Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study

Originally posted by undo
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

I'd like to know where in any of my previous comments that I said this.
Putting words in my mouth, hmm?
Speechless.

reply to post by soficrow


I saw on a scientists website him saying it is a "Proven fact" that liberal people are smarter therefore you should vote for Obama for re-election. I wonder if he based that on this information.

I think this study is BS. If you search the people who did the study you may find they have some liberal ties and fudged the results - would not surprise me with 2112 coming up.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
reply to post by soficrow

 

I saw on a scientists website him saying it is a "Proven fact" that liberal people are smarter therefore you should vote for Obama for re-election. I wonder if he based that on this information.

I think this study is BS. If you search the people who did the study you may find they have some liberal ties and fudged the results - would not surprise me with 2112 coming up.

Instead of issuing a blanket statement about how the study is "BS" I wish these people would offer some actual evidence and proof...instead of just saying stuff like "they are probably a bunch of liberals and therefor fudged the results". In contrast, the OP has provided plenty of resources and links to back up what he/she has been saying throughout this thread. Again, it's interesting how most people here have seemed to totally miss the point and lessons of this research...instead many people here only offer an "emotional" response to what they are reading (i.e. the scientists are probably all a bunch of liberals and therefor they probably manipulated the results) as opposed to rationally analyzing the data and being able to respond to some of the legitimate issues the OP has brought up.

By the way, JohnPhoenix, I would like to see this supposed "website" that allegedly says "It's a proven 'fact' that liberals are smarter therefor you should vote for Obama in 2012".

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by undo
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

I'd like to know where in any of my previous comments that I said this.
Putting words in my mouth, hmm?
Speechless.

do you agree with the op-ed? if you do, that's what it's saying. that a conservative's brain is identified by the location of neural connections! that's like saying, the tendency to slovenly behavior is identified by a lazy gene, and our political opponents, possess this gene in abundance, and here's a medical study to prove it.

it's flippin' dangerous

Originally posted by Stratus9
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

edit on 10-4-2011 by Stratus9 because: (no reason given)

This article is a fraud. Notice the phrase ", and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress ".

This is psychological word games. they introduce 3 things together and have you associate them with each other. Then your mind lumps those with their view below it.. It's set up to make you believe you cannot separate the 3, liberalism, diversity, and progress.

Thats BS. It says to you, if your a liberal you also support diversity and progress. Or if you support diversity you also support progress and liberalism or if you support Progress you also support diversity and liberalism.

It leave no room for thinking that you can be conservative and still support diversity and progress and so on - it implies the only one who can support any real progress is a liberal.

You have to watch everything a psychologist writes and how he says things - he's the expert on word play - he knows how to manipulate the masses. This is nothing but pure BS manipulation.

reply to post by meeneecat


i have only ever voted democrat, so you can put that strawman back in the barnyard. i view these kinds of studies and what people tend to do with them, as politically and socially destructive, and potentially, genocidal. i realize it's cloaked the thing in a slant regarding preprogrammed markets. but i have yet to see anyone address the oodles of paranoid, fear based rants that come from the left as freely as the right. does this mean when liberals are in "fear mode" that they do so in a more complex way ? i mean, where's the ownership of their humanity? are they claiming they are above such petty things even while taking part in them or encouraging them, or even hinting around at ways to pretend they don't have the problem at all, and it's just that guy over there who does?

Originally posted by meeneecat

By the way, JohnPhoenix, I would like to see this supposed "website" that allegedly says "It's a proven 'fact' that liberals are smarter therefor you should vote for Obama in 2012".

edit on 11-4-2011 by meeneecat because: because

edit on 11-4-2011 by meeneecat because: add to

On this page: globalfreeenergy.info...

You find this link and title for this link:

For objective scientific reasons why to vote for Obama see the graphs and scientific data at globalfreeenergy.info...

This is what that link says.

Most academic scientists are Liberals. Definitely no offense intended to anyone, but it's a known fact that the average Liberal has a higher IQ. One of many examples is the most notable and perhaps intelligent scientist in the world, Stephen Hawking's, is a Liberal.
~~~~~~~~~~

So in effect: "It's a proven 'fact' that liberals are smarter therefor you should vote for Obama in 2012" is exactly what this guy is saying.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


tsk tsk, john john john. there you go being fear based again. this is a ready made, one size fits all, bigotted hit piece, meant to silence and if possible, completely ostracize half the country.

it's a shameful thing, really.

with the OP's assertion...the ideal partnership would be of a liberal with a conservative...both would be able to verbalize the direction needed for any situation...using common sense, and reason, combined with critical thinking, both approaches would be analyzed and discussed by the two of them, reaching a conclusion best suited for the survival of both.

Originally posted by jimmyx
with the OP's assertion...the ideal partnership would be of a liberal with a conservative...both would be able to verbalize the direction needed for any situation...using common sense, and reason, combined with critical thinking, both approaches would be analyzed and discussed by the two of them, reaching a conclusion best suited for the survival of both.

but that's not what the article is saying, and no amount of
sugar coating is going to change that.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


and the defense rests.
globalfreeenergy.info...

holey rusted metal batman.

Of course the brain structure would differ between right-wingers and left-wingers.

Round and round the mulberry bush...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Of course the brain structure would differ between right-wingers and left-wingers.

Round and round the mulberry bush...

no it doesn't differ! oh my gosh! liberals have just as many fear issues with the planet as conservatives.
the only difference is, the op-ed is trying to make it sound like it's only a problem for conservatives. it's like
having on variable rose colored glasses, where you only see the good in people who agree with you, but everyone else is an inferior species.

Originally posted by undo
no it doesn't differ! oh my gosh! liberals have just as many fear issues with the planet as conservatives.
the only difference is, the op-ed is trying to make it sound like it's only a problem for conservatives. it's like
having on variable rose colored glasses, where you only see the good in people who agree with you, but everyone else is an inferior species.

Round and round the mulberry bush...

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by meeneecat

 

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?

I actually haven't been looking into these types of issues in quite awhile...so I appreciate you posting it...I have definitely learned quite a bit, and it also does confirm many of the suspicions I have always had. I too wonder about the deniers...as you pointed out, the technology and know-how is out there...we can study this stuff in a laboratory...as you said, what was missing in the past has been a delivery system, which we now currently have in the form of digital media and social networking...so it seems perfectly plausible that these techniques are being employed in our everyday lives...so, maybe it's just a case of people not being able to realize what is right under their noses.

Either way, the implications it has for voting and politics is, I have to admit, kinda scary...you motivated me to do some more research, and I learned that this was a new and fast growing trend.

"What would happen in this country if corporate marketers and political consultants could literally peer inside our brains, and chart the neural activity that leads to our selections in the supermarket and the voting booth?" asked Gary Ruskin, the group's executive director, in a letter to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

"What if they then could trigger this neural activity by various means, so as to modify our behavior to serve their own ends?"

Source

I noticed in the article that you posted before that both Democrats and Republicans develop these sort of emotional responses to their favored candidate, which in turn activates the reward center in their brains. When each are showed a non-preferred candidate, it activates the fear/anxiety center...meaning to a large degree, all these responses are "irrational".

Research suggests that political beliefs appear to trigger the same malleable circuits of reward, identity, desire and threat....Iacoboni found that people watching their favored candidate responded with a surge of activity in the reward circuits of the brain.

So given that that these circuits are "malleable" and can be changed over time...the same techniques that marketers use to, say, to get you to by Prada, could also, be used to get you to have favorable emotions towards candidate X (and thus make it more likely that you will vote for said candidate).... And again, another conclusion that we can make is that political decisions are not "rational", explaining why a lot of people do vote against their own economic interests. It also partially explains why the typical "attack ad" that relies mostly on emotional appeals instead of rational ideas and facts can be so successful. A simple google search seems to suggest that neuro-marketing is already being studied in politics, even if it might be still in it's infancy as far as actual application.

“We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning,” said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. “What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts.”

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

The Neuroscience of Political Marketing

If anything, just being aware that neuro-marketing is being employed, should make us more aware of the emotional appeals used in advertising and maybe lead to people making more rational decisions whether it be about politics or corporate products.

I also learned that back in the 2008 election political neuro-marketing was an emerging field and there was a handful of startups that were pitching their services to various campaigns, including EmSense Corp., TargetPoint, & Lucid Systems...which is partly covered in this 2007 WSJ article "Reading the Mind of Body Politic"

The goal is to deploy the same techniques currently used to track the way consumers respond to cars, perfume, videogames, Web browsers and movie trailers. The information the researchers gather could help candidates make any number of adjustments, including which issues to discuss in which states, what specific terms to use in stump speeches and what cadence or facial expressions to use when delivering them. "Political marketing is a fairly pure analog to commercial marketing," says David Remer, chairman of Lucid Systems. "I'm looking at a package of shampoo the same way I'm looking at my next leader."

I would certainly like to think that people are more "rational" when it comes to choosing candidates than they are when buying shampoo...but the more and more I read about this...the more and more I see how "irrational" people can be and therefor more likely it is that this can be taken advantage of by politicians and political parties employing the same neuro-marketing techniques that are applied to products. But it seems that, according to the article, we can expect more of these corporate marketing techniques to cross over into politics, with a special emphasis on data being collected by examining participants brain activity.

Since 1969, according to the American Association of Political Consultants, the number of consultants has risen from a handful to more than 1,500. As their ranks have grown, their methods have become more sophisticated and data-driven. In the 1980s, focus groups became popular, as did "dial groups" where participants register their reactions to candidates with electronic dials. The most cited innovation in 2004 was microtargeting, a strategy borrowed from corporate marketing firms that involves tailoring specific messages to individual households based on their consumer profiles -- what magazines they subscribe to or the brands of cars they buy.

In recent years, advances in brain-scanning technology have allowed researchers to identify areas of the brain involved in political beliefs and in some cases, to conclude that political views and behaviors are hard-wired. A recent study conducted by New York University psychology professor David Amodio, which was published this September in the journal Nature Neuroscience, tracked electrical fluctuations in the brains of 43 self-identified liberals and conservatives while they performed a simple cognitive task. The results suggested liberals were better than conservatives at adapting their behavior to new circumstances....Another recent study by a pair of Princeton psychologists found that when test subjects are asked to choose between two unfamiliar candidates based solely on how competent they look, the results can predict the election outcome with 70% accuracy.

Again, thanks for posting all the links...I've certainly learned a lot that I wasn't previously aware of...One of the great things about ATS...and I very much appreciate it when people provide well thought out analysis backed up by extensive source material, such as what you have done.

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

Will look forward to reading it when you do. thanks.

reply to post by undo


What gets me is this guy ( from the website I posted) is supposed to be a scientist. Objective. Yet he uses things like lists of scientists who are liberal like Hawkings and list of rich people who are liberals to make his point. That's not objective or scientific at all.

He doesn't tell you of the brilliant scientists who are conservative or the rich people who are conservatives.

Hawkings is all washed up in my opinion and way over rated anyway.

As soon as I read those things I exited his site and told myself I wasn't going back to look at his free energy info because with science like that his theories must be flawed.

reply to post by meeneecat

What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion

alrighty then. let's do a little experiment.
what gender are you? come on now, let's be fair. i'ts only logical.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by meeneecat

Originally posted by undo
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

I'd like to know where in any of my previous comments that I said this.
Putting words in my mouth, hmm?
Speechless.

do you agree with the op-ed? if you do, that's what it's saying.that a conservative's brain is identified by the location of neural connections!

Um, no, actually it's not it's not what it's saying. I don't see anything, anywhere in either the OP or my comments about, to quote you: "a person's decision to want to keep more of their money, makes them fear-based ? " or that "a conservative's brain is identified by the location of neural connections!"...But again, I guess that won't stop most of the people here from mischaracterizing what the OP is talking about, and, totally missing the point.

Originally posted by undo that's like saying, the tendency to slovenly behavior is identified by a lazy gene, and our political opponents, possess this gene in abundance, and here's a medical study to prove it.

it's flippin' dangerous

First of all genetics and brain structure are two totally different things and comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. And yes, I am having a very nice conversation with the OP about many of the issues that he/she has brought up without resorting to making blanket ill-founded statements about conservatives and liberals, as most people have resorted to doing here. Have you found the part of my comment where I supposedly said "a person's decision to want to keep more of their money, makes them fear-based ? "

Ignorance "it's flippin' dangerous"

"So Conservatives' brains focus on processing fear, while Liberals are into understanding complexity. "

There may be some truth to this - however I would characterise it as liberals being dreamers, utopians etc - whilst conservatives are based in reality and more pragmatic.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


All that link shows is that the guy is a partisan hack. He doesn't offer any sources for his claim of I.Q. and he certainly doesn't reference the study that the OP is talking about.

All I wanted to do was to check on your claim which was "I wonder if he based that on this information. " (i.e. the study that the OP refers to)...Which now I know that he did not base it on this study, so, the two have nothing to do with each other, so I wonder why you even mention it in the first place other than political trolling, as this guy's website has nothing to do with anything that the OP says, you go on to say:

"I think this study is BS. If you search the people who did the study you may find they have some liberal ties and fudged the results - would not surprise me with 2112 coming up. "

Again, if you are going to make this assertion that they "fudged the results", please back up what you are saying...Otherwise, just like the website that you posted above, it's just some biased partisan opinion of yours...no better than the liberal you refer to. All this shows to me is that there are partisan hacks on both sides.