triggers a reflection on “How do I feel?” about this topic. The result of this process results in a bias towards maintaining existing affect, even in the face of other, disconfirming information.

This theory of motivated reasoning is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber’s The Rationalizing Voter (2013).[9] Interestingly, David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data.[10] This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.