Red Brain, Blue Brain: Republicans and Democrats Process Risk Differently, Research Finds

Originally posted by FrankieNinja

Come on! Really? Only for the sake of not having a one line reply; I find this thread, shall we say, entertaining? Answer me this... Why is it that we must ultra analyze every single aspect of our existence? You can spend your entire lifetime seeking the answers to questions no one asks and by the time you realize it, your life is gone.

Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican... Big deal! We ARE human. Most of us anyway

Live a little!

What else is there to do that is: 1) fun, 2) educational and 3) cheap???

I'm always amazed at some of the responses in thread - ones that have nothing to do with the original topic... at how many threads devolve into name calling...

Oh, and I learn to turn the other cheek and practise not getting sucked into the name calling myself - though some are so good at baiting that I can't help myself. I've a long way to go.

I learn what to say and what not to say and how to say it. I practise focusing on facts and ideas not people and conjecture.

What can I say - it's fun waiting to see how this will be twisted into --- well something derogatory about my character, intelligence or immortal soul.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Just call it like I see it bro! I aint tryin to be mean I think you should think about what you are saying. There is a good chance you will not be in a bad car wreck, but does that mean you should drive without a seatbelt or text or read while you drive. It is ignorant at best to just assume flowers and lolly pops is all that the future holds. Honestly do you drive like you are immortal? I think that speaks to the test results more than anything else.

I don't think you're stupid, just young and inexperienced probably! Death will find you friend, and it would be a real shame if you could have prevented the untimely death of yourself or a loved one. It aint all peaches my man! Let me say that one more time, IT AINT ALL PEACHES! Real monsters lurk in this land of ours. I guarantee you have unknowingly bumped shoulders with a few.

In the real world you will bury your parents and many you love. If you live long enough you will see everyone you know die. Life is so short and so precious. It is a horrible waste not to protect yourself! It is even more horrible to deny others the right to do so. The real difference is that death has not touched you yet, yes yet...

I don't know if anyone has said this yet but who funded this research? If you fund research you hold the rights to what ever you find its basically yours, So the question should be was this research conducted by republicans or liberals? Also there have been studies that show biased results like studies conducted for Monsanto. Always always see who funded it first before jumping

Another "study" that proves people who think a certain way are somehow inferior to the target group.

Why even post crap like this? All it does is polarize two groups of people. If you indentify yourself as Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, chances are YOU are the idiot.

Why do people insist on living in this false left-right paradigm. Criminals are criminals regardless of which political party the represent.

reply to post by Nicks87

Another "study" that proves people who think a certain way are somehow inferior to the target group.

I dont think so. You may as well word it as republicans being individualist and democrats being conformists. This study proves nothing about which way is better.

Originally posted by Nicks87
Another "study" that proves people who think a certain way are somehow inferior to the target group.

I am truly sorry that you see it this way. The study just says that the two worldviews (Red and Blue for simplicity) use different parts of the brain when taking risks. There is no implication of one being better than the other.

I was the one who infered that a Blue mindset, might and I repeat might, be the direction that evolution is going in. I didn't say that one was more useful then the other - both have their places.

The study is interesting and validated my limited experience. The responses to this thread have added to my body of experience and for that, I thank you.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Nicks87

 

Another "study" that proves people who think a certain way are somehow inferior to the target group.

I dont think so. You may as well word it as republicans being individualist and democrats being conformists. This study proves nothing about which way is better.

How one words something is very important and how you have worded your statement is very biased.

I think you would have been more persausive had you said "...republicans being individualist and democrats being more collectivist...". Stating that democrats are conformists clearly show bias as the connotation of the word in this usage is degroatory.

Also a sprectrum of individuality would run from Invidiual (separate, single, self-contained) in the Extreme to Collective (or corporate, socialist, group) in the Extreme.

I could state the same opinion but with a bias towards the Blue mindset by say:

...republicans being Narcissictic and democrats being Supportive....

Your opinion is valid - but your judgement is inelegant.

reply to post by Xaphan


Neuroplasticity

Neuroplasticity (from neural - pertaining to the nerves and/or brain and plastic - moldable or changeable in structure), also known as brain plasticity, refers to changes in neural pathways and synapses which are due to changes in behavior, environment and neural processes, as well as changes resulting from bodily injury.[1] Neuroplasticity has replaced the formerly-held position that the brain is a physiologically static organ, and explores how - and in which ways - the brain changes throughout life.[2]

The brain can change its structure based on its behaviour and environment. Isn't that a wonderful thing.
en.wikipedia.org...

I think you would have to differentiate between women and men as well for this research to mean anything. A larger sample as well. I have been both Democrat and Republican in my life. I guess i would be considered purple. All in all it appears to be more of a money grabbing research project to me. Why we spend a dime on crap like this is obvious. Political favor payback.

Originally posted by Nicks87
Another "study" that proves people who think a certain way are somehow inferior to the target group.

Why even post crap like this? All it does is polarize two groups of people. If you indentify yourself as Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, chances are YOU are the idiot.

Why do people insist on living in this false left-right paradigm. Criminals are criminals regardless of which political party the represent.

Because to transend the dualistic paradigm you must first understand it and really see where it is useful and where it is not. Because you must understand how this perspective came about, physically, mentally, spiritually.

Looking at duads as ends of a sprectrum of traits and seeing how no one and nothing is either one extreme or the other but somewhere inbetween is a very good beginning.

I agree that life can't be viewed in Black or White, Good or Bad, Right or Wrong, Either or Or but it is hard to get to the Schrodinger Position of Both and for this old lady it has taken a life time of conscience effort.

Knowing something intellectually is entirely different from perceiving and living that way.

You own statement:

Why do people insist on living in this false left-right paradigm.

... shows a lack of ability to hold two extremes in mind simultaeously.

Again knowing something is true has to be backed up in practise.

Originally posted by spqrenki
It's a simple question of do you support the constitution and the ideas that this nation was founded on or do you not. There is no red and blue, left or right, liberal or conservative. The fact is, democrats in large care absolutely nothing for this country or what she was founded on - most would be happy to see the President crowned as King. Issues like race, abortion, gay rights, etc. are more important to Liberals than things like personal liberty and justice.

Does that mean Republicans are perfect? Absolutely not. But given the choice between your average Conservative and your average Liberal? Again, do you support the constitution or are you voting simply on race and/or party?

I'm compelled to ask you why issues of race, abortion, gay rights and i'll add another one, the legalization of hemp and marijuana, do not fall under the personal freedoms and liberty category.

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
I don't know if anyone has said this yet but who funded this research? If you fund research you hold the rights to what ever you find its basically yours, So the question should be was this research conducted by republicans or liberals? Also there have been studies that show biased results like studies conducted for Monsanto. Always always see who funded it first before jumping

To answer your question here is a direct link to the research paper:

www.plosone.org...

In the Abstract it states:

Funding: Funding was provided by a Collaboratories Grant from the University of California, San Diego. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

I don't know who funds "Collaboratories Grant"s (at a guess this would be general research funds) for the University of California but on general knowledge of the University of California it tends towards conservatism.

Here is the official biography of the lead author from:

polisci.ucsd.edu...

Darren Schreiber
Assistant Professor of Political Science
Ph.D. UCLA, 2005
American Politics, Political Psychology, Complexity Theory
Professor Darren Schreiber's research centers on emergence and complexity in political systems. He studied Politics, Philosophy, and Economics as an undergraduate at Claremont McKenna College. After college he attended U.C Davis School of Law, where he focused on civil rights litigation and had his first federal jury trial at age 23. He then specialized in federal litigation at the 100 year-old law firm of Neumiller and Beardslee. Unsatisfied with the intellectual life of a lawyer, Darren moved to academia. While earning his Ph.D. in Political Science at UCLA, Darren developed an agent-based computer simulation of the formation and dynamics of political parties. His dissertation research used functional brain imaging (fMRI) to study the neural substrates of political cognition and affect. He has shown that ideological sophisticates differ from political novices in their heightened use of the posterior cingulate, a brain region associated with automatic social evaluation. His long-term objective is to integrate his agent-based models of macro political dynamics with his computational model of political cognition in individuals in order to illuminate the emergence of political ideology in mass publics. Prior to coming to UCSD, he served as Research Director at the Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research at the Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

reply to post by FyreByrd


University of California but on general knowledge of the University of California it tends towards conservatism.

You have to be joking right a California school that leans towards conservatism

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

University of California but on general knowledge of the University of California it tends towards conservatism.

You have to be joking right a California school that leans towards conservatism

Oh yes - while you may be thinking of Berkeley of the 1960's Free Speech Movement - the University is also one of the biggest defense contractors in the world and isn't keen on the free speech of it's employees. It's a very conservative organizationby it's very nature requiring huge contracts from defense, pharmaceutical, chemical, health, media, IT industries just to make ends meet and caters to those interests.

Now the California State Universities are more liberal.

The two are quite distinct systems.

Originally posted by BobbyTarass
82 people, Seriously ? When even under 1000 it'd be considered as a non-representative sample, how did they managed to even get their paper printed ?

This is plain bull#.

edit on 14-2-2013 by BobbyTarass because: (no reason given)

Correct! I looked this over carefully and cannot find this study to be either reliable nor valid. First of all, they don't even attempt to resolve for biases such as age, personality, gender, socio-economic status, chosen career field etc... There is no supported correlation analysis nor regression analysis against known personality traits.

This is nothing more than speculation, conjecture and opinion - at BEST! At worst, it is simply another lame attempt to discredit a political opponent. I think the fact that this "Study" exists at all demonstrates more about political partisans than the alleged results.

Another thing I get from this is that lets say you got a democrat and a repoublican and they're both in a casino spending thousands of dollars. On the left, the democrat is chatting with some bros and laughing and burning up $100 bills to impress the ladies. On the right, the republican is furious that he lost a poker match. That was $450!!! Goddamn! He's sweating. He knows that this is bad and that his wife will scream and shout if she finds out. But he can't stop, he's addicted to this garbage. He slithers through the crowd and finds a table and chills out with some less risky games for a while.

IMHO, the cheerful democrat is oblivious to the reality. The republican is painfully aware. But they're both addicted and helpless to stop. I think ti's better to be painfully aware of it.

BTW, I somewhat agree with the poster above me. Although I haven't researched this, I'm sure that there're some loose ends in this. I'm expressing my opinions assuming the research is sound.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
I'm sure that there're some loose ends in this. I'm expressing my opinions assuming the research is sound.

edit on 17-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

It can't be sound. 82 persons is NOT a representative sample. There is resolve for bias. There is no analysis against known personality traits. It is a hit piece - plain and simple.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I don't agree but do conced that you could infer that if you believe that "social and self awaress" is somehow related to popularity and I do not. In my experience those who tend towards what is popular are not 'aware' of their motivations nor likely to consider any social ramifications of that tendency.

I never stated, nor does the studies author, that survival instincts are no longer needed. What I infer from my reading of the work is that our suvival instrincts are, in fact, envolving into a more holistic and altrusitic form and away from the reptilian form of fight/flight.

The idea that we don't need survival instincts is as ludicrus as the idea that millenia old instincts serve us well in present society.

i never stated as such, i merely pointed out how easy it is to manipulate humans in general by appealing to their sense of group and family or through fear.

As for human survival instincts, these altruistic traits spoken of are nothing new, if anything they are what make us human and are traits shared by many lifeforms like microbes or insects. These traits are why tribes, villages, cities, entire nations and civilization itself even exists, in fact i'd argue altruism is the main reason for religious oppression, war and genocide, why we are so destructive and thoughtless in our actions.

reply to post by FyreByrd


yes, it wasn't my view that liberal hate individualism, I agree with you. I was asking where that view comes from, cause many in the thread kept repeating it.

Sorry for the late response. I just found out about the feature on this site that shows when someone replies to you.