The 2008 election will be one for the history books. But it may also be one for the psych texts, with its revealing look inside how politics brings out the basest, most reptilian impulses in the depths of the human mind.

We know that affiliation with a political party or group goes deeper than just your thoughts on abortion or free markets—how you cast a ballot is even rooted in neuroscience. And more research is being done concerning the impact of past leaders’ race and gender on our psyche from childhood on. Plus the gallons of mud slung, not to mention the race-baiting, finger pointing, and infighting, are enough to provide behavioral psychologists with research fodder for decades.

Meanwhile, reporters from all over the campaign trail are bewailing the seeming total lack of rational thought that goes into many voters’ ballot-casting decisions.

Well, as the New Scientist reports, we may be asking a little too much of humanity when we expect every voter (or even a plurality) to form an opinion of the candidates based on carefully-reasoned and factually-grounded analysis of their positions and backgrounds. In other words: Our brains just aren’t built that way.

(more…)

Given the historical magnitude and importance of the 2008 election, it’s no surprise that the event has been prompting plenty of artistic interpretations. Obama has inspired prints and been the subject of numerous collaborations, while New Hampshire’s Currier Museum of Art is cashing in on the trend by selling t-shirts, magnets and pins with Warhol-inspired images of the two candidates.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles-based artist Kim Abeles had a slightly more incisive idea to illustrate each candidate’s commitment to emissions reduction: Make portraits with pollution. To create her prints, Abeles placed stencil images of each candidate on top of sheets of opaque glass, then left them on the roof of her studio in downtown L.A. Obama, who has proposed an 80 percent emissions reduction, was left out for nine days, while McCain, who promises a 60 percent reduction, was out in the air for 18 days (all lengths of time were based on Abeles’s estimation of the difference in emissions levels that the two would tolerate).

When she took the prints down and removed the stencils, the images revealed themselves in all their smog-catching glory. The depth and colors offer a pictorial comparison of the pollution each candidate would leave in the atmosphere.

(more…)

We know that adults consciously and subconsciously “expect” their leaders to be male and Caucasian. But now it looks like the white male-ness of our past leaders is alive and well in the minds of kids as young as five.

In 2006, research teams at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Kansas quizzed 205 children ages five to 10 on “their knowledge, attitudes and beliefs” about the similarities among the U.S. presidents we’ve had so far. The three studies asked kids from “diverse” racial and ethnic backgrounds about why there had never been an African American, Hispanic, or female president. Here’s a summary of the results:

(more…)

• Ticked off about the bailout? Luckily there’s Offsetthebailout.com, a social network for angst-filled consumers to post their anti-bailout rants.

• Continuing the presidential technology lovefest, the Obama campaign launches an iPhone application.

• Schwarzenegger cracks the whip on California’s urban—and gas-guzzling—sprawl.

• Jenny McCarthy for president? America’s favorite anti-vaxer hits the political scene.

• And in other anti-vax news, the Florida Institute of Technology publishes the first national survey of attitudes towards autism and vaccines—and it ain’t pretty.

• The BBC reveals its version of the Stanford Prison Experiment (hint: They got the same results).

• And where oh where can we turn for informed and accurate advice about the economy? MIT’s a pretty good start.

Despite her running mate’s acknowledgment of the scientific consensus, Sarah Palin has once again affirmed her denial that man is the primary (or only) cause of global warming, this time on the national stage:

IFILL: Governor, I’m happy to talk to you in this next section about energy issues. Let’s talk about climate change. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?

PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation’s only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it’s real.

I’m not one to attribute every man — activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet.

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

The first half of this political sidestep comes as no surprise. The last paragraph is, in a word, nuts. Here are a few past examples of the Palin method—i.e., “solving” scientific problems without first determining the cause:

(more…)

Internet slanders or no, Sarah Palin has reportedly spoken words demonstrating her dangerous lack of thought about evolution and education. Now it seems that Matt Damon’s dinosaur question may be more than just a puffed-up Internet rumor as well.

The L.A. Times has a source who claims to have spoken directly to Palin about dinosaurs in 1997, when she was mayor of Wasilla. Stephen Braun reports that the notoriously soundbite-ready VP nominee told Philip Munger, a music teacher at the University of Alaska in Anchorage, that “dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time” 6,000 years ago—an statement that’s so horribly incorrect on so many levels, yet still all too common in creationist lore. Munger said Palin insisted that “she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks.” Were these pictures on display here by any chance?

Granted, Munger is no fan of the photogenic governor: He writes the actively anti-Palin blog ProgressiveAlaska, and has appeared on ultra-liberal Air America radio to speak out against her. Still, unless yet another blogger digs up evidence that he’s lying, there’s no proof that their exchange is a myth. And, of course, all this could be cleared up by a simple Q&A with Palin herself—if such a thing was possible.

Image: Flickr/williac

• The debates are on! Slate analyzes what each candidate must do to win, while a cognitive linguist says the key to victory is appealing to “values, not facts.” Clearly the GOP got that memo.

• Eye-gate explained: A doctor-blogger discusses the controversy over McCain’s apparent facial ailment.

• If you’re going to be president in one of the world’s most volatile times, it’s good to have the Nobel winners on your side.

• January may not be soon enough: The director of NIH resigns, leaving the organization in purgatory until the next administration shows up.

• So signs of autism appear around the time of vaccinations, therefore vaccines must cause autism! Not so much. Here’s a far likelier (and actually logical) explanation.

• This is your brain on cell phones: More warnings from scientists to Congress on your cell’s potential danger.

• Facebook and the science of narcissism.

While there’s little doubt the economy will be the defining issue in this election, the candidates’ positions on environmental issues can’t be downplayed (after all, what good are $700 billion bailouts if our coastlines are underwater). With the goal of keeping the environment front and center during this election season, best-selling author and DISCOVER contributor Thomas Kostigen put five questions to the two candidates, on topics including climate change, the dwindling water supply, hazardous waste, alt-energy investments, and the private sector’s role in contributing to the clean-up.

As you may recall, both Obama and McCain recently answered 14 questions on science policy from ScienceDebate 2008. While the Obama camp’s answers concerning climate change and alt-energy investments are largely consistent with what ScienceDebate received, this time he includes more detail, including his plans for allocation of the revenue generated by cap-and-trade auctions as well as his proposal to create a $10 billion venture capital fund to bolster clean technology development.

Similarly, McCain’s responses on energy and global warming echo what he told ScienceDebate, including his pledge to instate permanent alt-energy tax breaks (a promise that Obama makes as well) and a vow to “lead by example” in the “greening of the federal government.”

Questions to Barack Obama

TK: Ensuring an adequate water supply is a huge issue, arguably a bigger challenge than energy. Recent estimates say we are going to have to increase our supply of freshwater by 20 percent in the next 20 years to meet world demand. Two-thirds of the world’s population will experience water shortages by 2025. Meanwhile, the Clean Water Act hasn’t been updated since 1972. What plans do you have for addressing the freshwater issue?

(more…)

Despite all the wonders modern technology has dumped on us, it has yet to create a foolproof, fraudproof way for 150 million Americans to vote. But while the nation’s smartest computer scientists and cryptography experts have been busy churning out ideas to solve our voting woes once and for all, their efforts may be moot if we can’t figure out how to get eligible voters registered in the first place.

You’d think that after the last election’s slew of technological fiascoes, states would have ironed out their database woes. Not so: Wired (via ABC News) reports that glitches in states’ voter databases are as bountiful as always, and could wind up leaving thousands disenfranchised. The biggest issue is the haphazard creation of centralized databases, which were mandated for federal elections following the debacle of 2000. The law’s intent, as usual, was to do good—consolidating voter lists into a single database would presumably simplify the process and keep voters from being arbitrarily turned away at the polls.

Unfortunately, as with voting machines, the reality has been closer to chaos: The databases, which are unregulated by any federal agency, have been plagued by human error, confusion, cost overloads, and a smörgåsbord of other mess-ups.

(more…)

If there’s one thing this election season has taught us, it’s that there’s no hiding in the Internet—and that includes politicians vying for the nation’s highest offices. For starters, of all the criticisms of McCain’s views, record, character, and policies, one of the stickiest so far has been his self-proclaimed inability to use the Web.

Then last week brought Yahoomail-gate, with the infamous hacker group Anonymous accessing VP hopeful Sarah Palin’s personal e-mail account, revealing to the world that she did indeed use her personal e-mail for official business, and that she liked to send and receive pictures of her kids. (Scandalous!) A quick and dirty FBI investigation soon indicated that the hacker may be none other than the son of Democratic Tennessee state representative Mike Kernell.

Equally diligent watchdogs also noticed some strange happenings over on Obama’s official campaign Web site—the prominence of which we’ve discussed before.

(more…)

• Congratulations to Andy Revkin, New York Times reporter and DISCOVER alum, on winning the John Chancellor Award for Excellence in Journalism, which is given to journalists who provide excellent reporting on “stories that simmer instead of explode”—though whether global warming falls into the former category or the latter remains to be seen.

• DrugMonkey sounds off on the “broken” NIH grant review system.

• The National Institute of Mental Health calls off a study on chelation in children. Why? Because it was dangerous and “unethical.” No kidding.

• We here in Mother Russia do not like silly American “Google.”

• Is media sensationalism a product of evolution?

• No politician is safe! An activist group hacks into Sarah Palin’s personal e-mail account, leaving McCain grateful that he doesn’t know how to use the Internet.

• Which scientific experts should the next U.S. president appoint to guide him? The National Academy of Sciences has a few ideas—and they’re happy to share.

Is Obama-mania located in a specific part of the brain? Does devotion to McCain spring from a different lobe? Last night, a packed crowd gathered to discuss this question at the NYU event, “Your Brain on Politics: The Neuroscience of Elections.” The headliners were three NYU psychology professors—John Jost, David Amodio, and Elizabeth Phelps—who presented their research on what brain biology can tell us about political views.

Jost started off by discussing the “Big Five Model of Personality,” which, according to his results, offers clues about the minds of hardcore liberals versus their conservative counterparts.

(more…)

The quest for technology that can detect any lie is still plodding on. But while we may not be able to nail every falsehood, science is helping us tell when someone massages the truth. New Scientist reports that experts are now concocting “spin reading” software programs that analyze a person’s speech, voice, or facial expressions to sniff out his or her level of truthiness.

David Skillicorn, a math and computer science researcher at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, has come up with a particularly timely trick: He developed an algorithm that “evaluates word usage within the text of a conversation or speech to determine when a person ‘presents themselves or their content in a way that does not necessarily reflect what they know to be true.’”

In other words, he created a Spin Detector. Here’s a quick summary of how it works:

(more…)

The ScienceDebate2008 project put together 14 questions for the candidates covering all the major bases, including climate change, energy, education, national security, biotech, conservation, and health care. (For a full list, go here.) Earlier this month, Obama submitted his responses. Now McCain has followed suit. Here are some highlights, with a few of our own annotations.

Innovation

(more…)

• M.I.T.’s president calls for a major R&D funding increase for alternative energy; the world (hopefully) listens.

• Newsflash: Doctors admit to sometimes acting unprofessional. Good thing they’re only laughing at you while you’re anesthetized, and not handing you prescriptions for a drug they’ve been paid to endorse… oh, wait, never mind.

• Ed Brayton summarizes McCain’s “sex ed-gate” mess.

• And Gristmill offers a breakdown of the “Palin v. Palin” climate change message.

• The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund has its say on aerial wolf hunting.

(more…)