Brain structure differs in liberals, conservatives: study

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by meeneecat

 

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

What is this experiment, and how does it have anything to do with the OP.

Although I think I know where you are going with this...you are probably going to point out that there are differences in women's vs' men's brains...to which I say, so what?...there's plenty of research on this...Might I also add, that regression toward the mean does not account for individual difference. So if you look at the chart, you see "liberals" who score as having more activity in the right amygdala and "conservatives" with more activity in the anterior cingulate cortex. Just like there exist many women who are more logic and math oriented (contrary to the "mean") and many men that are very artistic and literary oriented (contrary to the "mean"). Thus "regression to the mean" does not account for individual variation, which is often times greater than averages...something you people might have noticed if you weren't so busy getting your panties all in a knot and turning this into a conservative vs. liberal shouting match...

Oh, but what the heck, I'll play your little "experiment game"...I was born as a woman but live as a man. Now have fun with that one.

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by soficrow

 

BTW, I just completed my own study by searching ATS with the words "soficrow" and "Fox News".

Results: Over 10 pages of hits with soficrow trashing Fox News.

But now all of the sudden they're OK because he was able to cherry pick some data from a study purporting to "prove" that liberals are somehow superior to conservatives.

Deny hypocrisy ...

Does the conclusion of this study frighten you?.... having a hard time processing the information?

i'm just playin'....

Last October we blogged about a study which suggested that, in essence, Liberals were crybabies and Conservatives were bullies. We even blogged several weeks earlier about our leeriness regarding such studies-and we’re in good company. PsychCentral’s founder, Dr. John Grohol, suggests that research studies be put to the test themselves. He discusses how and why flawed research happens.

And what is the overarching cause? Bias.

Dr. Grohol writes: ”…here’s the real troubling aspect — these kinds of biased studies appear in all sorts of journals. JAMA, NEJM and the BMJ are not immune from publishing crappy, flawed studies in medicine and psychology. We think of “respectability” of a journal as some sort of sign of a gatekeeping role — that studies appearing in the most prestigious journals must be fundamentally sound.

“But that’s simply not true. The emperor is not only naked — his subjects have hidden his clothes in order to further their own careers.”

Source

To my mind... this study is just another method driving a wedge between the US citizens on the left and right. We (Liberals and Conservatives) are basically fighting over the same ideals that caused the Civil War.

Only when we stop allowing TPTB to divide us will we ever defeat those who would oppress us.

~Peace

reply to post by soficrow


So i guess being an independent i get the best of both worlds?? I cant believe they actually said the brain is bigger in different areas. This leads the logical side to say this is BS. An area of the brain can show more activity but whoever wrote this apparently has little clue about human anatomy.

And for the other confusing part if liberal brains cant process fear why are they always the first to use it in political debates. For example there trying to take away your birth control or they want you to die because your a woman? From my perspective the left thrives on fear and continually tries to scare the public to agree with them. Another example there already starting on the debt ceiling and how it will devastate the country if it isn't raised. Well its happened before and the sky didn't fall then. Now one thing i will agree is the right does tend to focus on a goal and once they do little will change there mind. My buddy is like that once he makes a decision about something good luck changing his mind.

reply to post by meeneecat

, which is often times greater than averages...something you people might have noticed if you weren't so busy getting your panties all in a knot

i've been saying this same thing this entire time. there's no hard and fast rules, both sides exhibit lack of sound judgment, fear, paranoia, irrationality, illogic, emotion and intellectual complexity and logical, rational, thought. both sides have lateral thinkers and one track minds. both sides have disciplined people and undisciplined people.

and if you argue this point with me i'm gonna have to assume you just aren't interested in logic (even your own logic) if it supports something you disagree with.

which one is the conservative?

Originally posted by undo

i've been saying this same thing this entire time. there's no hard and fast rules, both sides exhibit lack of sound judgment, fear, paranoia, irrationality, illogic, emotion and intellectual complexity and logical, rational, thought. both sides have lateral thinkers and one track minds. both sides have disciplined people and undisciplined people.

and if you argue this point with me i'm gonna have to assume you just aren't interested in logic (even your own logic) if it supports something you disagree with.

Neither the OP nor the study said anything about "liberals" NOT exhibiting fear in order to make particular decisions, nor that any of these traits were exclusive to one side or another, to characterize as such is to completely misunderstand the point of the study. In my understanding these types of studies have found, in general, that conservatives and liberals exhibit a fear reaction towards different issues/stimuli, and as a group, the study was also able to physically observe " that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala" So again, I have not seen any of these studies say that liberals "do not" process fear or that certain traits are exclusive to one side or another, as some people on here asserted (see dragonridr's response to the OP)...I just question if you too have this point of view as, looking back at some of your comments it seems you also had this interpretation as well. (although please correct me if my interpretation is wrong)

you don't honestly believe that study do you? i mean, in your gut? for example, fear of global warming, is only one of many "fear of" issues addressed by mainstream liberals.

So, I think our understanding of this is different, and it has nothing to do with "me arguing against my own logic"...I'm simply looking at what you have said throughout this thread...For example:

the only difference between conservative and liberal people, is how they feel the money available to society, should be handled.

For me, it's not enough to simply say "they are both the same (except for money issues)" and be done with it. There IS a trend on certain reported values, there IS a trend on how the brain responds to certain stimuli, and there ARE observable physical differences in brain structure of the two groups and there IS evidence that the brain is flexible and changes over time in response to input...We both agree that it would be wrong to assume that an individual conservative or liberal has this type of brain or that, however I also feel that given the evidence gleaned from these types of studies, we can also make conclusions that certain groups of people on average DO exhibit certain trends/modes of thought that affect physical structures in the brain, that there are observable differences, and to use the words of the OP "…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". Whereas you seem to be implying that the overall trend that this study observed is incorrect/wrong (i.e. it "mischaracterizes millions of people") and is "ludicrously bigotted garbage"...and "there's no difference between conservative and liberal (except money issue)" and the study is "ludicris garbage". Thus, I think there's a difference between what you and I have been saying given a quick review of our previous comments. Again, I am only making this conclusion as per my understanding of what you said, however, if I have gotten it wrong and this is not what you are trying to say, than by all means correct me. I have no problem with people being skeptical, critical, etc...but those criticisms need to be based on proper information and an understanding of the study/conclusions, if they are simply based on a mischaracterization, than they mean nothing...and you can't have a healthy debate. If you believe the study is biased or "ludicrous garbage", please tell me why you believe this, and give specific verifiable reasons so people can see where you are basing your conclusions from. (for example, I would like to know if the results are statistically significant, why did they use a sample size of 90, what was the p-value, etc.)

Originally posted by meeneecat
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.

No political trolling, I was merely suggesting an alternate way of looking at the issue. I do not personally trust that those findings are valid. It suggests that belief determines brain size which may have some basis in fact but also suggests what you need to believe if you wanna have a larger brain. This latter is where the data errs imo. It's analogous to mind control.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
No political trolling, I was merely suggesting an alternate way of looking at the issue.

Point taken, I see what you are saying here.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix I do not personally trust that those findings are valid. It suggests that belief determines brain size which may have some basis in fact but also suggests what you need to believe if you wanna have a larger brain. This latter is where the data errs imo. It's analogous to mind control.

I always agree that it's good to be critical and to question things, especially looking into how the study was funded, the methodology and so on. However, my problem with what a lot of people are saying is that they are dismissing the study based on a mischaracterization of what it is actually trying to say. For example I noted in my last post that some people have asserted that the study is claiming that liberals do not exhibit any fear processing (see dragonridr's comment to the OP), which, in fact, it never stated, just that more activity was shown in certain parts of the brain among one group than the other, but that both groups in fact exhibit varying degrees of each trait. So with regard to your above comment, again the study was never saying that a particular ideology was associated with a "larger brain"...but that certain ideologies have greater activity in one particular section of the brain while another ideology has greater activity in a differing sector of the brain ["greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala"]. As the OP already noted, the study did not say that one section of the brain was better than the other, just that there were differences. I have no problem with criticisms, and people being skeptical, in fact I think it's a very good thing, however I do take issue when people make conclusions that are based on a mischaracterization or misunderstanding of what the OP said.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

It's analogous to mind control.

BINGO!

And not just analogous - it's ALL about mind control - that's exactly what it's about.

In medicine, neuroscience is about healing; in industry, neuroscience is about mind control - called neuromarketing, it's about applying neuroscience in marketing and advertising for the purpose of controlling peoples' minds and behavior. That's the goal, stated clearly, explicitly and right out front.

Please - do read my earlier posts which explain neuromarketing principles - and here is a brief profile of the neuromarketing industry.

FKF Applied Research is a high-tech, next generation business intelligence firm selling functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) brain scan-based research to Fortune 500 clients. …FKF is fundamentally changing the way corporations market to consumers.

Advertising, Social Media, and Neuroscience – Marketing by the Numbers: …social media marketing has strong effects on consumers’ subconscious minds and can even effectively boost purchase intent. …With the widespread use of smartphones, the new iPad, and more gadgets undoubtedly coming soon to make it easier to access the Internet than ever, social media marketing is like the Wild West with few rules…

Neurotise offers neuromarketing research services for corporate clients

emsense: Our products apply neuroscience and other bio-sensory measures according to standard market research practices.

NeuroFocus clients include Fortune 100 companies across multiple categories, including automotive, consumer packaged goods, food and beverage, financial services, Internet, retail, and many more sectors. Entertainment category clients include major companies in the broadcast, cable television, and motion picture industries. The Nielsen Company is a strategic investor in NeuroFocus.

Sands Research Inc. is recognized as one of the leading providers and innovators in the growing field of neuromarketing services. The Company has offices, labs and partners around the world and offers a unique service to its clients and the advertising community.

...I do not personally trust that those findings are valid. It suggests that belief determines brain size which may have some basis in fact but also suggests what you need to believe if you wanna have a larger brain.

No - that's not what it says. This study's authors specify that "It remains unclear whether the structural differences cause the divergence in political views, or are the effect of them." However, medical neuroscience research shows clearly that the parts of the brain that are "exercised" do grow bigger, and the parts that are not tend to atrophy.

FYI - Applied neuroscience for neuromarketing is hot because it's NOT a "soft science" like psychology. The results are concrete and verifiable.


reply to post by meeneecat


EXCELLENT research, analysis. S& for a well-researched, reasoned and thoughtful response.

Thank you.

reply to post by meeneecat


i just read it again, and that's what i see there. here's a few examples:

Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear, said the study on Thursday in Current Biology.

People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.

i have only been in one fight in my life over the age of 14, and i was at the age of 16, with a friend of mine (i'm female and so was she, and it was more like a cat fight than anything else). i don't worship guns, i avoid horror movies, and dislike real war or real violence.

i don't mind competition and enjoy a good debate, but really don't appreciate or have good emotional reactions to being called an idiot, a fear monger or a bigot. i'm reactive to negative slants put on being female and not particularly fond of unfair negative slants put on my religion, race, or nation. i don't like unfair characterizations of entire groups of people, and this study appears to be doing just that.

Well, it seems I cannot make an account on the website for some reason. If someone would be willingto post this on their website in the source, it would be greatly appreciated. I do believe that this article is nonsense by the way. Every single person is different, and no study can be unbiased. It is impossible to achieve in my opinion.

Here is what I would like you to post if you would be so kind (FYI, if this is against the rules, then a moderator can delete this and the words above this, but keep the paragraphs below.


Another pointless, idiotic news article about republicans and democrats, or conservatives and liberals. FYI, both groups are one and the same!! Their policies and ideologies change all the time.

America needs to wake up. You have been scammed. The REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS are TERRIBLE. They both believe in the same "core principles". Whether you want to believe it or not, it is true. Neither side helps our once-beloved country, hell, not even the Independents are doing anything to help us.

Notice that one issue is brought to your attention and it is touted as the 'biggest thing since the 19xx's? Hmm. Then, all of a sudden after 6-25 days of news coverage, it is suddenly dropped by all News Stations. Usually never brought up again. That includes Fox, CNN and every single one of them. The only news you can rely on is your local news.

You need to WAKE UP to the SCAM! Your entire life is a scam. Who prints your money that you use everyday? Don't say that your government prints it, because the US GOVERNMENT HAS NOT BEEN IN CONTROL OF THEIR OWN CURRENCY SINCE 1911! That's right. The "Federal Reserve" has the sole right to coin our money. Who owns the "Federal Reserve" you may ask? It's definitely not our government, as the Federal Reserve is run by a group of PRIVATE BANKERS. Hmmm. Think about it.

Oh my gosh. Look at all the other government waste we have. Our Annual Budget is in the trillions, yet when our government is asked to cut down on the spending they can't even cut out 50 BILLION DOLLARS!?! Every social program we have in place has a good cause, but it is not on a course for America to continue to be a superpower. I am deeply sorry. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security need to get rid of very soon.
I WILL PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO THAT, so that we can safely unimplement that. The solution is that anyone who is currently age 35 or younger, will not get Social Security. The cut-off date would be the last day of the year this law is implemented. If you are 36 you receive it. Really, even at age 36, you are not saving for retirement at all. The average person is just spending.
You can take care of the elderly. Civilization has done that for thousands of years, and Mexico has the right solution to that problem. A lot of the world does actually. Many 'civilized' countries have lost this. Keep the elderly in your own house. Family should be important, not just that person you see every once in a while.

Wake up to the scam America, you are in over your heads. The trillions that are spent, you have no freaking clue where any of it is going. And it's for 'your safety'? Is it safer to know the truth than to be ignorant? Even Harry Potter is a good example that knowing the truth is always better!

A good site to visit to give you more than just the 'conservative or liberal view' is abovetopsecret. Google it. You will also get big news before any big corporation tells you about it. About three days before.

Please America.

Please America.

Please America, we need to get our jobs back. We need to get our intelligence back. We need to get our money back, our people back, our industry back....

Many many many people will disagree with me, but we need to get rid of the two-party system. Both parties are slowly destroying our country. Many of the founders of our country, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson believed that , 'A SPLIT AMERICA, IS A DESTROYED AMERICA'. Many founders have comments similar to that (though none in those exact words). The founders were referring to the two factions that were splitting out at the time, namely the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Our founders were smart enough to realize that. How to destroy a country is to destroy it from within. With the divide that is in America, I am surprised that we are still as civilized as we are. I pray that we will never come to another bloody war such as the civil war, but it very well might come to pass in the future.

Vote on your beliefs. If you have absolutely no beliefs on anything, then please do not vote. If every American were to vote in what they believed in, instead of saying 'well this guys gonna win' or 'don't vote for that guy, he doesn't have a chance'.

You need to wake up People of the United States of America. Your childrens' lives may depend upon it.

reply to post by dan25dan25

Another pointless, idiotic news article about republicans and democrats, or conservatives and liberals.

Nope. ...Another red herring.

Fundamentally, the study is about mind control. The article reports on one of the latest concrete and verifiable studies done for applied neuroscience, also known as neuromarketing. The purpose of the study is to determine how best to manipulate people.


reply to post by undo

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by meeneecat

 

i just read it again, and that's what i see there. here's a few examples:

Liberals have more gray matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear, said the study on Thursday in Current Biology.

Everyone's decision-making is fear-driven, according to current principles. This study simply seeks to provide more specifics and detail regarding identified markets, with the goal of targeting manipulations.

It's about applied neuroscience - the goal is to manipulate people more effectively. ...NOBODY is saying one part of the brain is "better" than another - just that groups are identifiably different, and you need to manipulate each group differently.

Your focus is just another red herring.

Example:

People with a large amygdala are "more sensitive to disgust" and tend to "respond to threatening situations with more aggression than do liberals and are more sensitive to threatening facial expressions," the study said.

i have only been in one fight in my life over the age of 14, and i was at the age of 16, with a friend of mine (i'm female and so was she, and it was more like a cat fight than anything else). i don't worship guns, i avoid horror movies, and dislike real war or real violence. ...i don't mind competition and enjoy a good debate, but really don't appreciate or have good emotional reactions to being called an idiot, a fear monger or a bigot.

Completely irrelevant. Not to mention self-contradictory, given that you've spent the entire thread insisting you're a "democrat" - which was never relevant either.

i don't like unfair characterizations of entire groups of people, and this study appears to be doing just that.

It's just business - not a conspiracy. And fyi - life ain't fair.

This study illustrates the current state and interests of applied neuroscience, also known as neuromarketing - which is business. In business, marketing is about "taking over the market" not about being "fair."

Applied neuroscience is the next stem cell debate... But you seem quite intent on preventing this thread from moving toward any kind of general understanding that might evolve into an informed discussion on bioethics and neuromarketing. Why is that?

"The real question is how comfortable we are learning as much as we are likely to learn about the brain," says Jonathan Moreno, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia Health System, "and whether the kind of interventions people will be able to do to get us to think differently are interventions society is comfortable with. If you think the stem cell controversy was hot, you haven’t seen nothing yet."

reply to post by soficrow

And fyi - life ain't fair.

interesting. that wasn't the tune you were whistling when i provided
you with all that data about female infanticide.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by soficrow

 

And fyi - life ain't fair.

interesting. that wasn't the tune you were whistling when i provided
you with all that data about female infanticide.

I spend half my time on this Board ranting about the unfairness and injustice in the world - but I have NO recollection of discussing female infanticide.

Back to the topic, applied neuroscience AKA neuromarketing AKA mind control:

This study illustrates the current state and interests of applied neuroscience, also known as neuromarketing - which is business. In business, marketing is about "taking over the market" not about being "fair."

Applied neuroscience is the next stem cell debate... But you seem quite intent on preventing this thread from moving toward any kind of general understanding that might evolve into an informed discussion on bioethics and neuromarketing. Why is that?

"The real question is how comfortable we are learning as much as we are likely to learn about the brain," says Jonathan Moreno, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Virginia Health System, "and whether the kind of interventions people will be able to do to get us to think differently are interventions society is comfortable with. If you think the stem cell controversy was hot, you haven’t seen nothing yet."

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
"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.

How about liberals being intellectuals and conservatives being pragmatic realists.

My response to this study has been mixed. I think a lot of people are looking at it wrong. The way I look at it is not that liberals are better, assuming the study is correct, but that they conceptualize everything. It's kind of like a dangerous man enters your home and the liberal watches as the robber pulls a gun. The liberal says, "Interesting. I'm curious. This is just like the studies say. It was reported in a comprehensive 1976 study that robbers who carry guns are more likely to use them if the home owner....." Bank robber proceeds to hit the liberal over the head and rob the home. Anyway, this is how i've always seen liberals. I'm kind of biased.

Another example... A conservative sees a lake with warm water. Quickly surveys it for any obvious trouble and then jumps in for a relaxing swim. A liberal walks up to the shore, looks at the lake, and wonders what might be in the lake. He starts to reflect on his studies from school to try to understand it. He thinks there will be mostly small fish and perhaps a couple big ones. 20 minutes later he's still sitting there thinking about a research paper that showed how swimming exercises the entire body and boosts cardiovascular health, except that he disagreed with a few pieces in the paper and is wrestling with it in his mind.

Meanwhile, the conservative is enjoying his swim and remembering yesterdays work. He's thinking about his wife. He's thinking about the project that's due next week and how he'll finish it. He sees the liberal on the shore and wonders why he's not swimming on this beautiful day. The water is pleasant. He stops swimming for a moment and waves at the man, beckoning him to come on in. The man doesn't notice. He supposes the man is distracted. To each his own.

The liberal is now thinking about what the weather will be like in the next few days. He wants to take his son fishing because he's been so busy lately and his son has wanted to fish for the past 5 years. He feels real bad about not being there enough for him. The weather models show there's a 40% chance for rain. He begins to think about the different models they use and whether the jet stream could buckle and come down.

"Having a rest!? The water looks great!" His wife runs to the shore and tests the water. She smiles and then goes deeper and asks him why he's not out there.

"I'll be there in just a minute." His wife is always like this.

reply to post by jonnywhite

My response to this study has been mixed. I think a lot of people are looking at it wrong.

So do I !

...I trust my gut reactions. In neuroscience terms, that's called "emotion-based decision-making."

So knowing that the advertising and marketing industry took neuroscience away from medicine - for what is best called mind control - is cause for concern.

This study is going into their mind control database. They already know that almost everyones' decision-making is almost always "emotion-based" - and now they know even more about how to tweak tour reactions. We should all pay attention.

Think self-defense.

reply to post by soficrow


i realize what you are saying, and that it is backed up by science, but that's not a certain indicator it is accurately portraying real people.

p.s. the female infanticide discussion started in your interesting
thread on the I CHING and ended in my thread about star gates.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by soficrow

 

i realize what you are saying, and that it is backed up by science, but that's not a certain indicator it is accurately portraying real people.

The thing is, it DOES describe real people - and likely enough real people accurately enough to make social media manipulation more effective than it is already, if not full out mind control. So that's the real issue to be investigated and discussed here, imho - the very real dangers of using neuroscience for commercial purposes.

...Most ATS members probably do NOT fit neatly into confined boxes - I know I don't - although I'm not sure about you. [Kidding. ] ...But mavericks like us aren't the norm, and studies like this get added to the general database because they apply often enough to be well worth the money and effort.


Re:

p.s. the female infanticide discussion started in your interesting
thread on the I CHING and ended in my thread about star gates.

...Now I have to check back! Wait - before I waste my time, is it worth looking for?

reply to post by soficrow


okay this is about the extent of it, from what i can tell:

1. conservative ads might be aimed more so on subjects like family, security like life insurance, money savings and safe investments.

2. liberal ads might be aimed more so on subjects like environmental issues, the horrors of war, minority issues

but even those are a non starter, as a conservative is just as likely to be interested in the environment, just as likely to dislike war, and just as likely to be interested in the rights of minorities (we aren't talking about the policy makers, we're talking about the public at large, being targetted).

same for liberals. i'm sure they are also interested in their families, in end of life issues like life insurance, social security and safe investments.

in essence, all that study has done is take all the negatives about being human, and apply them strictly to one political stance. and all the positives, and apply them to the other political stance. nothing is EVER that black and white

...Now I have to check back! Wait - before I waste my time, is it worth looking for?

depends i guess if you're interested in re-reading the data. what happened was, you went from your I CHING thread to my star gate thread, where i provided a really long post of links, on the subject of female infanticide (as a result of what we were discussing in your thread. i think it was slightly off topic at that point, though marginally related).

was thinking maybe I CHING was an atomic model.