Left or Right wing? Its all biology- not politics

[Michaelangelica]

I've often expected this

So it's no good arguing; its just the middle 5% that change govenments

Now we need to study their brain chemistry.

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.

By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 10, 2007

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

 

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

 

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences.

The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

 

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

 

Participants were college students

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain - Los Angeles Times

[Moontanman]

That's all we needed, now the Conservatives will try to genetically engineer liberals out of existence or even worse keep liberal babies from being born. I can see it now, two conservative parents are in doctors office and the doctor says "I'm sorry Mr. and Mrs. Neocon, the genetic tests show your baby will be a liberal." the woman sobs into her husbands shoulder and the husbands says, "don't worry dear, it will be a quick and painless procedure" and the wife says "but what will our friends at church say?" he says, "they'll understand, we just can't risk bringing a liberal into the world, it would be cruel to the child, no normal child would want to play with it, where would it live or work, we just can't allow it to happen"

[modest]

I've often expected this

So it's no good arguing; its just the middle 5% that change govenments

Now we need to study their brain chemistry.

 

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain - Los Angeles Times

 

This is the same article that questor pointed out in 15462. I looked in depth at the study the article was talking about and it is not nearly convincing. I'll quote myself from the other thread:

 

Your first post is one sentence long and doesn't explain anything. It does, however, have a link to a real media source

 

<...>

 

Which talks about a Los Angeles times story found here:

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Which talks about a study published in Nature Neuroscience. It doesn't name the study, but fortunately gives the name of the lead author: David Amodio of NYU. Looking him up, I found his website with a list of publications:

David Amodio

From this I deduced that the study you're refering to is titled: Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism 2007.

 

<...>

 

available free and online:

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio%20et%20al.%20(2007

)%20Nature%20Neuro.pdf

 

OK, alright, I read it cover to cover. All 2 pages - and I even looked at the graph :)

 

Rather than writing a big, long summary and critique I'll just say: this study had nothing to do with genetic predisposition toward political ideology or left brain / right brain tendencies. If you read it and want to discuss particulars I'll be around. Otherwise, I'll not get into what I thought of it.

 

~modest

 

There are some odd things about questor's study that I link in post 14:

 

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio%20et%20al.%20(2007)%20Nature%20Neuro.pdf

 

Looking at the graph, it has 7 people who identify themselves as conservative and none of them say they're strongly conservative. It has 29 liberal participants and four with no preference. Why so many more liberals in the stuy? More importantly - why so few participants at all? This type of study is prone to error. What if someone is not as conservative / liberal as they say they are? What if they used to be liberal, but as society has changed they now consider themselves conservative?

 

In a study with so many subjective variables it's a must to have a large sample which this study doesn't have. It also doesn't give other data on the participants. What if the conservatives in the study have a higher mean age than the liberals? The results of the study are far more likely to represent age in my mind because it basically measures what happens in someone's brain when they push a button repeatedly and occasionally push the wrong button.

 

The results could be biased by which group of people play more video games or which have better visual acuity. There is no control on this study - no way to know if they really are testing something that has anything to do with political ideology. The proper thing to do would be a blind test where they get a few hundred participants and run the test without asking them what their ideology is (or even what the test is testing). When the test is over they try to guess the participants' ideology and see if the test is correct. But they didn't do this.

 

They didn't set up controls or assure any kind of fair sample. No, I don't like that study at all. Way too many assumptions. If you read the introduction which questor really likes, you see way too many assumptions. It's like the author was trying to get some quick newspaper headlines. I mean - It's a 2 page study - with graphs!

 

~modest

 

I hope you don't take this wrong Michaelangelica. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with the article you link. But, I have looked into it and I think the study it's talking about is very weak and the conclusions seem at odds with the results which I think makes it dishonest.

 

~modest

[Thunderbird]

Michaelangelica, Great find. :)

modest, If you have spent much time around conservatives you should know this is true. What percentage artist are liberals. What percentage of accountants are conservatives. I knew this as a fact before the study.

 

 

Moonman...:)

[Michaelangelica]

modest

Fine I should have said " suspected" not expected.

I will have a look at the original research and your critique.

Being a G&S Fan I have always loved

 

"How Nature always does contrive--Fal, lal, la!

That every boy and every gal

That's born into the world alive

Is either a little Liberal

Or else a little Conservative!"

Gilbert and Sullivan, Act II, Iolanthe:

Interestingly they all turn into fairies at the end of the Opera :)

 

I just thought it might be fun with all the Yanks focussing on the Presidential Race.

 

I did some preliminary research on this in a 3rd year Politics course on 'authoritarianism in political parties'. I never completed the research but I learnt an awful lot about what it meant to be Labor of Libera in Australia. It was some education going to different party meetings.

If you put all the parties together you would get a continuium from extreme fascist right to extreme left.- and that would be no perfect indication of what party they belonged to!

 

It is interesting though, how some attitudes and beliefs are immune to change or logical argument. I guess in the States you get a sense of belonging by declaring your party aligence. It would be considered rude here to ask someone which way the voted or will vote. Huge turnouts of party faithful rarely occur except on election night when the beer and snags are free.

Still most elections would be decided here with the 5-10% "swinging" voter. (the Donkey vote is about 5%). Most people see themselves "born into" a party. There is also an element of class snobbishness as well.

 

 

Mootanman you should be writing for stand up comics LOL

 

Another interesting study

 

New Scientist reports on the findings of a study on the impact of genes on religious inclinations

 

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.

 

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person’s socialisation - or “nurture”. But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person’s religiousness.

 

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age.

 

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.

 

The study can be found in Journal of Personality (vol 73, p 471)

 

The title of the paper is:

 

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Religiousness: Findings for Retrospective and Current Religiousness Ratings

 

by Laura B. Koenig, Matt McGue, Robert F. Krueger, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr

Genes contribute to religious inclination - The Panda's Thumb

[Michaelangelica]

Yes modest very small sample indeed agreed. (Far too smal.l I am surprised the stas worked. I guess the computer does it all these days.)

 

How were they picked from the population? Did I miss that? Psy 101 Students again?

 

I am surprised by their statement that self rating correlated with 85% of actual vote. Amazing. I doubt if that would work here. (That would be an interesting experiment if you could trust people) Self rating is very dubious way to go

[modest]

modest

Fine I should have said " suspected" not expected.

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't think it's an odd thing to expect - I just don't think that study did anything right toward proving or even implying that it's true.

 

Yes modest very small sample indeed agreed. (Far too smal.l I am surprised the stas worked. I guess the computer does it all these days.)

 

How were they picked from the population? Did I miss that? Psy 101 Students again?

 

I don't recall it saying how they were chosen. Neither did it say what age each participant was or any other information that would give a control. For example, if the conservatives were mostly older than the liberals then this test was most likely just testing reaction time differences in age. I believe there are many things this test could have been indicating other than political ideology. It's like picking out 30 people and finding out 8 of the taller ones are conservative and concluding that political ideology is genetically controlled by height.

 

~modest

[Zythryn]

I don't find the findings all that surprising (that liberals and conservatives tend to have different traits).

What I question is any conclusion that political affiliation is a result of these traits rather than the traits being a result of political affiliation.

It also does nothing to explain the many people what identify partially with both, or many political parties.

[Michaelangelica]

What I question is any conclusion that political affiliation is a result of these traits rather than the traits being a result of political affiliation.

 

It also does nothing to explain the many people what identify partially with both, or many political parties.

good points. chicken or egg?

I was surprised when I did apolitical affiliations test/questionaire last year to find my third choice was a right wing Christian party.. friends consoled my shattered ego by explaining they have progressive social policies (Family First!!!)

I mean I do like the Sermon on the Mount but. . . .

 

I do notice that usually people here tend to vote as there parents did.

If your mum hunts moose you do too? So the chicken comes first.

 

That might be changing it SEEMS a lot of the the young are voting "Green".

This is about as left wing as you can get here in a party with a more than one policy platform.

 

Aside: (I always give the Marijuana party my sympathy vote. This is possible in a preferential system as you vote gets re-allocated to number 2 if the MJ party does not get in.)

BTW I have never smoked MJ. I am waiting for one of you to send me some seed!)

 

Although I was very surprised with the only seriously, filthy-rich and international-jet-setting executive I know said he was going to vote Green in his homeland in Germany

I was really surprised and asked why?- with my jaw on the ground.

He said "You have to see what they have done to the country" he said,

"as you approach some German towns there is just a huge plume of smoke rising in the air.. . .

You have to vote green."

[questor]

Actually, it's quite easy to determine who is liberal or conservative. Just a few questions about important issues. Age, height, gender doesn't matter.

You can tell by reading posts on this site. This is a philosophical difference and does not always change with age, although the young are usually more liberal and the older are more conservative. Hooray for maturity and experience!

Is it possible that all thought is generated from the initial neural mass one inherits and even though influenced by the environment is still filtered through those genetically contolled neurons?

[Moontanman]

Actually, it's quite easy to determine who is liberal or conservative. Just a few questions about important issues. Age, height, gender doesn't matter.

You can tell by reading posts on this site. This is a philosophical difference and does not always change with age, although the young are usually more liberal and the older are more conservative. Hooray for maturity and experience!

Is it possible that all thought is generated from the initial neural mass one inherits and even though influenced by the environment is still filtered through those genetically contolled neurons?

 

 

I agree it is quite easy to tell who is conservative and who is liberal, a conservative is some who longs to be told what to think, told how to think, told how to behave, and told what is right and what is wrong. A liberal is someone who can not only think for himself and decide his own behavior he can also allow others to think and behave differently without fearing them and without wanting to make them conform to the "correct" way of thinking and behaving. Sadly, it's more difficult to be a liberal because the conservatives are always trying to make you think and behave as they do.

[questor]

I doubt that the movers and shakers of the world are mostly liberal. Since

conservatives don't engage in activist demonstrations and constantly trying to redress imagined wrongs, they have more time to devote to taking care of business. I don't think conservatives are trying to get you to behave in a certain way, they are just shocked and perplexed at the way liberals sometime behave. That behavior frequently causes underachievement. We all have life choices to make. The things one chooses to do will determine their

success in life. Conservatives do not make these choices for you or against you.

[Moontanman]

I doubt that the movers and shakers of the world are mostly liberal. Since

conservatives don't engage in activist demonstrations and constantly trying to redress imagined wrongs, they have more time to devote to taking care of business. I don't think conservatives are trying to get you to behave in a certain way, they are just shocked and perplexed at the way liberals sometime behave. That behavior frequently causes underachievement. We all have life choices to make. The things one chooses to do will determine their

success in life. Conservatives do not make these choices for you or against you.

 

BS! Conservatives are all about restricting what a person can or cannot do. They are shocked and perplexed so much by people who have a mind of their own they want to makes laws that keep anyone from doing anything they disapprove of. You keep talking about how conservatives take responsibility for their actions and liberals want the government to take care of them. This is just more tired old BS. The conservative power base is made up of ignorant people who cannot think for themselves and want the powerful few to tell them what to do from cradle to grave. So called poor white trash is the conservatives dream come true. A ready made bottom class they can rule over. Anyone who can be manipulated by fear mongering and will believe any lie as long as it is wrapped in the flag. The entire neocon movement is a lie wrapped in fear, and coated in BS. I come from those poor people who have been snowed by the conservatives into thinking their lot in life is the result of liberal politics. Conservatives love them as long as they stay in their place. As long as only occasionally does one of them make it they can sit back and say the rest is where they are due to liberal polices that have failed them while the conservatives move the real jobs over seas and only leave minimum wage dead end jobs for the people here. Conservatives claim economic responsibility and turn around and spend like drunken sailors. They blame liberals for big government and make the government bigger when they are in charge. Conservatives are all about special interests, good ol boys, and back room deals. They cannot prosper in the sun, they must hide behind you to stab you in the back. Sadly the conservatives are very good at convincing people they are the right ones for the job and they are as long as the job is getting richer and holding down the competition.

[REASON]

Actually, it's quite easy to determine who is liberal or conservative. Just a few questions about important issues. Age, height, gender doesn't matter.

You can tell by reading posts on this site. This is a philosophical difference and does not always change with age, although the young are usually more liberal and the older are more conservative. Hooray for maturity and experience!

Is it possible that all thought is generated from the initial neural mass one inherits and even though influenced by the environment is still filtered through those genetically contolled neurons?

 

You know, reading this post inspired me to put your theory to the test, questor. Below are 11 simple agree or disagree statements (I like the number 11 because it is one louder) that I came up with that cover a good range of important social, economic, foreign, and domestic issues. These statements are simple and easy to answer with just a yes or a no, and I expect that won't be a problem for you because qualifying simple questions is something a liberal, right-brained thinker would do, right?

 

Please answer whether you agree or disagree with each of these statements, and we'll see how easy it is to determine from this quiz whether you are liberal or conservative.

 

1. The government should be obligated to maintain a balanced budget and avoid deficit spending of taxpayer dollars.

 

2. Offshoring is generally a good idea and should receive tax incentives because a company's ability to generate large profits from cheap foreign labor is more important than providing employment to American workers.

 

3. The government should give taxpayer subsidies to large, private, highly profitable corporations, particularly those who contribute the greatest campaign contributions to law makers.

 

4. It is a bad idea to help people in need because it just makes them lazy and dependent.

 

5. Access to healthcare should only be for those who can afford it.

 

6. Since sexual orientation is not included as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government and private institutions should be allowed to discriminate against those who are recognized as homosexual.

 

7. It is better to have orphanages and/or the streets filled with unwanted children than to allow Roe vs. Wade to continue to be the law of the land.

 

8. The government should allow teacher led prayer in public schools to include all faiths such as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Scientology, Wicken, etc.

 

9. Since the United States is exceptional and the only remaining superpower in the world, if another nation opposes the foreign policy of the US Government, we should deem them a hostile threat, and use our superior military to preemptively effect regime change, and prop up a new government that is favorable to our interests.

 

10. It is okay for government officials to break the law as long as they claim it is in the interests of national security.

 

11. War is good because it stimulates the ecomomy.

 

 

I believe it should be very easy to tell whether someone is liberal or conservative simply by whether or not they agree with these statements.

 

They seem very simple to respond to in my opinion. Would you agree, questor? Do your answers confirm that you are a conservative? You didn't find yourself wanting to qualify any of them, did you?

[Michaelangelica]

Yep well

We are using some "fuzzy' terms

i prefer Left wing Right wing

Some Liberals in Australia are actually caring, intelligent,perceptive human beings

Some labor politicians are feral, self serving A**e holes

And mostly I vote left (labor)

Most County Party don't know what day it is (right)

R/Wing Christians/Islamics/Jews/ -don't get me started.

 

Could we please use terms that are more universal and not US-centric?

[questor]

Michael, you are correct, the terms are not totally descriptive of a person's thoughts and actions.

I will now play the game as proposed by Reason. Let it be known that when

I proposed a similar game, only 3 or 4 played. I am a conservative in that I believe in personal responsibility, self reliance, social morality, freedom of religion and speech. I have no problem expressing my views, because I think they are beneficial to society.

Questions by Reason:

1. The government should be obligated to maintain a balanced budget and avoid deficit spending of taxpayer dollars.

I agree. this is the responsibility of the President AND the Congress

2. Offshoring is generally a good idea and should receive tax incentives because a company's ability to generate large profits from cheap foreign labor is more important than providing employment to American workers.

As a free enterprise, a company is entitled to seek the best profit. If the host country provides the best environment, the company would not offshore

its product.

3. The government should give taxpayer subsidies to large, private, highly profitable corporations, particularly those who contribute the greatest campaign contributions to law makers.

As stated ( improperly) subsidies should not be given to companies. Tax

reductions can be offered to companies as incentives for different reasons.

As stated, this question shows a lack of understanding of ''corporate welfare''.

4. It is a bad idea to help people in need because it just makes them lazy and dependent.

It is a bad idea to help people who are ''needy'' because of their own lack of ambition. It's different for the needy through no fault of their own.

5. Access to healthcare should only be for those who can afford it.

This is one of our most expensive and difficult problems. Illegal aliens should not have access to healthcare paid for by American taxpayers

6. Since sexual orientation is not included as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the government and private institutions should be allowed to discriminate against those who are recognized as homosexual.

No

7. It is better to have orphanages and/or the streets filled with unwanted children than to allow Roe vs. Wade to continue to be the law of the land.

No, this is one of my biggest arguments with the cons

8. The government should allow teacher led prayer in public schools to include all faiths such as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Scientology, Wicken, etc.

No, but children should have a minute or two to pray if they choose to do so.. the teacher should also have this right.

9. Since the United States is exceptional and the only remaining superpower in the world, if another nation opposes the foreign policy of the US Government, we should deem them a hostile threat, and use our superior military to preemptively effect regime change, and prop up a new government that is favorable to our interests.

This is a stupid question, I assume you're looking for a stupid answer?

10. It is okay for government officials to break the law as long as they claim it is in the interests of national security.

Are there laws existing that prevent us from exercising proper diligence when confronting a threat? Could you give an example?

11. War is good because it stimulates the ecomomy.

War is bad. War stimulates the economy.

These questions are the work of a right brained person with a lot of pre-conceived notions about conservatives. The attempt here, of course, is to demonstrate that Repubs are heartless, selfish, war-mongers, not interested in the plight of the common man. That being said, at least Reason spent some time thinking and composing. So, Reason, give me your learned diagnosis.

[Michaelangelica]

Last week, I jokingly asked a health club acquaintance whether he would change his mind about his choice for president if presented with sufficient facts that contradicted his present beliefs. He responded with utter confidence. "Absolutely not," he said. "No new facts will change my mind because I know that these facts are correct."

 

I was floored. In his brief rebuttal, he blindly demonstrated overconfidence in his own ideas and the inability to consider how new facts might alter a presently cherished opinion. Worse, he seemed unaware of how irrational his response might appear to others. It's clear, I thought, that carefully constructed arguments and presentation of irrefutable evidence will not change this man's mind.

Psychology voting | Salon