The political brain is emotional

The brain decides what you believe, not what you see
The early Greeks, including Aristotle, put special emphasis on studying the process of communication, but from several approaches, from a process know the reality or have access to knowledge and then share it or even to the first expressions of what we now call public opinion that Plato was the “doxa”, one of the lowest levels of knowledge. However, Aristotle achieved set up what is known as an art rhetoric to convince or persuade, and in the process, it was very important to the message sender. For many years after, the focus of political issuer was the main reason for study, considering that it was essential piece the way they talked to the public, skill and reliability of the issuer to convince the audience, and now novelty and the new challenge is to put emphasis on reception, ie those receiving the political message or persuasive communication.the focus on the receiver has been addressing the role of emotions and perceptions in the political language and political campaigns . to have the expected impact on the vote or the electoral decision political consultant Gutierrez-Rubi believes that accepted the “emotional intelligence”, politicians begin to assess the management of emotions as a key vehicle to generate the feelings that allow them to pass – so that a particular message is perciba- in the best conditions. He says there is a new look at the importance of non – verbal communication (gestures, movements, tone, details ….), responsible for determining public perception. It is no longer judged politicians, continuous Gutierrez-Rubi, only by their words and promises, but their appearance and attitude also play a decisive role. A gesture out of place or equivocal behavior can undermine the confidence of citizens. Many already know the lethality of a nervous giggle at the wrong time. Keywords generate images, consolidate previous conceptual frameworks and are the prelude of emotions. Emotions are understanding and mentions the famous neurologist Eduardo Punset who said that neurologists are finding that the brain decides based on what you believe, not what you see, that is, we see the world as we believe there to see it. this principle of one of the basic premises of perception in politics, which is also reflected in the political, commercial or marketing campaigns. Reason: slave of emotion in a trial of Sanz Ortiz on the relationship between medicine and emotion, points the ancient Greeks believed that humans possessed two minds. Perceived dichotomy between head and heart, mind and soul, but did not consider that one was superior to the other. While praising the reason, logic and empirical compression also revered forms of intuitive, beneficios do fatorgenius, aesthetic and imaginative intelligence. He explains that Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) said that “the heart has reasons that reason does not know” while David Hume (1711-1776) said that “the reason is the slave of passion (emotion)”, which since the Enlightenment (French and German rationalism) has been believed that man can and must be guided only by pure reason. The goal of rational method is to establish the “truth”, ie widest possible consistency between what we believe and what actually occurs in reality. Recent biological findings point to the need to integrate reason and passion. The two realities, the mental (function) and brain (structure) are inseparable and interact. Modern science tends to support the idea that reason and emotions are allies, not antagonists. Add Sanz Ortiz in his interesting study that the old prejudice is that our emotions are irrational and interrupt or disturb our lives. There is no doubt that in certain occasions emotions can be a substitute for reason. Fear (emotion par excellence) manages to keep most humans out of danger, fast and with little or no help of reason. Emotions connect us with the ethics, values, with happy, healthy and good life. Indeed, since 1751 about the English philosopher David Hume, pointed out that the reason can not move the man, but it is and should be slave of the passions, on the grounds that moral judgments are not rational, but emotional, that is, the feeling. Feelings are the forces that we are determined to act, that give moral value to a decision. Moral judgments express the feeling of approval or disapproval that we produce certain behaviors and are a form of basic feeling of sympathy; and these feelings are natural and disinterested. To apply this concept of David Hume to the current electoral decisions, Gonzalez Muñoz believes that the reason is the slave of emotion and electoral politics the assertion becomes more and more weight, which has led several parties to start designing their campaigns and to select their candidates with other parameters, such as political intelligence, that under no circumstances should be dismissed because queno this is a minor breakthrough. Also they focus to describe the components of political intelligence and provide additional thoughts on the new centrality of the neurosciences in politics. Several years ago , Marshall McLuhan predicted that politics is emotion and not just debate on programs and detailed proposals, and wrote .. “policies and issues are useless in electoral terms, because they are too specialized and controversial design the candidate’s image has replaced the debate on views in conflict” Already said the writer Drew Westen, the brain politician is an emotional and in his research on the political brain cancer, said that always struck that despite having records of militants numerically superior and political values ​​and economic principles are shared by most Americans, Democrats lose elections more often than Republicans. He also noted that found that elections are won in the “marketplace of emotion” and not on the reason and when emotion and reason fight will lose invariably. Taking reference the results and the electoral process in the United States North America, according Westen, this is due to the Republicans better understand the political brain and appeal better to emotion, and therefore in the last 30 years have won more times the presidency and Republicans sitting presidents have been reelected with more easily, while Democrats have not understood that the data hard by themselves do not lead to victory. in his book “Political Brain” he states that the modern conception of the mechanics of the human mind has nothing to do with the way it works effectively. Among the conclusions of Westen are two with their respective implications for those who make policy or study: First, that the candidates of the major parties, when they are in season, they should not worry about trying to attract members of other parties, but strive to persuade to cause 10% or 20% of the voters of the center called changing (or swichters) and added to their traditional party base, generally about 30%, could give victory. Second, the political brain is an emotional brain; . that we are not facing a machine dispassionate calculation which objectively seeks facts and adequate numbers to make a reasoned decision with these conclusions, the author proposes a new kind of intelligence: political intelligence, with these components: emotional intelligence, empathy, ability to emanate and call comfort or welfare, and skills to build coalitions and manage hierarchies and general intelligence. And finally, now it is enough to transcribe a phrase Political Brain which could well be the core of the work and the seed of a new political perception of how our parties campaign and selected candidates: “We can not change the structure of political brain, which represents millions of years of evolution, but we can change the way you speak. “

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *