Brain Differences In Liberals and Conservatives 1248
i_like_spam writes "Scientists from NYU and UCLA report in Nature Neuroscience that the brains of Democrats and Republicans process information differently. This new study finds that the differences are apparent even when the brain processes common information, not just political topics. From the study, liberals were more likely to be accurate and showed more brain activity in the region associated with analyzing conflicts. A researcher not affiliated with the study stated, liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.' Moreover, 'the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry... as a flip-flopper.'"
Who whoul have thought? (Score:1, Insightful)
Like... Whoa!
Could age be a factor? (Score:1, Insightful)
So could it be that the mental flexibility of youth makes them more susceptible to liberalism (in the modern usage of the word) than the more experienced minds of the older generations?
Another worthless story (Score:2, Insightful)
(I've shown considerable restraint in pointing this out in the last 10 similarly crap stories, but enough is enough.)
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:5, Insightful)
imho old persons become conservative just because of decline of cognitive functions due to old age.
It's maths. (Score:5, Insightful)
Muslims would disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that. I don't think there are any religious ideas of signifcant value. Buddhism I'd class more as philosophy.
Re:Just In! (Score:1, Insightful)
2. This war should not be about "winning the war" or being a "pansie", it should be about stopping the suffering of the Iraqi people.
They're taught to keep their beliefs (Score:3, Insightful)
"An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded."
So yeah, you can flame them as much as you want, they're not going to change that easily.
Re:Just In! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals are a bunch of wusses? (Score:5, Insightful)
But yeah, it's liberals that are the wussy scaredy cats....
Right.
Do you know what a liberal is? (Score:4, Insightful)
You may want to do some reading before using the term. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism [wikipedia.org].
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now come on, folks - lets get real here. I've only read a half dozen comments so far, and already people are extrapolating WAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much from a simple test
Call me conservative
Uh-uoh - I think I just tolerated some ambiguity
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's maths. (Score:2, Insightful)
Really?
Name three. France's fractious electoral system was gamed by Le Pen, the UK has Blair. Russian democracy is in retrograde, Italy can't make it through Act II of the opera, and Germany's Grand Coalition conjoins shades of gray at the expense of white and black. China doesn't have elections, and voting in Japan is like choosing Mothra or Gamera. (Hint: Vote Mothra!)
Before you say "You forgot Poland" there are about 100 other countries where people's votes also don't matter, simply because their countries have become less than relevant. I'm looking at you Canada, Australia, and Iraq. LOL!
That leaves you with, I dunno, India, and to be fair I haven't the faintest clue how the "world's largest Democracy" takes care of business. But I have a hunch "money" still buys, well, whatever it wants. Heck, I'm pretty sure skin color still plays a role. Tata, salesman.
(If you disagree with my post, I kindly suggest you mod me down, get a sex change, and move to Darfur.)
Re:Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
In much the same way that religious voters will tolerate massive corruption and sexual perversion from politicians who claim deep religious convictions (of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant variety only please) . American's will tolerate outright evilness on the part of the avowed anti-communist & anti-socialist capitalist businessmen and lobbyists.
It's many monarchs versus one (Score:1, Insightful)
Really, conservatives place such a high premium on independence and freedom and that they are willing to accept a lot of other shitty things to get it. As much as conservatives talk about God and Jesus, really, they are all fixated on Dante's Devil, proclaiming, "It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven"...
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Insightful)
As I said earlier, you can debate whether or not the war is worth the cost, or if it should have been fought at all
I may be conservative, but I'm neither arrogant nor close-minded enough to believe that somebody is stupid, callous, or a coward just because they don't agree with me.
Re:Just In! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of the security vacuum that was created when Hussein was brought down. After we brought down the old order, we failed to step up and maintain order, so now we have the unenviable task of trying to establish order where none exists.
Our leaders were blinded by their own optimism, now many of our finest are paying the ultimate price for that failure.
Re:Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no doubt that you as a person are not. However as a non American I must ask what did you think of the treatment of the French. Who disagreed with US policy and have the American media and public ridicule them as a country of cowards and idiots. Even tho I dont like the French(Ive had to work with them
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:1, Insightful)
What is bad, is sticking to them without even considering other arguments. So is being a total flip-flopper: if you can't see which option is better, you should better refrain from choosing one altogether.
In other words: choose an option and stick with it neither too strongly nor too weakly.
And, I didn't say I'm a liberal, too. This word has been hijacked by american Commiecrats, a totally despicable party of corrupt populists who tout their version of socialism. I would dare to say they're more despicable than that lying group of power-mongering christian fascists, which is a huge accomplishment.
MARK ARTICLE AS FLAMEBAIT (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not in the middle of this Liberal/Conservative "war," and I can tell you honestly that liberals can be very stupid, and conservatives can be very astute.
With a headline like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, are we talking about ideals, financial, or strictly both to qualify conservative or liberal? My ideals are conservative, but I'm financially liberal; were these things weighted? I'd say my socio-economical class doesn't much lean either way (white male, middle-middle class, 23), so is the question just which side I relate to more?
FWIW, I don't think binary labels are a good tool for representing an analog chunk of an analog spectrum without assigning weights to aspects that are of a social nature. Does anyone else feel that this entire study ended up with a group of people standing around grinning at their excessive cleverness at the end of the day, while no actual scientific work was accomplished?
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. However, a lot of the ranting about Kerry "flip-flopping" seems to be trying to suggest that sticking to an idea, no matter how cretinously stupid and harmful, is the most important thing and changing your mind in the face of a changing situation is bad and wrong.
Is accepting every new random idea a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, the article indicated that they chose "very liberal" or "very conservative". It's entirely plausible that the extremes are there for biological reasons and those who dont "identify" with their political orientation choose that orientation for different reasons (former biological, latter rational thought)
Re:It's maths. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:liberals (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but polling COLLEGE STUDENTS does NOT reflect the general populous. Is this stat a little rigged? Very rigged? Think for a minute here--aren't college students naturally more open to doing things? I have seen an awful lot of college students go from "mad liberal" to moderate in a matter of a few years as I am in a "spectatorial" position where we hire guys fresh out of school and watch how they change throughout their careers.
--parasonic
Re:Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the UK, we even have the leader of the right wing Conservative party (David Cameron) saying he will match Labour's spending commitments. There is now nothing to choose between them in terms of policy. The only difference is whichever set of politicians you think is the least idiotic and selfish.
In the US, I guess it's whether you're more sickened by the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans or the cowardice and lack of direction of the Democrats.
Peter
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Insightful)
You can choose to label it what you want, but the version of "socialism" in question would be called "conservative" in most first world nations.
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:5, Insightful)
If a stove burns you every time you touch the hot burner, do you stop touching it and get called a flip-flopper, or learn from the mistake and stop touching it?
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Insightful)
See my sig.
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most religious voters are far and away not religious by their own holy text's standards, it's standard hypocrisy and magical thinking at work.
Re:This is very good news (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think its junk at all. Determining differences in cognitive abilities on something such as politics makes a lot of sense. The study doesn't say one is better than another, but it did show a difference in thinking which supports WHY each faction has different tendencies. It doesn't seem out of reach that SO MANY people seem to be split on such basic ideas about the driving forces of our society.
The only awful science is if you try to say that this article says one is better than the other.
And yes, "liberal" and "conservative" are subjective titles, but mainly because each is a spectrum characteristic. They're varying degrees of liberalism and conservatism. So, when you try to place someone exactly where they belong, its difficult, but when trying to determine if they're on one half of the spectrum or the other has a lot less guesswork involved.
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most? I think Britain and Russia can claim the last one.
Re:Just In! (Score:1, Insightful)
-jcr
Are you even aware that socialism is more common than straight capitalism? Even in the US. Do realize that there is *gasp* capitalistic fascism that is just as bad if not worse than socialism?
Grow up. Learn about the world, then foam at the mouth.
Pay ATTENTION Here People! (Score:4, Insightful)
What part of "illegal" don't you understand? (Score:2, Insightful)
So please, don't keep on lying. Immigration and illegal immigration are two entirely different things. Legal immigrants are invited to this country, and improve it. Illegal immigrants are invaders.
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's maths. (Score:1, Insightful)
Our electoral system is shit, and is forcing us to choose between only 2 options. The people with money clog both sides of the fence to the point no reasonable candidate can put themselves forward because they would essentially be independent of all parties and affliations. This vote "left" or vote "right" bullshit forces people to give up their true values and sell themselves to one of the two, possibly three, parties which have enough clout to appear in front of the eyes of the people.
The voting system I like best is one where every option is presented on the ballot and every person has the ability to vote "Yes" or "No" on every option. This at least will get rid of the problem of someone winning with only a plurality.
Right now a third party sucks away votes of support from one of the two dominant parties. This skews the statistics because a third party usually splits the support of one of the major parties. In a voting system like I propose, a person is able to vote yes in all three parties, only yes to two parties, or only yes to one party. This would more accurately reflect the will of the people and get the person elected that the most people agree with.
Eventually a voting system like the one I am proposing would weaken the dualistic party system. A candidate would only need to get enough money to advertise and run. They would not have to cater to and kiss the ass of one of the major two parties to get further support and funding.
Our founding fathers only lived under a totalitarian government. They created america as an experiment in democracy. Well the results are in, and a vote "left vs. right" system of voting does not accurately express the will of the people. A more accurate system would be a vote "yes or no on each option." We ran the experiment for 200+ years. Its time to analyze the results, learn from them, and correct the shortcomings. Our voting systems is the biggest shortcoming that I can think of because the way it is set up now is that it kills the expression of the true will of the people.
Re:What part of "illegal" don't you understand? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is accepting every new random idea a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:5, Insightful)
However -- there is something of a tendency this way, which is readily explained by something market researchers have known for years: the concerns of young people and old people are different.
When you are young, you don't have much: not much stuff, not much property, not much power. But you have potential. Therefore you favor things that take wealth out of the hands of The Man in order to maximize human potential.
When you are my age, you have lots more stuff, lots more power, but less margin of error. The twenty year old who loses everything has his entire work career to earn it back. The fifty year old can look forward to a miserable retirement. Therefore you are less interested in exploiting the possibilities of a brave new world, and more interested in holding onto what you already have.
I would say that the most intellectually committed individuals on the right and left tend to shift less often than the people whose ideology is a shallow "stick it to the man" thing. The latter people's opinions really just reflect their selfish immediate interests throughout their lives.
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Insightful)
Research and willful learning are beyond most of today's politicians, though, which is sad for all parties and every citizen. They do, unfortunately, represent much of America, though.
Grrr... (Score:3, Insightful)
As for a general trend I would agree with the data but you need to be sure not to go to someone with a republican bumper sticker and assume they are hard nose and cannot learn, or someone with a Democrat bumper sticker(s) (Normally the case with liberals who tend to have more bumper stickers then conservatives) you can assume they will collect information easily and can grasp new concepts easier. Because a trend doesn't equate to people falling into stereotypes, just the fact the dice is weighted slightly to one side.
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely that 'liberal' became equated to 'commiecrat' because that is how the Conservatives painted them, just like the Liberals paint all 'conservatives' as 'right-wing nut-jobs'.
As for the Corrupt Populist Socialists vs. the Power-mongering Christian Fascists... that was just a stroke of pure genius. Sad that our political realm can be summed up so succinctly. Sad, but true...
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:5, Insightful)
I turned 25, and could only shake my head at the fool I was at 21. But no more, I swore!
Now I'm past 30 and, seriously, that idiot I was at 25... let's not talk about him. But finally, I managed to be the pinnacle of wisdom and intelligence, now if my boss (who's gonna go for 50 in a few weeks) would only admit that I am...
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because old people who are liberals are brainless, it does not mean that all brainless are liberals.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MARK ARTICLE AS FLAMEBAIT (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not in the middle of this Liberal/Conservative "war," and I can tell you honestly that liberals can be very stupid, and conservatives can be very astute.
I think the correct conclusion would be that a strikingly even line is drawn through our population. One half freely (to an extent) accepts new information when it's presented. The other half is resistant to new information, and favors information that is older and more established.
I'd suggest that this is an evolutionary imperative. You need the free-thinkers who are going to provide your edge against the environment and potential rival species / groups. You also need the stability of consistent choices when change turns out to be temporary. For example, if a new source of food appears which has more nutritional benefit, you want to be able to adapt to that, but you want to also resist constantly selecting new foods, as this retards the development of specialized farming / gathering capabilities.
The use of the word "accurate" in the summary is highly questionable, however. I'll have to read the full article when I have time to understand what they mean by that.
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:3, Insightful)
Clubbing Baby Seals (Score:2, Insightful)
Every single legislator who has ever voted on a bill has the same exact voting record if you're willing to dig for it. When you can tack arbitrary riders to other proposed bills that is the situation you get. If you take a bill proposed to aid war veterans and tack on a rider to club baby seals there simply is no good way to vote on that bill. You either hate veterans or you hate baby seals.
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Illegal immigration is a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
'Illegal' immigration becomes an actual crime after an immigrant fails to report to an immigration hearing, or fails to follow a deportation order; doing either is a misdemeanor. I believe working without authorization could also be a misdemeanor. Re-entering the country after having been deported is a felony. Simply being here 'illegally' is neither.
Congress has tried in the past to make first-time border crossing a misdemeanor or even a felony, but failed.
Re:This is very good news (Score:1, Insightful)
Short-term quirk (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, conservatism is an attempt to preserve existing state, liberalism an attempt to change it, or at least an openness to change. That people who are open to change are open to change is not a surprising result.
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that why the vast majority of people do their best and most well known work before 30.
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Insightful)
We always get the "things changed after 9/11" argument, which I can understand to a point. That may have made it more appealing to them to remove Saddam, faulty intelligence or not. However, it certainly didn't change the problems that Cheney talked about before. It didn't change the likely outcomes of an invasion one bit. So, I don't know how we could possibly have been so unprepared, but it certainly wasn't because they were blinded by optimism.
Re:This is very good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Their self applied labels. So what ever convinced them to be one or the other has some correlation. We haven't done tests to determine causation. So for some reason being Lib correlates to more accurate adaptability in simple tests of reflexes.
Just Plain Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of new ideas are just plain wrong. Accepting every new idea that comes along just because it's new throws out knowledge and wisdom that has properly withstood the test of time. I'd rather stick with what works, than fall for every new scam that comes along.
Keep an open mind, and a lot of garbage will be thrown into it.
What a joke (Score:2, Insightful)
And this is a joke to "liberals 'could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas."
Come visit the San Francisco Bay Area. The liberals here just as intolerant and just has condeming as an conservative. Liberals here hate religion, refuse to accept science that conflicts with their beliefs, and refuse to accept that some lifestyles are OK even if they are undesirable.
Its more of a matter of who is the dominant group. Dominance demands conformity.
*
btw I am not a Republican if you were jumping to conclusions.
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting quote.
So what would it be if given the two wolves and a lamb, only one wolf was well armed? Liberty for the armed wolf or a dictatorship? Guns don't provide liberty, beliefs and actions do.
wrong terminology (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Insightful)
It's bad because when I try to tell people this they say I'm the nut-job, and that I'm just "throwing my vote away". I'm not sure when the socialists took over the Democrats, and when the Christians took over the Republicans and Boy Scouts. But I'm pretty sure, unless revisionists have worked their black arts, that Republicans and Democrats were not originally this way.
Although this is all in the context of US politics, Europeans for example think both are parties are for right-wing religious nut-jobs. And don't find our Democrats to be anything like what they would call a Liberal or a Socialist.
- too bad the lofty ideals of socialism require the use of force against all people.
Cocksure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:We've had all sorts of Butchers. (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that a premise of radical feminism?
Re:Illegal immigration is a crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I view the issue as one of personal freedom. If I see an illegal alien working I'll let it go and not report it, much in the same way that if I saw a run away slave a hundred years ago I'd let it go and not report it even though both acts would have been illegal. I think our laws should be changed so that if a person can find work here, they should have legal status here (and pay taxes and be allowed to drive if they obtain insurance and pass the tests, etc...). Some on the anti-immigration side talk about the damage done to our culture. But to me our culture means individual freedom. Mass deportations and agressive limitations on immigration do not say freedom to me.
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:4, Insightful)
As an example, the drinking age is 21 in every state in the U.S. (as far as I recall). Now, there are obviously people under the age of 21 who are responsibile enough to drink, and there are obviously people over the age of 21 who are not. Moreover, a store can lose it's license by selling someone alcohol at 11:59pm the day before the purchasers birthday, as if one minute, or one day, or even one week really changes anything.
But it's simply not practical to say, for example, test everyone and give them a license just to buy alcohol (or cigarettes).
You can't "kind of, sort of" decide to go to war... this was a problem in Vietnam and also in Iraq. It doesn't matter how whether or not you agreed with it, but if you're going to do it, you need to do it and not restrain yourselves to try to look better in the eyes of the media while the problem festers and grows. War is a horrible, mean, vicious endeavour that should never be gotten into lightly - but if you do it, you need to be horrible, mean, and vicious.
On the other hand, there are debates that certainly can, and must be, more nuanced. Abortion, for example. People full tilt to the left want abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy for any reason. People full tilt to the right want abortion banned for any reason whatsoever. But the vast majority of both conservatives and liberals are certainly somewhere in the middle... the vast majority of people have a nuanced opinion on the subject.
So, being a conservative leaning libertarian, I'd suggest that conservatives maybe often see things in black and white when it's prudent to do so, and that's why you cannot be for the war before you were against it, or voted for the war and now want to withdraw funding for the troops. All that says to me is that you did not seriously consider your original vote before casting it. That's not "nuanced," that's just wrong.
Re:I see... (Score:5, Insightful)
... most stupid people are conservative (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's maths. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. To me your two parties are conservative and conservativer [imdb.com]. You don't have a left and a right, you have a right and an even more right. Seriously, look outside your borders a bit.
Re:What part of "illegal" don't you understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberal and Conservative are not antonyms (Score:3, Insightful)
Liberal and Conservative are not antonyms. "Liberal" just means in favor of liberty, and its antonym is "authoritarian". "Conservative" just means in favor of the status quo, and its antonym is "progressive". When liberal democracies first started arising out of the mire of medieval monarchies and aristocracies, the liberals were progressive, because the status quo was highly authoritarian, and so authoritarians were rightly called conservative. Thus the terms "liberal" and "conservative" functioned like antonyms for a time; but only because the liberals happened to be the new guys (the progressives) and the conservatives (the establishment) happened to be authoritarian.
Eventually the progressive liberals mostly won out, but the societies they built still weren't satisfactory for everyone (viz. the pitfalls of so-called "actually existing capitalism", as opposed to the peaceful, voluntarist, competitive free markets that classical liberal authors dreamt of). So new movements, mainly socialism, continued to push for further change, in many ways changing back away from liberal ideals to more authoritarian ones, just intending to use that authority more benevolently. But the terminology didn't keep up with that. The people pushing for more authority (to be used benevolently) still call themselves "liberals". Further confusing the issue is that in addition to the liberals who are now conservative in comparison to socialists, there are still also the old elitist authoritarians who are even more conservative - though I guess a more apt term for them would be "regressive", as they want to change many things back to how they used to be long ago. Still adding further confusion to the issue, in America at least, is that the "progressive" socialists and the "regressive" old conservatives have made enough headway by now that the people who originally called themselves "conservatives" (now more often called "libertarians"), wanting to keep this country liberal as it was founded, are now in many ways progressive, or even regressive; wanting to change things from the now-authoritarian status quo, back to the liberal way things used to be. And all of this hides the issue that both libertarians and authoritarians can be subdivided on the issue of egalitarianism (though the split between the old aristocratic authoritarians and the new socialist authoritarians hints at this).
I find that the simplest way to clear up all the confusion is to stop all the talk about progressive or conservative, as those terms are entirely time-relative and imply different things now than they did a hundred years ago, and have even less in common with what they implied two or three hundred years ago, even though the words literally *mean* the same thing in all those times (i.e. someone who is in fact [not self-labeled] conservative now holds an ideology very different from someone who was in fact conservative 100 years ago, because the status quo now is very