Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study

Originally posted by AceWombat04
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.

edit on 4/9/2011 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)

But, you see, all of this arguing is what unites us. I get angry at partisan politics too. I've condemned it several times. But might this partisan politics be precisely what's needed to unite us? Perhaps we have always been fighting each other and without the fighting we would be divided. So it's the opposite of what we would expect. We would expect an undivided nation to never argue with itself. Maybe argument is a sign that our differing citizens are trying to find a balance. I happen to think that a country of independents would not be any better than a country of conservatives and/or liberals. Maybe we're all in this together and maybe argument on capital hill is a sign of a united country. Maybe we need extremists. What you think?

I argue a divided nation means north and south, it means texas secedes and becomes its own nation. We're not divided. If we were, I'd have my own @#^^!!# nation to rule.

Maybe our own brain is arguing with itself on a daily bases we just only see the results.

Originally posted by undo
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.

Seems to me, the article suggests a underdeveloped sense of fear in liberals...this could lead to overlooking disaster planning and other things like that.

Frankly, I see people as not being just one or the other...I have no doubt that conservatives tend to think more with fear than complexity..but to say they only think with fear and libs only think complex would be incredibly oversimplifying.

Nature or nurture is a interesting debate...garbage in, garbage out..and if you program yourself over years with garbage, there are changes to how your neural pathways form and reform. I, being a liberal and very comfortable with my thinking pattern, have no desire to change my way of thinking, nor do I think there is issue with it, however, I do understand that my thinking alone and my view alone would not make a perfect world.

I imagine a con also is typically happy with their worldview and way of thinking, and a thoughtful con will also recognise their vision alone is not a solution but an equal disaster..the answer of complexity and fear to attain security and progress both is typically equal parts (not equal across the board, but more of one in some areas, and more of the other in other areas)

That is not the only study that has affirmed this difference. Here is one based on psychology and brain patterning and subconscious determinism that shows the same result:

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN?

We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Study Article

reply to post by SaturnFX

Seems to me, the article suggests a underdeveloped sense of fear in liberals...this could lead to overlooking disaster planning and other things like that.

"Fear" actually exacerbates poor planning and contributes to the breakdown of systems.

Being able to consider all options under all circumstances leads to solid planning.

Fear is a linear thought process. One track mind, so to speak. It can't handle complex situations or logically track events all the way through, from initial cause to fallout.

reply to post by SaturnFX


i dunno, if libs were not just as fearful as any other sector of the populace, how do you explain 300 companies removing advertisement from the glenn beck show? how do you explain the rush to judgment to blame sarah palin for that fellow who shot up a bunch of people in arizona? or the aftermath of which, ended up with them suggesting people not use words like "target"? or the countless threads written about how george bush was going to take over the world as the next hitler? or any millions (perhaps billions) of other paranoid laden rants about anything to do with white people or conservative politicians (or in many cases, americans in general)? i'm sorry but if you can't see how that article is slanted for the express purpose of trying to ostracize and alienate people based on their political leaning, then you got your head in a place where the sun don't shine.

reply to post by Stratus9


i did not post that quote of yours. correct it so that the right poster is listed, then i can see who said it in the first place.

reply to post by Stratus9


the really vicious message behind that article is, that it first suggests ever-so-surreptiously, that conservative mindset=nazis. then it suggests that fear of the other side, is only a problem for conservatives, while simultaneously, trying it's hardest to mischaracterize all conservative people as the epitome of those evil nazis. and it doesn't just say it's a political leaning, it's now trying to say it's GENETIC!

for the record, i have only ever voted for a democrat, never a republican.
so don't go thinking that i'm all miss conservative up-in-there. what i am, however,
is sick and tired of being told that anyone who IS one or the other is automatically
the worst thing to walk on god's green earth.

p.s. does anyone know why neoconservatives are considered trotsky followers?
that's got me stumped.

reply to post by undo

Originally posted by undo
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?

The study does NOT say the anterior cingulate cortex is in any way better than the amygdala.

What it does do is provide a blueprint for manipulating conservatives and liberals.

Focusing on political profiling as equivalent to racial profiling instead of consumer profiling only seems on point - and fails to address the very real manipulation that already occurs based on the brain function profiles.

Dismissing this study as "insulting bigotry" overlooks the fact that it provides the basis for evidently accurate "political profiling" parallel to "consumer profiling" - and prevents people from noticing and deflecting the manipulations based on the profile.

...Unless that's the outcome you want, you need to back up a bit and take a larger view.

Respectfully,
sofi

reply to post by soficrow


no, what it does is mischaracterize millions of people. punches you in the arm and then asks you why you flinch the next time, if you're not fearful. suggests having an opinion in which you disagree and use examples, is auto-fear mode. it's ludicrously bigotted garbage.

Sounds like the Soviet Union scientists saying that if people didn't love Stalin, ``science`` proved that there was something wrong with their brain and they needed to be put in the gulags.

I bet the scientists who came up with that study could do a study where it ``proves`` that those who hate both parties are anti-social/possible terrorists.

Seriously when you start using ``science`` to prove that you're right politically, mass internment of dissidents is not far ahead.

reply to post by undo

AND
reply to post by Vitchilo

Originally posted by Vitchilo

…when you start using ``science`` to prove that you're right politically, mass internment of dissidents is not far ahead.

Profiling is a standard marketing tool - one used to develop campaigns for marketing political and economic policies, not just consumer products. Unlike offender profiling, industrial political and consumer profiling is not about identifying "right and wrong" or "superior and inferior" - it's done to provide a blueprint for manipulating consumers and voters, be they conservative or liberal.

This study gives us specific insights into political profiling based on neuroscience. And it tells us exactly what buttons are going to be pushed, where, and how by the campaign managers, advertisers, promo people and marketing mavins. …In the industrial context, neuroscience is a profiling and marketing tool, used with demographic studies that track peoples' Internet surfing to create individual and group profiles.

A good primer on political and consumer profiling is davespanners' thread: Want to know who really monitors your internet activity? It provides a basic overview of how the Internet is used for individual profiling.




I am not dismissing the dangers of profiling - we've already seen the damaging effects of offender and racial profiling. So yes, there is a potential for this and other consumer-voter profiles to be used as a rationale for Eugenics Policies. But the fact is, studies like this do equip marketers with viable profiles that are used to manipulate people and market political/economic policies - a situation that is far, far more dangerous in my opinion, much more concrete, and immediate. I recommend ignoring the Chihuahua yapping at your heels and instead, blocking the Doberman going for your throat.

So basically what I have seen is those who identify as "conservative" on this thread expressing that the study is and attack on conservatives and is also bs by pointing out how liberals don't understand economics and devise social programs that destroy society among other things...and those who would identify as "liberal" saying that there more to the study than left vs. right, the point being that brains change; input/output, and that more can be gleaned from the study if we can just get past the various political tribalism.

Yup, I guess that sums it up pretty well.

reply to post by meeneecat


I have a professional background in marketing and advertising - are you just dismissing my expertise? Blowing me off as politically motivated? Completely oblivious to the perlak Ik viskama ennen varke?

Humph.

reply to post by soficrow


won't do them alot of good then, since liberals and conservatives are virtually the same, and the only really big difference is how the money is spent (with occassional sticky points, like the abortion issue).

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by meeneecat

 

I have a professional background in marketing and advertising - are you just dismissing my expertise? Blowing me off as politically motivated? Completely oblivious to the perlak Ik viskama ennen varke?

Humph.

edit on 10/4/11 by soficrow because: wd

I got my BS (lol) in marketing! I also did a double in art, (go figure) and later got a master's in education. So probably because I know how these industries function and all the "tricks" that they use, I would not be surprised to learn that advertising/TV/media was having the effect of changing our brain structures. Nor would I be surprised to learn that the industry was aware of it and actively funding research into the topic. Have you seen the documentary "Consuming Kids"? It covers some of this stuff...but basically TV, advertising, consumption, works on the pleasure - reward system in our brains...it's definitely a conditioned response that we are reacting to, and definitely has a lot to do with how our brains have been "trained" to respond to certain products...and by targeting children, they are making sure that they create a lifelong & loyal consumer base. There are some studies that have been done, I think, that purport to show structural changes in our brains as a response to media...lowering of attention span for example.

Anyway, I do think the study has merit, it is an interesting example of how the structure of our brains is influenced by our values (or vice versa)...So yeah, it's a little frustrating to see people automatically assume it's an attack piece and therefor "complete BS". It's just my opinion that I don't think the article was saying either amygdala functioning or anterior cingulate cortex functioning is "better" than the other...rather that these were just differences that can be physically observed and that they have a correlation with certain values (and again, as the article stated, it's hard to tell which influenced which, brain structure --> values /or/ values --->brain structure).

reply to post by meeneecat


wait, do you really believe, a person's decision to want to
keep more of their money, makes them fear-based ?

speechless

reply to post by meeneecat

...I would not be surprised to learn that advertising/TV/media was having the effect of changing our brain structures. Nor would I be surprised to learn that the industry was aware of it and actively funding research into the topic.

It's old news actually - dates back to 2003-05 - this new study just gives us a glimpse into current research and applications. Don't know about you, but I am really starting to wonder about the deniers. What are they trying to hide? ...The key is called "Relationship Marketing" btw, and relies on 'social networks.'

...the Institute of Direct Marketing's Annual Lecture was delivered not by a marketing figure but by neuroscientist and author Baroness Susan Greenfield, ...(who) astutely linked her area of expertise, brain development, with the way technology is rapidly changing the way we gather and absorb information. ...Specifically, she looked at the roots of creativity in the brain, where an abnormally small neuronal network triggers larger ones both in itself and others. ...Her main premise was that we are becoming "People of the Screen" ...and therefore brain development, is driven more and more by (screen) experience...


Researchers scan for insight into how marketing may brand the brain's preference for products and politicians. ...They seek to understand the cellular sweetness of rewards and the biology of brand consciousness. In the process, they are gleaning hints as to how our synapses might be manipulated to boost sales, generate fads or even win votes for political candidates. ...a consulting organization called the BrightHouse Neurostrategies Group launched the first neuromarketing company in 2002, promising in a news release "to unlock the consumer mind." The company, whose clients include the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Home Depot, Hitachi and Georgia-Pacific, has conducted experiments with neuroscientists at Emory University in an effort to understand product preferences. ...Justine Meaux, the company's director of research, said BrightHouse helped businesses apply neuroscience to marketing, brand development and product innovation.

Reiman also has changed the name of the division of the company conducting the research to BrightHouse Neurostrategies Group from the original name of BrightHouse Institute for Thought Sciences.

The technology to play with the brain has existed for decades - what's been missing is a reliable mass media delivery system. Most of the techniques seem to rely on some kind of calibrated flickering, which was easily lost in airway broadcasts. Digital technology took care of that problem, quite neatly. Here is an old patent, granted in 1976: Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves.

Neuro-marketing's goal is to get us to do what corporations want us to do. There is no denying it. The Brighthouse Institute for Thought Sciences explained neuro-marketing's goal to the CBC in 2002.

The Brighthouse Institute for Thought Sciences claims it's closing the gap between business and science - with the goal of getting us to behave the way corporations want us to.

[RATS - looks like I lost my link about altering brain structure. Will get back to you.]

reply to post by soficrow


i personally believe it's possible to grow NEW neurons (not replace existing ones), for new data storage, that will contain whatever the climate is like, politically, socially and financially, if that climate appears to have changed dramatically.. this is why there is virtually no difference between a liberal and a conservative, as both sides are so busy trying to get their fellows on the finger pointing bandwagon, that the other side is bad because of ____________ (fill in the blank).

this carries along with it, all the mischaracterizations, slanted polls, op-eds that would've shocked most people, just a decade ago, fear mongering liberal and fear mongering conservative, and on and on. to state otherwise is not doing the study any justice, since most of us are well read enough and old enough to recognize the political climate has taken a serious nose dive into embarrasingly prejudice territory.