(A few funny bits about how the results are presented, arranged in no specific order and not necessarily being cohesive to a larger point.)

It would be interesting to know how they qualified "comitted Democrats and Republicans." (http://news.emory.edu/Releases/Polit...138113163.html) One would think a system to reliably qualify such a thing is difficult to find.

What contradiction are they shown? It doesn't seem clear whether or not the contradiction was very real, and presented in a very factual and "this is the truth" sort of way, or whether it was a made up contradiction, i.e. a huge contradiction that most would be disbeleiving of in the first place.

And then, somewhat tying in w/ Adrian's point about the bow-tied pyschologist, I would be tempted to say that these contradictions shown would be seen much less seriously in an obvious lab setting, like an MRI machine where they are asking you questions about political candidates when you are "obviously partisan."

In such a case, where the contradiction is questionable because of the setting and you are dealing w/ somebody who feels strongly about their candidate, I see these results as hardly surprising, and I question how well they can be transferred to the real world, let alone how people feel about certain ideals rather than how well they are manifested in some person.


The bit about reinforced positive feelings after they are given an explanation about how their candidate actually isn't being contradictory, I would also think to be totally obvious.

Beyond that, I would be curious to know, on average, how they rated the contradictory statement-deeds, since it doesn't even tell us, just that the typical reasoning sectors weren't used as much and that they came to "biased conclusions."


(Having clafied the meaning of this study's results, I feel I can now joke around with some of you)

This study seems like a way of reinforcing the conclusions that some of us have come to about neutrality in politics.