Brain Wiring Redux

[questor]

Zythryn, thanks for your polite questions. Here are the answers:

''Is your supposition that this 'brain wiring' you refer to set at birth, or by experience? If both, about what percentage (rough guess of course).''

The genetic framework for neural wiring is set at birth. As it matures, thought processes may cause some new anastomoses with existing neurons and environmental occurrences may alter and/or add to thought perception.

But, as the individual matures, he tends to favor one hemisphere over the other. ( 40% of the voting public are liberal, 40% conservative--rough guess)

''Even if this were true, why should a 'test' be applied to people running for office? Can we not tell based on their platform? This point may deserve a thread of its own.''

As we currently elect our politicians, we know very little about how they would conduct the business of the people. Take Obama--what will he do about taxes? welfare? Iraq? Racial questions? The economy? Are we to be socialists or capitalists? Shouldn't people know? Platforms change and politicians lie. They do not keep their promises. Do you have a better way to

determine suitability for the job?

''Are you aware the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed many times in history?''

I am only concerned about the current situation.

''Finally, I don't think you can label most people as one or the other. Most have aspects of both. For example, I don't think you could label me either one (take your best shot though).''

I agree there is crossover, but the situation is true for millions. Why did 50 million people vote for Kerry and 50 million vote for Bush in the last election? As far as you are concerned, I can't tell without an analysis of your positions on issues. However, if you don't know what you are, then I would guess you are a middle of the roader with a lean to the left.

[Zythryn]

Questor, I am still trying to nail down how much you think is genetic and how much is environment. When you say 'some' does that mean 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%? Again, just roughly. I think upbringing and events that occur in society and in a persons immediate surrounding play a much larger role than you do. However I don't want to mistakenly think you are applying a small percentage if that isn't the case.

 

In general, I think you have the cart before the horse.

While 'liberals' and 'conservatives' may use different parts of their brains. This is not the Cause of their politacal slant, but the effect.

[Zythryn]

Sorry, had to move downstairs.

Now, regarding the test.

Are you suggesting that any such 'test' regarding which parts of the brain a canidate uses most would be more reliable than asking the canidate what they plan to do?

Are these brain usage patterns subject to change? If so, couldn't the canidate change their mind? I don't see any real value to such a test as it would be less acurate than simply asking the person. I don't see any way to get the 'resolution' you are looking for. I.E. do you really think a test could be created that would tell you how a canidate for senate would vote on a specific upcoming bill?

I understand the desire for humans to label people. It is generally based out of fear or insecurity. It is comforting in a way to be able to pigeonhole people. However, I think that is a political discussion, not a scientific one. If you would like to discuss this in more detail I would again suggest another thread.

[REASON]

One of the problems I've had all along with this whole concept questor is the simplistic way you attempt to categorize people politically. On the left are varying degrees of Liberals, and on the right are varying degrees of Conservatives.

 

But what is this relative to? Are we talking economics or social issues when looking at a linear left/right scale. If we are talking economics, then the left represents greater government control of the markets or Communism, and the right represents more of a free market or free trade mentality, these days referred to as Neoliberalism. If it is a social scale, the left represents Libertarianism and the right represents Authoritarianism.

 

But a person's political orientation is a combination of economic and social concerns with respect to government involvement, so simply looking at one scale that tries to denote liberals on the left and conservatives on the right is too simplistic and inadequate when attempting to identify where a person and their political "brain wiring" fall within the overall political spectrum.

 

A website I found called PoliticalCompass.org briefely describes these distinctions and provides a quick test that can be taken that can help someone see where they tend to fall on the grid below.

 

Welcome to The Political Compass™

There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher?

 

On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

 

[img=http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif]http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif[/img]

 

Based on known political statements and actions, the image below provides examples of where other famous politicians or political activists find themselves on the grid.

 

[img=http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif]http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif[/img]

I took the test on two separate occasions, and both times ended up just right of center in the Libertarian Left quadrant, which suggests on average, I prefer less government with social issues, and more government with economic issues. I was somewhat surprised because I would have expected to be closer to the center, or even slightly right of center economically. But I do believe that with the right experiences and information, my position on the grid could shift.

 

Of course the myriad of potential combinations on the socio-economic political grid are likely to produce some serious complications to any particular scientific study that is attempting to find correlations with hemispheric brain orientation.

 

For example, someone who believes in free trade and is pro-life and seeks to make all abortion illegal, on one issue favors no government control, and favors total government control on the other. I would imagine that it would be unlikely that both of these positions combined would resonate specifically with left or right brain orientation since they are diametrically opposed with regard to governmental interference. Now consider all of the other potential combinations. How could we expect that genetic variation is accounting for all of these combinations of belief systems in individuals, particularly when external influences like the media can have effects on a person's beliefs that may be contrary to their genetic wiring?

 

Generally, I think this issue is far more complicated than is addressed by any of the studies you've presented related to political genetic predispositions or hemisphereic brain orientation.

[modest]

:) ;)

[questor]

It is a complex subject, and no one knows all the answers because definitive research has not been done. As you can see on this post, more and more information is being published on the subject. In order to get proper information, proper questions must be asked. It should be clear to anyone that a certain number of people are liberal because they vote for leaders who espouse certain liberal causes. Conservatives do the same.

[Overdog]

I think there is a common notion that human behavior is partly genetics and partly the influence of environment.

 

I think this is a somewhat simplistic view of human behavior, which can lead to some misguided conclusions regarding the role genetics plays in human behavior. Some of these conclusions might even be dangerous...

 

Insead of viewing Human behavior as part nature and part nurture, as though it could be devided into percentages, a better way of thinking about it is to say that Human behavior is 100% of both, all the time.

 

This is a subtle distinction, but an important one.

 

EDIT:

This distinction is why I view studies which start with the Part Nature/Part Nurture premise and/or end with Part Nature/Part Nurture conclusions with some scepticism.

 

 

 

questor: I asked because I don't know which way you see it.

[Galapagos]

The study posted previously by questor did not appear to have any data about twins reared apart, and thusly had no way to discern sufficiently environmental from genetic differences.**

 

ScienceDirect - Personality and Individual Differences : Authoritarianism revisited: genetic and environmental influences examined in twins reared apart and together

 

ScienceDirect - Personality and Individual Differences : Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the Wilson–Patterson conservatism scale: a reared-apart twins study of social attitudes

 

I couldn't find either of these for free, but the abstracts are quite interesting. These are two of several citations given by Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature: http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0142003344/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF supporting his claim that "Liberal and conservative political attitudes are largely, though far from completely , heritable. When identical twins who were separated at birth are tested in adulthood, their political attitudes turn out to be similar, with a correlation coefficient of .62(on a scale from -1 to +1)."

 

 

*edit- to be clear I'm not endorsing any of questors claims about hemispheres or anything else here.

[questor]

Twins may have very similar morphological neural pathways, but identical twins are not truly identical. A better study would be to test 500 people professing to be liberal with electrical scanning devices and do the same for 500 professed conservatives. Electrodes would reveal the locus of brain activity when certain questions are posed.

[Galapagos]

Twins may have very similar morphological neural pathways, but identical twins are not truly identical. A better study would be to test 500 people professing to be liberal with electrical scanning devices and do the same for 500 professed conservatives. Electrodes would reveal the locus of brain activity when certain questions are posed.

 

What makes you think that these propensities would be discernible in brain scans? What kind of scans and what kind of devices?

How is polling random people who share no genes at all a better system of determining the heritability of traits/behavior/temperament than twin studies(both fraternal & identical; raised together & apart)

 

Also, how are identical twins not identical in the sense relevant to behavioral genetics?

 

Here is a good explanation of twin studies, linkage determining, and behavioral genetics, in case anyone is unfamiliar with the methods:

Pure Pedantry : On Genetic Heritability

[REASON]

Obviously, my last post made absolutely no impression on you.

 

In your world it's simply the Conservatives vs the Liberals.

 

The Rights vs the Wrongs. The Star Belly Sneeches vs the Plain Belly Sneeches.

 

(Of course, then there's the moderates, or centerists, or the ones on the fence. They are are essentially Liberals that won't admit it, because any true Conservatives would know they are right without having to think about it)

 

 

Alright, questor, let's do a little thought experiment. Want to play?

 

Let's say that at 11:36 PM this evening, an international team of illustrious Neurologists release the results of a 30 year study of the relationship of genetic brain chemistry and political persuation, that concludes that all people can be categorized as either Liberal or Conservative by whether they favor their left or right hemispheres when processing information, and that this favoritism of hemispheres is a genetically heritable trait. Thus revealing that genetics is directly responsible for whether a person will be Liberal or Conservative (whatever that means).

 

In fact, the results are so clear, that an Obstetrician could take a blood sample from an unborn fetus, and acurately tell the awaiting parents that they will be giving birth to a Liberal.

 

Now what?

 

What would you suggest that we do with that information?

[questor]

I would suggest they immediately call in a conservative psychiatrist to see if he could straighten the kid out before he runs for president.

[REASON]

I would suggest they immediately call in a conservative psychiatrist to see if he could straighten the kid out before he runs for president.

 

I see. So do you think a "conservative psychiatrist" could affect what has been established as a genetic characteristic? Do you think some sort of prescription drugs might do the trick? Do you condone drugging people to make them conservative?

 

Would you really vote for a drug induced conservative?

[questor]

Reason, let me say this to you. If certain traits are necessary or beneficial for a national office holder, and these traits can be determined, I think this has value. There are people who have no business holding public office who have unfortunately been elected because of public ignorance. There are people in office now who are injurious to our social and economic systems. You can believe what you wish, but I see no value for either of us to continue

the badinage unless you have some information or research negating my opinion.

[Overdog]

I would suggest they immediately call in a conservative psychiatrist to see if he could straighten the kid out before he runs for president.

 

When it come to your objectivity with respect to what we are discussing, this statement greatly damages your credibility with me.

[Overdog]

Reason, let me say this to you. If certain traits are necessary or beneficial for a national office holder, and these traits can be determined, I think this has value. There are people who have no business holding public office who have unfortunately been elected because of public ignorance. There are people in office now who are injurious to our social and economic systems. You can believe what you wish, but I see no value for either of us to continue

the badinage unless you have some information or research negating my opinion.

 

And this one COMPLETELY destroys it!

[REASON]

Reason, let me say this to you. If certain traits are necessary or beneficial for a national office holder, and these traits can be determined, I think this has value.

 

If somehow, it were objectively determined what the traits are that would be "necessary or beneficial for a national office holder," would you support establishing a law that would restrict national office holding postitions to those who were deemed to possess those traits?

 

In your opinion, what are some examples of the kind of traits you're talking about?

 

 

There are people who have no business holding public office who have unfortunately been elected because of public ignorance. There are people in office now who are injurious to our social and economic systems.

 

And international relations, I might add.

 

I agree with this 100%.

 

 

You can believe what you wish, but I see no value for either of us to continue the badinage unless you have some information or research negating my opinion.

 

Well of course, we can all believe what we wish (currently).

 

But do you really think your opinion can be negated, even with overwhelming scientific evidence? Would you consider yourself *flexible* when it comes to your opinions?

 

I'm simply attempting to get a sense of your hemispheric brain orientation.