What is Reddit's opinion of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

I'm not super worried but I did arm up a bit more. It's simply unpatriotic to kill your fellow citizens because of a difference of political opinion.

It is patriotic to care for your fellow Americans.

That being said, I got my American Flag and rainbow flag up. I don't support businesses that plaster their lawns with Trump signs and I encourage the women I know to take hand gun safety classes that are offered for women only.

​

The guy that asked at one of those Repub conf "when do we get to go all second amendment on them" really had me worried. Unpatriotic filth he was.

​

I encourage all the true patriots, on here, to read Drew Westen's book: The Political Brain

https://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733

I take it you mean The Political Brain?

If so the reviews seem promising. Plus thankfully Amazon is also my favorite used book store. $4 shipped used books is a steal.

https://www.amazon.com/Political-Brain-Emotion-Deciding-Nation/dp/1586485733

The Political Brain is a groundbreaking investigation into the role of emotion in determining the political life of the nation. For two decades Drew Westen, professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University, has explored a theory of the mind that differs substantially from the more "dispassionate" notions held by most cognitive psychologists, political scientists, and economists -- and Democratic campaign strategists. The idea of the mind as a cool calculator that makes decisions by weighing the evidence bears no relation to how the brain actually works. When political candidates assume voters dispassionately make decisions based on "the issues," they lose. That's why only one Democrat has been re-elected to the presidency since Franklin Roosevelt -- and only one Republican has failed in that quest.

In politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. Elections are decided in the marketplace of emotions, a marketplace filled with values, images, analogies, moral sentiments, and moving oratory, in which logic plays only a supporting role. Westen shows, through a whistle-stop journey through the evolution of the passionate brain and a bravura tour through fifty years of American presidential and national elections, why campaigns succeed and fail. The evidence is overwhelming that three things determine how people vote, in this order: their feelings toward the parties and their principles, their feelings toward the candidates, and, if they haven't decided by then, their feelings toward the candidates' policy positions.

Westen turns conventional political analyses on their head, suggesting that the question for Democratic politics isn't so much about moving to the right or the left but about moving the electorate. He shows how it can be done through examples of what candidates have said -- or could have said -- in debates, speeches, and ads. Westen's discoveries could utterly transform electoral arithmetic, showing how a different view of the mind and brain leads to a different way of talking with voters about issues that have tied the tongues of Democrats for much of forty years -- such as abortion, guns, taxes, and race. You can't change the structure of the brain. But you can change the way you appeal to it. And here's how

> tied rigidly to their beliefs would not accept this but that wouldn’t stop it from being true

This is kind of the thing though, conservative minds are not exactly painted well in the research. I have a ton of this. It seems reasonable to be offended by findings. Of course, they will all blow it off as librul bias. The researchers do backflips explaining how their findings do not show one mindset better than another.

There have been popular science books about this. I think in the past they came out to explain red/blue differences in the Bush years or early Obama years.

Jonathan Haidt's book is about value systems and how they differ between conservative and liberal brains. I think it is a good even-handed take. Here is a brief book review The entire book is a really good read.

Drew Weston - The POlitical Brain came out in 2008. I haven't read it but I believe it goes over all of these neurological findings.

> First, acting dismissively hands the moral high ground on this existential issue to your adversary. Second, if you are a candidate from the left, it’s clearly strategic for your rivals to highlight your ambivalence, turning the election about an ideological crossroad. Third, Venezuelans in your country and back home, for whom this is just too personal and painful, will become suspicious of your silence and will start supporting the right. Fourth, these dynamics will nudge Venezuelan political leaders<strong>to ally with the Right and endorse their candidacies</strong>. Overall, you’ve allowed the Right the chance to define you in the worst possible light, lending credibility to accusations by alienating Venezuelans against you. > > So, say you are a center-left candidate who wants to see your country develop into a more prosperous and fair nation. While you would never think of going full-commie, you do think it’s important to expand public goods and services for everyone, especially the poor. You think what’s going on in Venezuela is appalling, yet you find yourself on the receiving end of these unfair and manipulative attacks. > > How do you go about it? Don’t dismiss the issue and own the attack head on. You might want to: > > 1. Be outspoken and specific about rejecting chavismo, about your stance on what your country and the region are doing about it, and about how you would deal with it if you become president. This would make it costly for your potential presidency to ally with chavismo, further lending reassurance to your voters and to Venezuelan observers; > 2. Be outspoken and specific about how you’ll address the Venezuelan refugee crisis. Reshape the debate into an anti-discrimination issue. Show solidarity and empathy, which is a great way to get support from Venezuelans, and a credible way of implying that you would never do what chavismo did; > 3. Try to build a consensus platform on Venezuela across campaigns, underscoring how the emergency calls for a unified stance agreed by all camps. This will allow you to regain control over the issue and insulate you from future attacks, letting the debate to flow into issues you want to address; > 4. Rescind any campaign connections with chavismo’s allies within your country. This is key for credibility: these connections open a huge flank, because they underscore where your policy commitments will be as president. Letting these guys loose may shrink your initial base, but it will get you closer to the median voter. This was consequential in the<strong>recent Chilean race</strong>; > 5. Accuse candidates that do indeed represent a threat. The Petros and AMLOs of your country shouldn’t agree with your consensus platform on Venezuela, so it should work as a credible mechanism to separate yourself from them. > > As<strong>Drew Westen</strong> puts it, in politics, when reason and emotion collide, emotion invariably wins. The Venezuelan crisis presents the region with a deeply normative juncture that elicits some of the strongest human emotions: The sadness of loss on those of us who have lived through these last 20 years, and the fear of loss of those who worry about a similar future for their families. In this dramatic context, silence speaks louder than words. > > People vote for the character of candidates, and platforms should be signals of that character. Only a clear resolve on this sensitive topic will prevent your rivals from defining your character for you. Respect our loss, and respect the fear of your people – because, in the words of Master Yoda, “fear of loss is a path to the dark side.”

Owner | Source Code | Stats