Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by mc_squared
Also - sorry, but I gotta go here. It's just so fitting for this topic:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e88f92b87a9.jpg[/atsimg]

one picture = threadkill.
nice reference

reply to post by aching_knuckles


it's not hard. i have some connections based on fear, i have some connections based on innovation. and so does pretty much everybody else. this article is designed to say, it's split right down the middle. it's not.

I'm sure taxpayer money went to this nonsense....

reply to post by SaturnFX


then to determine whether your theory is right you need to flip it around and gauge how you would respond, were the article to state that as a liberal, you were functioning from a less than ideal state, complete with scientific documentation to back it up. be honest. consider your reaction. then you would know whether my response was one of fear or one of disagreement.

I think this is an interesting study, but I disagree with the conclusions drawn. The author of a similar study in 2007 cautioned against making any sweeping judgments based on this.

Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.

www.latimes.com...

People are different, so it's reasonable to expect people to be neurologically different. That doesn't make people better than one another in my opinion. I am what most would probably label "extremely liberal" (although I don't adhere to the left/right paradigm personally; I loathe such divisive labels) but I do not see people labeled as conservative as my adversaries or as inferior to my own way of thinking.

We're all people and we all have value in my opinion.

For those who did not read my OP, please, do: "Does this make sense to everyone?" Please note that the study itself presented no extrapolations or judgments, and that my OP didn't either - just opened the topic for discussion.

…When I found this article, 4 facts came immediately to mind:

1. The brain is incredibly plastic - meaning it changes physically - "nurture" overrides "nature" and vice versa, throughout our lives (very cool stuff imho);

2. Dementia causes brain damage that affects everything from complex thought to simple movement - BUT - the effects of real physical degeneration can be overcome (waayyy more cool imho);

3. As early as 2005, Neuro-Marketing companies promised to influence our choices by changing the physical structure of our brains - and I wondered how far commercial neuroscience had progressed (I haven't been tracking it);

4. Like most young people today, the study participants likely grew up on a steady diet of media exposure, and I wondered how that might be affecting brain development, both positively and negatively (I suspect there are some very positive effects).

…Had I remembered how studies like this are twisted to justify Eugenics Policies, I may not have posted it.

…If I had remembered that so many people go straight to knee-jerk reactions without reading or informing themselves or thinking and analyzing - I may not have posted (I always expect "too much" of people - which is why I'm not a politician, btw).

SO,

For those of you who think knowledge is dangerous - and who believe thoughtful analysis and discussion are rightly reserved for the very elite - I remain a fool. I still believe most people get round to thoughtful discussion after a good vent.

One more time…

…the brain does change physically - the physical features of our brains DO affect how we think, and the way we think DOES affect how our brains develop and change physically. ...Very interesting chicken/egg stuff.

...The brain and brain plasticity are really hot research topics in medicine because of the dementia pandemic, so more is learned and documented almost daily.

Of note: Evidence shows that disciplined, focused thinking can over-ride the very real physical changes and degeneration that occur with dementia, and prevent many aspects of the disease from becoming manifest. ...So no, our brains' physical attributes do not necessarily or always determine or limit our possibilities and potentials.

At the same time, there is a reason developmental psychologists used to think that we were stuck with the 'brainpower' we had by the time we hit the age of seven. ...It's the same reason sensais, gurus and mystical leaders tend to hit people upside the head one way or the other - to open mental windows and doors. Works, imho.

Which brings me back to media exposure and the fact that this study's participants were all young. ...I think it's possible that constant random media exposure opens a HUGE variety of different 'windows,' allowing the creation of multiple neural pathways.


WORTH REPEATING:

Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by soficrow

 

…As for the issue of neuroplasticity and neuro-marketing. Yup, completely agree - I mean this is why words like "brainwashing" or "deprogramming" are in our lexicon right? The thing is though I think our brains are highly malleable but easily become very hard-wired as well. …

Originally posted by Bluebelle
If you're up on your neuroscience, you'll know that its a rapidly evolving field and any studies that come out should not be taken as gospel. … At the end of the day the brain is ridiculously complex and we're really only at the beginning of understanding how it actually works.

As for the advertising side, it can have an influence on you whether you're listening/watching it or not. ...

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Perhaps put another way: Liberals' brains are SMALLER in the area that processes "fear"...

Or maybe another way to define "fear" would be "The ability to recognize threats to one's safety and liberty, and the potential consequences of those threats, and the ability to take action to negate the threat."

…It's all in the spin, people.

Originally posted by Tharsis
I'd have to say I experience right-wingers speaking out of fear more than left. I don't think this means they are more fearful.

I'd also have to say that I've found left-wingers seeking deeper, more complex answers to societies ills, but I don't think they are more capable of complex thought.

The study seems to glean the trends of political leanings, but not an end-all personality test like you find in bars for a quarter.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
...this isn't saying conservatives are retarded, its saying that there are measurable differences in the brain that make the person function and focus on different aspects.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

reply to post by DaWhiz

reply to post by jonnywhite

reply to post by trailertrash

reply to post by undo

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

…

reply to post by gandhi

…What needs to stop is uninformed, blind knee-jerk reacting based on assumptions.

reply to post by 46ACE

reply to post by Cuervo

reply to post by jennybee35

reply to post by ACTS 2:38

reply to post by duality90

reply to post by ownbestenemy

reply to post by jaxnmarko

reply to post by civilchallenger

reply to post by brewing

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

reply to post by kroms33

reply to post by 46ACE

reply to post by jonnywhite

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

reply to post by JakeLeMaster

reply to post by psyop911

reply to post by Hoopinator

reply to post by KDM_Souljah

reply to post by SunnyDee

reply to post by bigrex

…Great reference, analysis.

reply to post by Wademus

reply to post by Gorman91

…thoughtful response - but actually, it does seem to work both ways.
reply to post by Sphota

reply to post by Reflection

S&

reply to post by Reflection

reply to post by Pappie54

reply to post by Misoir

reply to post by AwakeinNM

reply to post by Bluebelle

reply to post by SaturnFX

reply to post by HarmonicNights

reply to post by SpectreDC

reply to post by woghd

reply to post by General.Lee

reply to post by AceWombat04


reminds me of a video i saw about the black sea flood, in which a professor at oxford had 2 geologists, determine if they could discover corroborating evidence between the black sea flood, the atrahasis epic, the flood tablet of the epic of gilgamesh and the biblical flood. one was a very straight foward thinker, who kept his eye on the target until he had completed each section of the inquiry. the other was a lateral thinker, who was "oozing all over the place," which made him really good at innovative thinking, but terrible at seeing a subject thru to its conclusion. together they were a great team.

if the test picked up on those kinds of differences, it would also have to factor in: state, age, gender, sexual orientation, type of education, religion, medical history and income bracket. it would also benefit from knowledge of dietary habits, reading habits and circle of influence.

So let me get this straight.

This entire study is based on the [color=gold]confessions of the participants.
They [color=gold]confess if they are conservative or liberal, and the results are interpreted.

I thought science was against religion.
Since when is a self applied label an objective fact.
Cause the participants aren't even allowed to confess facts.
Why didn't they study the regions of the brain based on bank account instead.

Cause it wouldn't fit the agenda of the people who funded this study?


David Grouchy

reply to post by undo


Hey - lost the link to your post I wanted to answer. ...busy all day, came online to find pages of posts, spent too much time creating a generic response above. Now, need to go, feed animals.

...Have yet to ask important questions:

Who funded this study? Why? To what end?

Obviously for political purpose? To better design political advertising? (Know your market principle?)

...back later. Thanks for all your contributions.

ED to add:

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Please see above

reply to post by undo


Yeah, see, that's how I feel about it. I believe that between a varied enough group of thinkers, people could achieve virtually anything. It saddens me that people are always so divided along ideological lines, because those ideological differences probably denote differences in thinking and processing information which, in unison, could be very powerful. United we stand... but alas.

reply to post by soficrow


What about us independents and libertarians that are middle ground? Some of us may be socially liberal, and fiscally conservative, or vice versa. I find that this study is associated with increased bovine fecal matter volume. What a way to enhance the division of the American people, come up with a BS study to suggest that one group of wingnuts is biologically different than the other. It's alot easier to hate somebody you see as less human than yourself. This study goes nicely with the staged threat of a government shutdown, revolving around the divisive, hot button social issue that is abortion. The people of this country are fed up with the two party scam. They are desperately trying to divert our attention to each other, as usual.

reply to post by 27jd


Please see above.

...busy all day, came online to find pages of posts, now, need to go, feed animals.

...Have yet to ask important questions:

Who funded this study? Why? To what end?

Obviously for political purpose? To better design political advertising? (Know your market principle?)

Originally posted by soficrow
...busy all day, came online to find pages of posts, now, need to go, feed animals.

I know how that goes, with 3 cats, 2 dogs, and an emperor scorpion. They never stop eating.

I wasn't really directing my rant towards you directly, just the study. It was attached to your OP so that's why I replied to it.

Obviously for political purpose?

That's my thoughts on it. The two party scam is like professional wrestling, everything is scripted, and their policies are ultimately the same. The only difference is hot button, social and ideological differences, but all are for show. That's why you'll find so called conservative politicians who turn out to be gay, and so called liberal politicians that own guns, etc. We're all a little bit of both, but the career politicians in Washington need us to be focused on each other, or else we'll all see plain as day that they're corrupt swindlers who are helping their corporate handlers rob us all blind, while taking their cut. We already see it, but we're still so easily distracted that we quickly forget about it and worry about our neighbors' personal lives.

reply to post by AceWombat04


i don't think they denote differences in thinking to the degree the op's article suggests.
liberals and conservatives both have issues that are fear based and both have issues that
are innovative, lateral thinking. the only really big difference between the two positions is
who should have ultimate control of the money.

reply to post by undo


Yeah, I don't believe we can draw such broad conclusions about people's thinking. It makes sense that there be differences, but not to the sweeping degree suggested in my opinion. When we boil it down, there's more in common than not. I just think that different strategies and tendencies when combined (as in the research team you mentioned) allow for more adaptability and a more robust ability to cope with various contingencies. Which is why I wish both "sides" were more united than they are.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
It makes sense to me, and also makes me a bit sad. If this is determined to be an absolute fact, then there is no "talking sense" to a conservative considering they simply cannot think that way...its a wiring issue, not a intellect issue, and since they are wired to fear more than understand, then its all but pointless to even try.

So, what is the solution? Clearly there is a evolutionary divide here. the fear part of the brain helped us not become food for other animals, and allowed for civilization to seed and take place due to fearing neighbors and therefore set up strong defenses...

however, the complexity part of the brain they lack is the factor in progressing us beyond feudal mindsets and dark age mentality...it will be the thing that ensures space colonization and continuing the species...

a bit of fear is needed still, but gray matter is much more relevant and necessary for the long term survival of our planet and species...

Are you so sure? I'm not. I don't think we can derive that much from this. While it has added to my understanding, it hasn't proven anything, empirically.

Besides, we live in a very complex world and our brain is also complex. The sum total of all of this is more than just what is in our brain. Evolution has created something that's a synergy. We cannot judge it by simply looking at the brain. For example, if it's true that liberals can think about complexity easier and conservatives can identify threats better, perhaps this is what nature wants. We shouldn't toy with it. Should not play god.

Furthermore, what exactly is the complex thought that's boosted in this study in a liberals brain? It doesn't look to me like this study says these differences are permanent. It just says there's a relationship, but it doesn't really tell us anything more. Right now I almost wish I hadn't read this thread because the conclusions we can get from it are incomplete and all this has appeared to do is cause people to get angry at each other. That's not constructive in my mind.

FAct of the matter is I haven't even read the study in detail. I'm just reading a bunch of posts here and the linked article and nothing more. I am a jackass for even posting here.

Don't get me wrong. I like to think about things. But this is asking for trouble. Like a leaky pipe.

I haven't been able to read All the replies on this thread, and I apologize for that.

But I am driven by the urge to ask how so many saw in this and interpretation that put liberals in a better light than conservatives??

I do not see that! I found this interesting because I often write about my observation that there seems to be two "styles" of thinking, on each end we find the most extremes, and of course some in the middle with a balance of both. But the balanced ones seem to be in the minority (or perhaps they just make themselves less obvious and heard?)

I constantly percieve these styles to be associated with specific sides of an issue of politics, etc.

The difference seems to be in a tendancy to separate and contrast, and a tendancy towards integration of opposites.
That translates also into self awareness and social awareness. It also indicates a different way of responding to the world, one which simplies and separates for quicker response, one which analyzes complexities in order to integrate ideas together. Resulting in a more delayed response.


So this study and it's findings make sense to me! I think the interpretation might be more fluid than it sounds-
processing of fear may only be determined according to observations of physical reaction... which (if my hypothesis is valid) would mean the quicker reactions would be flight/fight, which are more commonly recognized as fear motivated reactions. But many people respond to a percieved threat with an integration type of response... and fear can be just as much a motivator! Going towards the percieved threat with the intention of bonding with it, understanding it is the way some people respond to fear, and breaking things down to understand their complexities (as to facilitate comprehension and integration) .

In my mind, BOTH these ways of thinking are a way of processing fear! They are different ways, and they are both valuable!
We NEED people who keep it simple and react fast, in some circumstances. We also need people who take a moment to think first and come up with a compromise.

I wouldn't at all see the results of this study as saying anything bad about either side. And I am not sure we are naturally more or the other, but it could be something we develop and nurture into being so.

reply to post by 27jd

AND
reply to post by Bluesma

Originally posted by Bluesma

...I am driven by the urge to ask how so many saw in this and interpretation that put liberals in a better light than conservatives??

I do not see that!

Neither do I.

...A study doesn't happen unless someone is willing to pay for it. So the question is:

Who would find this information most useful?

I'd say campaign managers, and the advertising and marketing companies who are creating election ads and promo. ...The more information an agency has about their "market," the better they can target said market. And new age marketing and advertising is all about neuroscience.

imho - the take home message here is:

Pay attention to how you're being played. And expect cross-over campaigns designed to capture the swing vote.



PS. Information is not harmful - although what can be done with it might be. Those who react emotionally to information that makes them uncomfortable, and simply deny its validity, lose nothing but their own personal power. And the opportunity to expand their insight.

reply to post by soficrow

Those who react emotionally to information that makes them uncomfortable, and simply deny its validity, lose nothing but their own personal power. And the opportunity to expand their insight.

how does one lose personal power simply by disagreeing with an obviously bigotry laden article, stereotyping people along party lines? i've heard this whole "repubs are reptilians" thing a few times too. in fact, i've heard all manner of insults, meant to dehumanize people, based on their personal stance on religion, race, gender, financial bracket, education, and on and on we go. do you not recognize more of the same, when you see it?

I swore I wouldn't repost here, but damnit. I am reading Sphere by Michael Crichton.

Page 168:

Norman noticed the energy with which they threw themselves into this discussion, pushing aside the tragedy so recently witnessed. They're intellectuals, he thought, and their characteristic defense is intellectualization. Talk. Ideas. Abstractions. Concepts. It was a way of getting distance from the feelings of sadness and fear and being trapped. Norman understood the impulse: he wanted to get away from those feelings himself.

Normanl is a psychologist in the book. Of course, since I have been making a few posts in this thread for the past few days, I immediately thought of it after reading this passag. Preceding this point was the death of Edmunds. This was the tragedy referenced in the above quote.

I've noticed Michael Crichton repeats his characters from one book to another. Malcolm/Harry (practical, calculating, intellectual, distrustful, talkative) and Levine/Ted/Hammond (aloof, intellectual, talkative, impulsive) type characters. It's like Crichton is taking a stab at scientific authority or something. He definitely has a chip on his shoulder about something.