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.'"
Re:Just In! (Score:1, Interesting)
Does their study show why Conservatives want to blame all their problems on Mexicans or why Liberals are a bunch of pansies that want to back out of a war we need to win and can win? Or maybe they can say why neither conservatives or liberals are really open to a real discussion about much of anything - they all would rather spout off about their idealology rather than actually working together to study issues and come up with real solutions.
To me the study just seems to indicate that Conservatives are dyslexic. As if we didn't already know that Bush had some sort of speech disorder. Doh.
Re:This is very good news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just In! (Score:5, Interesting)
I also wonder just what they mean by "Conservative". Ron Paul is the candidate that has made the most sense to me so far, and most consider him FAR right... course most of those people don't know the different between conservative and libertarian, but still.
Re:Just In! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know where to begin... (Score:2, Interesting)
Fine submissions like these cause me to wonder if perhaps the recent upswing in anti-kdawson sentiment isn't entirely unjustified...
The headline and summary was so priceless that I just had to read TFA. I assumed that TFS had as usual grossly mischaracterized TFA. This was, however, not the case (yay L.A. Times!). The thing that jumped out at me was that this study was conducted on a bunch of college students (i.e. undergrads looking for extra credit in intro psych classes) at UCLA and NYU. If you consider the percentage of liberal students at UCLA, I wonder if there might not be just a tad of selection bias inherent here...not to mention the libertarian objection that the political spectrum is poorly characterized in a linear fashion.
Although I couldn't find the original paper, this other article [chicagotribune.com] (no registration with google referrer) was more informative, quoting someone who actually was connected with the study, and another psych professor who points out that this study (of 43 students) might not be the pinnacle of statistical rigor.
On the other hand, I guess we can feel fully justified in drawing conclusions about conservatives students NYU and UCLA ;). I know that my own alma mater can count Ann Coulter, for one, amongst the 15 or so of its alumni who were strongly republican as undergrads...Ironically, this study will probably promote its own conclusion, though, when Prof. Amodio becomes the core of a republican talking point on the apparent liberal bias of America's university faculties.
Re:This is very good news (Score:3, Interesting)
False... because liberal/conservative is self-selecting. So it is completley different than the studies you cite because it doesn't mean one causes the other, just that they correlate.
What's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is very good news (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmmmmmm?
Re:Just In! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Experimental design (Score:3, Interesting)
The certainity is that 50% +- 20% will answer the way this report is saying.
However that this scientific report got published and as much newspaper coverage as it is and will be getting certainly indicates that it is possible.
Re:Could age be a factor? (Score:5, Interesting)
In this vein of reasoning (thanks for digging the groove for me to glide along so easily), it means conservatives read about something (study, presidency, war), and think, "man, I'd be good at that!" then get there, and they get explained what they have to do, and about 3 minutes into it, they start doing a poor job, even though they committed to it and they're getting paid. They think things like, "boy, this is hard work!" and "you can't be expected to be accurate all the time."
For example. Think before you troll. I'm not even really into the liberal/conservative social split we have going in our culture. But as another posted pointed out, Conservatives seem to be pretty good at reconciling being a gay-bashing homosexual. Yes, there are things that are detestable about liberals, but we've got the neo-cons, the page-fucker, the anonymous gay sex guy, and my republican acquaintances are completely steadfast in their support of 'their' people, even when they can provide zero reason.
A great rationalization I've heard goes something like this:
Guy 1: Do you agree with Bush's policies?
Republican voter: I agree with his morals
Guy 1: Yes, but what about his policies?
Republican voter: I believe he's a very moral man.
I shit you not, a real conversation I've overheard. This goes far from condemning all republicans, but I've heard things in exactly the same spirit that are exactly as shocking from lots and lots of people.
Again, think before you troll, please. You upset me.
Re:It's maths. (Score:3, Interesting)
here is a hint, talk to a democrat in NC. Now go talk to a democrat in california. see how many divisive issues they agree on.
but wait, they both voted democrat so they must be the same, right??
Re:Just In! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm Canadian. I remember Degaule's "Vive le Quebec Libre" speech in Quebec City. I'm very familiar with their behaviour during WWII, and their behaviour since then. I remember their obstructionism in NATO during the cold war. As far as I'm concerned, the French don't get half the ridicule that they deserve.
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't let the fact that the article was pointing out differences between liberals and conservatives mean that one is better than the other. While I, as a liberal, prefer being open to new ideas, sometimes you can be so open to ideas that you can be led over a cliff.
Re:Muslims would disagree. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:liberals (Score:3, Interesting)
Your conclusion that urbanized people have a "greater comfort level with shifting responsibility/authority to the government" is another thing that doesn't jibe with my experience. Urban areas do tend to be more liberal - and in any major city there is much, MUCH more diversity and individuality than in rural (or suburban) settings. I would argue that people in cities are *less* likely to be comfortable with the idea of shifting authority to government.
Just look at the current political situation - on which side of the political spectrum is this administration, which has done more to grab government authority than almost any other administration in history? Can you imagine a liberal president saying he/she has the right to lock someone up indefinitely just because they say so? Can you think of anything that is more "government authority" than that level of autocratic control over someone's personal liberty?
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:5, Interesting)
See here for some examples [slate.com]
Aaron Z
Re:Why?! (Score:5, Interesting)
My whole life I've had jingoist assholes hate me because I was not born where they were born. I've had redneck racist assholes stutter with confusion when they discover that just because I am white doesn't mean I am 'from around here' and share their racism.
I've spent my whole life trying to learn languages of where I am living and I've got to tell you languages aren't my thing I'm no good at any of the ones I speak. I've then had racists hate me because I spoke English with accent different from their accent... and they can barely speak ONE language.
Both my girlfriend and my daughter have had racists hassle them based on skin colour and accent in the US and not in Europe.
You have a whole branch of your family gone? That doesn't does make you special, that makes you average... well over half of members of my family who were living in the 30's were killed either during WWII or shortly after and you don't hear me using as an excuse to hate.
You say "the gov't wants me to let go of my culture and my country to a bunch of pricks that can't even follow the simplest of laws to get into the country!" This is the height of racist BS. No immigrant wants you let go your 'culture' (such that it is) they want to rid you of your hate. The US government does not want people to abandon culture or country affiliation, they have simply forbad you commit crimes motivated by the hate you have. People like you make me glad I took my family and my money to Europe.
Age doesn't matter much - context does (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but depending on the college, the prevailing political opinion may be heavily slanted towards one side. That would certainly skew the results, as people who couln't make their minds for themselves would be answering with locally "righteous" ideology, and cases of those who did not cave in would be more extreme (either because they felt strongly about their options, or because they stuck to their choice out of being stubborn). My wild guess is: predominantly liberal college, few conservatives to choose from, most happened to be headstrong.
Repeat the experiment with a different distribution to check for this bias, or quiz people on their political views instead of allowing them to tick a box.
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, thats the scary part.
Re:Not very liberal minded of you (Score:2, Interesting)
Though, I will admit that sticking with stupid failed strategies is also bad. We really need someone who has values AND the ability to learn from mistakes.
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just In! (Score:2, Interesting)
He was referring to pre-Reagan days. Now Democrats themselves get bent out of shape over 6% unemployment as everybody "knows" it should be sub-4%. Guess why? It wasn't just because Reagan "meant well, at least".
Re:Why?! (Score:3, Interesting)
1.) There are no simple answers.
2.) I honestly don't know the best way to handle people who are already here. It might work to simultaneously make the immigration process easier and then require illegal immigrants to go through it if they want to stay. Or something along those lines.
3.) By "hard situations", we're not talking about war-torn refugees, we're talking about lower standards of living. Depending on how low...possibly, yes.
4.) That their desire to bypass the system is understandable doesn't mean eliminating the system is the best thing. I sympathize with a poor man who steals food to improve his hungry family's situation, but my solution is not to make it effectively legal to do so--my solution is to ensure there are better ways for him to help his family. (And yes, to exercise discernment and mercy in the punishment.)
Sticking with a lie is easy (Score:3, Interesting)
Take the Bush tax cuts for example. He wanted the tax cuts, and he wanted them slanted to favor the very rich. We know that much, if only because that's exactly what he got. But his position (lie) was (depending on the day):
. We're running huge surpluses far into the future. In that light, it's immoral to collect so much in taxes.
. We're in a recession, only tax cuts for will save the economy. (and only the *same* tax cuts for the rich that happen to be the least efficient at fighting a recession)
. I'm giving a few hundred dollars in cuts to lots of middle class families, so most of my tax cuts go to middle class families. (even though in total dollars most of the money goes to the top few percent by a huge margin)
. Taxes on dividends amount to immoral double-taxation (even though Corporations take enough deductions to never pay taxes on the money).
. Repealing the inheritance tax will save family farms that would otherwise be lost.
On any given day, Bush's position was for tax cuts. But his rationale was all over the map. Likewise, his rationale for invading Iraq was all over the map (i.e. he was lying). The only difference is the *real* rationale isn't quite (oil?) as obvious (oil?) when it comes to (oil?) Iraq.
I was listening to Bill Kristol the other day explaining how invading Iraq was *still* the right thing to do, because the sanctions were going to come off. What the interviewer neglected to ask him was "who was pushing for the sanctions to come off and why"? I never heard anybody publicly call for that, but I'll bet some big Oil patch donors wanted it. So what Bill really meant was Republican beneficiaries of Oil interests were unable to resist their benefactors' requests to remove the sanctions, so we needed to go to war to destroy the regime so it was safe to remove the sanctions.
A good point (Score:2, Interesting)
There are racial and social class drivers of political ideology as well... there's a number of potential problems with this test.