The difference between Liberals and Conservatives

[Gracchus]

When you really think about it, the whole idea that an entire belief system is genetic resembles social darwinism- regardless of whether its held by early 20th century republicans or 21st century liberals. Its still the same flawed idea. Its still essentially prejudice.

Liberalism and conservatism are not "belief systems", any more than myopia or presbyopia are "belief systems". Liberalism and conservatism are differing ways that the brain processes and responds to potential or real threat, and this seems to be a function of different brain anatomy. And in the absence of brain trauma or disease, that difference is probably a consequence of differing genetic makeup.
The idea is "flawed" only because you don't want to believe it, unless you can show the study was somehow flawed. Liberals are always considering that their own reasoning might be faulty, they doubt themselves. That is why conservatives claim liberals to be weak and "wishy-washy". Conservatives, who claim to derive their beliefs from higher authority, their patriotism or their religion or their honor or their duty, are certain that they are not mistaken, and project their own opinions on one or more of those convenient mystical authorities. God never disagrees with a conservative although conservatives often disagree with each other. Google, for instance, "heresy".
I could be wrong, but all I have learned of neuropsychology leads me to my tentative conclusion and only stronger, more compelling evidence is likely to change my opinion.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed!
The study said that the amygdalas of conservative students were larger than those of liberals, and the anterior cingulate cortices of liberals were more developed than those of conservatives. It was pointed out that these differences might very well be genetic since no environmental or social influences are suspected of causing such changes in cerebral anatomy.
You misinterpreted the plain findings of the study, because, one supposes, the implications frightened you, or offended your self esteem. Just by making such a mistake, you branded yourself a conservative. The implications of the finding are offensive or frightening, so the study must be wrong. Here we have an interesting intersection of the conservative inability to appreciate nuance and the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Please note that what the study implies, and it does warrant further study, is that the conservative tendency to impulsive and often irrational action can be explained in terms of biology and evolution. It is not anybody's fault. Perhaps someday we will be able to correct it, like a clubfoot or a cleft palate.

It would like to study the 'study'. I can usually spot the deception.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

QUOTE="Givemeareason, post: 68432769, member: 376962"]I was just reading that it may depend more on neurological factors.

“Political Orientations Are Correlated With Brain Structure in Young Adults,” was based on the results of MRI scans on participants and it is noteworthy that the results of an MRI cannot possibly be biased, but they can reveal pathological anomalies in the human brain. The results of the MRI studies show that “conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. Conversely, the anterior cingulate cortex of liberal students had more gray matter than conservatives.” According to biological facts, “The amygdala is active during states of fear and anxiety, and the anterior cingulate cortex is the region of the brain that helps humans cope with complexity and use abstract reasoning.” What that means is that specifically speaking, “Liberals’ brains are biologically more able to handle complex thought, and conservatives base their beliefs on fear.”

In other words,

"A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished."

 

[Gracchus]

It would like to study the 'study'. I can usually spot the deception.

Well, here it is:
Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

The paper cites lots of other studies. It isn't some lightning bolt from a clear sky.

For instances of other studies:
Amygdala volume correlates positively with fearfulness in normal healthy girls.
--- van der Plas EA, Boes AD, Wemmie JA, Tranel D, Nopoulos P
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Dec; 5(4):424-31


Both of us disgusted in My insula: the common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. ---
Wicker B, Keysers C, Plailly J, Royet JP, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G
Neuron. 2003 Oct 30; 40(3):655-64.


Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. --- Botvinick M, Nystrom LE, Fissell K, Carter CS, Cohen JD
Nature. 1999 Nov 11; 402(6758):179-81

 

[Gracchus]

In other words,

"A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished."

In other words: “ADAGE, n. Boned wisdom for weak teeth.” --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, here it is:
Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

The paper cites lots of other studies. It isn't some lightning bolt from a clear sky.

For instances of other studies:
Amygdala volume correlates positively with fearfulness in normal healthy girls.
--- van der Plas EA, Boes AD, Wemmie JA, Tranel D, Nopoulos P
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Dec; 5(4):424-31


Both of us disgusted in My insula: the common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. ---
Wicker B, Keysers C, Plailly J, Royet JP, Gallese V, Rizzolatti G
Neuron. 2003 Oct 30; 40(3):655-64.


Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. --- Botvinick M, Nystrom LE, Fissell K, Carter CS, Cohen JD
Nature. 1999 Nov 11; 402(6758):179-81

What I meant was the I want to study the participants; numbers, geographic location, family background, economic situation, relationship with parents, significant life altering events, physical appearance, social connections,......that sort of thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In other words: “ADAGE, n. Boned wisdom for weak teeth.” --- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

No, as in "Drive defensively", you'll live longer (people who are driving with their anterior cingulate cortex are out to get you).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. --- Botvinick M, Nystrom LE, Fissell K, Carter CS, Cohen JD
Nature. 1999 Nov 11; 402(6758):179-81

Did you even read this? It's complete nonsense.

 

[The Outlier]

Liberalism and conservatism are not "belief systems", any more than myopia or presbyopia are "belief systems". Liberalism and conservatism are differing ways that the brain process and responds to potential or real threat, and this seems to be a function of different brain anatomy. And in the absence of brain trauma or disease, that difference is probably a consequence of differing genetic makeup.
The idea is "flawed" only because you don't want to believe it, unless you can show the study was somehow flawed. Liberals are always considering that their own reasoning might be faulty, they doubt themselves. That is why conservatives claim liberals to be weak and "wishy-washy". Conservatives, who claim to derive their beliefs from higher authority, their patriotism or their religion or their honor or their duty, are certain that they are not mistaken, and project their own opinions on one or more of those convenient mystical authorities. God never disagrees with a conservative although conservatives often disagree with each other. Google, for instance, "heresy".
I could be wrong, but all I have learned of neuropsychology leads me to my tentative conclusion and only stronger, more compelling evidence is likely to change my opinion.

Every scientific study has to be based on logic. If the logic is off, the entire study is off. The first logical problem with your argument is you assume people to be either conservative or liberal. Political ideology is much more complex than that. There is also authoritarianism, libertarianism, isolationism, interventionalism- in other words politics is multiple spectrums. The second logical problem with your argument is you assume all conservatives and all liberals to be alike. We are actually very different. Some conservatives are what I would consider dumb- they believe everything on fox news or they believe everything Glen Beck or Sarah Palin says and disregard everything from Huffpost or CNN. There are also plenty of liberals who believe everything on MSNBC, Huffpost, ABC, NBC or CNN, but write off everything fox news has to say. If we do not process what we hear and look for facts on all sides, then yes we are dumb. But I know a lot more indoctrinated people than dumb people. People can be indoctrinated that everything on fox news is flawed just like someone in North Korea can be indoctrinated that everyone outside North Korea is their enemy and that their leader loves them very much. Regardless of someone's certifications or experimentation, if their logic is bad, I don't write them off entirely, but I write off any so-called evidence based on said bad logic. I'm sure you have a lot of good things to teach people, but on this point I don't think you comprehend the complexity of humanity.

I have met plenty

 

[Gracchus]

What I meant was the I want to study the participants; numbers, geographic location, family background, economic situation, relationship with parents, significant life altering events, physical appearance, social connections,......that sort of thing.

That would be good. All you will need is the cooperation of the participants. How long would your study take? Would you need funding? What are your qualifications for undertaking such a study?

Did you even read this? It's complete nonsense.

Can you point out this "nonsense"?

 

[Gracchus]

Every scientific study has to be based on logic. If the logic is off, the entire study is off.

Most published studies have been vetted by other scientists for obvious errors.

The first logical problem with your argument is you assume people to be either conservative or liberal.

No, the study stated how the assignment of "conservative" or "liberal" labeling was done.

Political ideology is much more complex than that. There is also authoritarianism, libertarianism, isolationism, interventionalism- in other words politics is multiple spectrums.(sic: should be "spectra")

But what the was being studied was the correlation between liberal/conservative reactions to unpleasant or threatening stimuli and brain function. What was found was that, in a general way, liberals have one sort of anatomy and conservatives have another.

The second logical problem with your argument is you assume all conservatives and all liberals to be alike.

No such assumption is implied. Liberals may differ from other liberals in many ways but what they seem to have in common is a greater mass of neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex than conservatives do, and the reaction of the amygdala in liberals are more often mediated in the anterior cingulate cortex than in conservatives who tend to react faster to unpleasant stimuli . What the study did find, and did not assume, was that there were physical differences between the brains of those who were identified as liberal and conservative. Other studies have found that if you want to turn a liberal into a conservative, if only temporarily, all you have to do is frighten him or get her drunk.

We are actually very different.

And sometimes the sky is not blue, and the grass is not green.

Some conservatives are what I would consider dumb- they believe everything on fox news or they believe everything Glen Beck or Sarah Palin says and disregard everything from Huffpost or CNN. There are also plenty of liberals who believe everything on MSNBC, Huffpost, ABC, NBC or CNN, but write off everything fox news has to say.

Studies have shown that whether one is liberal or conservative is not a matter of intelligence. The study under discussion shows that it seems to be a matter of anatomy, and very likely a matter of genetics.

If we do not process what we hear and look for facts on all sides, then yes we are dumb.

Is it smart to run away before you are absolutely sure there is a lion in the grass?

But I know a lot more indoctrinated people than dumb people.

So do I, although there is no shortage of either sort. So what?!

People can be indoctrinated that everything on fox news is flawed...

Or you can just draw that conclusion by watching it.

... just like someone in North Korea can be indoctrinated that everyone outside North Korea is their enemy and that their leader loves them very much.

And if you don't at least profess to believe it, you had better be smart enough to keep your opinion to yourself.

Regardless of someone's certifications or experimentation, if their logic is bad, I don't write them off entirely, but I write off any so-called evidence based on said bad logic.

How was the "logic" of the study "bad"?

I'm sure you have a lot of good things to teach people, but on this point I don't think you comprehend the complexity of humanity.

So if I don't agree with you, I must not understand? [sarcasm] Forgive me for not immediately recognizing your blazing intellect! [/sarcasm]

I have met plenty

[sarcasm]I, on the other hand, in seventy-two years have encountered few humans but mostly chimps.[/sarcasm]

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can you point out this "nonsense"?

I'll take back the nonsense comment as upon a more careful reading the abstract seems to suggest that liberals are less able to solve problems as the problems get larger.

Also what if any are the comprehensive conclusions drawn from these studies? Am I to understand that my fear and loathing is all in my head?

Abstract
"The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), on the medial surface of the frontal lobes of the brain, is widely believed to be involved in the regulation of attention. Beyond this, however, its specific contribution to cognition remains uncertain. One influential theory has interpreted activation within the ACC as reflecting 'selection-for-action', a set of processes that guide the selection of environmental objects as triggers of or targets for action. We have proposed an alternative hypothesis, in which the ACC serves not to exert top-down attentional control but instead to detect and signal the occurrence of conflicts in information processing. Here, to test this theory against the selection-for-action theory, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain activation during performance of a task where, for a particular subset of trials, the strength of selection-for-action is inversely related to the degree of response conflict. Activity within the ACC was greater during trials featuring high levels of conflict (and weak selection-for-action) than during trials with low levels of conflict (and strong selection-for-action), providing evidence in favour of the conflict-monitoring account of ACC function."

 

[Gracchus]

I'll take back the nonsense comment as upon a more careful reading the abstract seems to suggest that liberals are less able to solve problems as the problems get larger.
Also what if any are the comprehensive conclusions drawn from these studies? Am I to understand that my fear and loathing is all in my head?

Abstract
"The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), on the medial surface of the frontal lobes of the brain, is widely believed to be involved in the regulation of attention. Beyond this, however, its specific contribution to cognition remains uncertain. One influential theory has interpreted activation within the ACC as reflecting 'selection-for-action', a set of processes that guide the selection of environmental objects as triggers of or targets for action. We have proposed an alternative hypothesis, in which the ACC serves not to exert top-down attentional control but instead to detect and signal the occurrence of conflicts in information processing. Here, to test this theory against the selection-for-action theory, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure brain activation during performance of a task where, for a particular subset of trials, the strength of selection-for-action is inversely related to the degree of response conflict. Activity within the ACC was greater during trials featuring high levels of conflict (and weak selection-for-action) than during trials with low levels of conflict (and strong selection-for-action), providing evidence in favour of the conflict-monitoring account of ACC function."

To answer your question first, I do not doubt that there is much in your head worthy of fear and loathing.

The study cited is not about liberals and conservatives. It has nothing to do with that. It is trying to determine whether the anterior cingulate cortex is involved in making decisions, (one opinion) or in detecting conflicts in processing data (another opinion). It would seem that because your bias against liberals was in conflict with the the studies under discussion, and because you did not understand even the abstract of the article, you did not activate your ACC, but rather simply made up a conclusion, contrary to conflicting evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The study cited is not about liberals and conservatives.

Then why did you post it?

 

[Gracchus]

The study cited is not about liberals and conservatives. It has nothing to do with that.

Then why did you post it?

Because it did provide information supporting the first study.
Why, do you suppose, that you don't understand the obvious? Why can't you make the connections? It is certainly not because you are stupid. Could it be because your brain does not easily or efficiently process information that conflicts with your presuppositions? Even for a liberal that sort of introspection is difficult, requiring self-discipline and practice. It seems to be almost impossible for conservatives. The studies suggest that their hardware simply cannot process the data. It is not anyone's fault that they have intellectual and emotional limitations. I certainly have mine. When you realize your limitations, and acknowledge them, you can turn to other strategies. You might even accept that those who have studied the subject might know more than you do, even if you don't like what they know. You can learn from them what you cannot learn on your own. The truth may be bitter, but a taste for it may be acquired.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because it did provide information supporting the first study.
Why, do you suppose, that you don't understand the obvious? Why can't you make the connections? It is certainly not because you are stupid. Could it be because your brain does not easily or efficiently process information that conflicts with your presuppositions? Even for a liberal that sort of introspection is difficult, requiring self-discipline and practice. It seems to be almost impossible for conservatives. The studies suggest that their hardware simply cannot process the data. It is not anyone's fault that they have intellectual and emotional limitations. I certainly have mine. When you realize your limitations, and acknowledge them, you can turn to other strategies. You might even accept that those who have studied the subject might know more than you do, even if you don't like what they know. You can learn from them what you cannot learn on your own. The truth may be bitter, but a taste for it may be acquired.

Your elitist condescension is noted.

 

[Gracchus]

Your elitist condescension is noted.

And there you go! You react to information that conflicts with your assumptions as a personal attack and respond with a personal attack. I point out that, in common with everyone, you have limitations, and you charge me with "elitist condescension". Or do you maintain that you have no intellectual limitations? I have mine, although they don't seem to be the same as yours.
You cannot address the data, so you attack the one presenting the data.
To challenge your beliefs is perceived as a personal attack. You would probably recognize the behavior in others, but you cannot accept that you are in the same sort of denial.
All of this would be beside the point except that it is precisely the point of this thread.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And there you go! You react to information that conflicts with your assumptions as a personal attack and respond with a personal attack. I point out that, in common with everyone, you have limitations, and you charge me with "elitist condescension". Or do you maintain that you have no intellectual limitations? I have mine, although they don't seem to be the same as yours.
You cannot address the data, so you attack the one presenting the data.
To challenge your beliefs is perceived as a personal attack. You would probably recognize the behavior in others, but you cannot accept that you are in the same sort of denial.
All of this would be beside the point except that it is precisely the point of this thread.

It wasn't an attack, it was an observation re the term "noted".

Of course I have intellectual limitations, everyone does. I play guitar, bass, and banjo yet I cannot read music. The obvious point of this thread is to remind/inform everyone that conservatives are inferior to liberals intellectually. That angers me a bit, yes (it's also amusing as well).

Cops cannot take the time to ponder the broad social and political consequences of their actions while under assault by a criminal. They need to be 'simple-minded' in that moment.

God creates a wide range of capabilities in us because there is a wide range of tasks for us to perform within society, and assures that each of us is unique.

 

[Gracchus]

It wasn't an attack, it was an observation re the term "noted".

"Elitist condescension" was what was "noted". If I were to "note" hypocrisy or dishonesty, would that be an attack?

Of course I have intellectual limitations, everyone does. I play guitar, bass, and banjo yet I cannot read music.

Well, there you go. I play guitar and harmonica, (simultaneously) by ear, and I can't really read music either. And I used to know a very fine pianist who could not play even the simplest melody without the music in front of him.

The obvious point of this thread is to remind/inform everyone that conservatives are inferior to liberals intellectually.

Conservatives can make quick decisions, erring on the side of caution. That can be a valuable trait.

That angers me a bit, yes (it's also amusing as well).

Again, that is the point. When beliefs or actions are questioned or challenged, conservatives react emotionally, and do not consider before responding. Of course, sometimes liberals just react without consideration too, especially when they are frightened or drunk.

Cops cannot take the time to ponder the broad social and political consequences of their actions while under assault by a criminal. They need to be 'simple-minded' in that moment.

But they also gun down a fair proportion of children, and unarmed , sometimes innocent adults, because they react without involving the ACC. They also tend to overreact if they are not obeyed, even when obedience is not legally required, and a violent reaction is not justified.

God creates a wide range of capabilities in us because there is a wide range of tasks for us to perform within society, and assures that each of us is unique.

Without invoking a deity, it is certainly true that we have variation in the species. And it is also certainly true that many who seek power ought not to get it.
The point of the thread is that there are anatomical, physical, differences between liberals and conservatives, which result in differing ways of seeing the world, processing data, and reacting to it. A conservative might not jaywalk even if no cars are in sight because "there are rules". A liberal will reason that the rules are there to serve and can be ignored when circumstances warrant.

"And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?" Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.…" --- Mark 2:25-27 NIV

He was pointing out that the Sabbath was to give humans a little free time, not to enslave them to inaction.
That is how a liberal reasons. A liberal is not blindly obedient, and knows that sometimes we need not, should not, obey. To a conservative, the "Nuremberg Defense" (I was only following orders!) is exculpatory. A liberal knows that sometimes one has to draw a line, even at personal cost.
Hard and fast rules enable and justify quick decisions, but sometimes those are very bad decisions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Elitist condescension" was what was "noted". If I were to "note" hypocrisy or dishonesty, would that be an attack?

Well, there you go. I play guitar and harmonica, (simultaneously) by ear, and I can't really read music either. And I used to know a very fine pianist who could not play even the simplest melody without the music in front of him.

Conservatives can make quick decisions, erring on the side of caution. That can be a valuable trait.

Again, that is the point. When beliefs or actions are questioned or challenged, conservatives react emotionally, and do not consider before responding. Of course, sometimes liberals just react without consideration too, especially when they are frightened or drunk.
But they also gun down a fair proportion of children, and unarmed , sometimes innocent adults, because they react without involving the ACC. They also tend to overreact if they are not obeyed, even when obedience is not legally required, and a violent reaction is not justified.

Without invoking a deity, it is certainly true that we have variation in the species. And it is also certainly true that many who seek power ought not to get it.
The point of the thread is that there are anatomical, physical, differences between liberals and conservatives, which result in differing ways of seeing the world, processing data, and reacting to it. A conservative might not jaywalk even if no cars are in sight because "there are rules". A liberal will reason that the rules are there to serve and can be ignored when circumstances warrant.

"And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?" Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.…" --- Mark 2:25-27 NIV

He was pointing out that the Sabbath was to give humans a little free time, not to enslave them to inaction.
That is how a liberal reasons. A liberal is not blindly obedient, and knows that sometimes we need not, should not, obey. To a conservative, the "Nuremberg Defense" (I was only following orders!) is exculpatory. A liberal knows that sometimes one has to draw a line, even at personal cost.
Hard and fast rules enable and justify quick decisions, but sometimes those are very bad decisions.

All of these points bear further discussion.

Most of my statements are in response to this pretty provocative assertion;

“Liberals’ brains are biologically more able to handle complex thought, and conservatives base their beliefs on fear.”