Brains of liberals, conservatives structured differently: study

[WIP]

This study published in a biology journal is just starting to be noticed by some of the press, as here on CTV site

A quick read reveals that the neuroscientists are talking about neuro-correlates with conscious activity, which does not necessarily mean that the differences in brain activity are the source of the conscious effect...here being the difference in attitudes and interests between conservatives and liberals, but there is already a long history of psychology research (Robert Altemeyer's studies on authoritarian thinking for one) which would corroborate the analysis that there are differences in information processing going on.

Since I mentioned Altemeyer, I should add that he found evidence from external events can skew the numbers, at least temporarily...so many of us who were horrified by the events of 9/11 were inclined to go along with authority-thinking without question, and rally round the flag. The difference is that those of us who are not by nature authoritarian conservatives at heart, are inclined to jump off the conservative bandwagon when we start discovering lies, deceit and hypocrisy that were used to motivate the public....while there remains a dedicated core of conservative followers who will blindly follow what their leaders tell them to do, regardless of contrary evidence.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ya, read this one. Interesting.

It sums it up like this:

Essentially, they found that 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.

Ouch. More:

People who reported that their views veered to the liberal side of the political spectrum tended to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, which is a brain area involved in processing conflicting information.

Those with conservative views were more likely to have a larger amygdala, a region important for recognizing threats and processing fear.

"Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear," and might therefore be "more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system," Kanai and colleagues wrote.

"On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty" -- which may allow people to "accept more liberal views."

Edited April 8, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Shady]

Another one of these studies?

[TimG]

"On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty" -- which may allow people to "accept more liberal views."

Actually, this people like WIP are unable to deal with uncertainty and he is a tireless fearmonger. So unless WIP is a conservative I suspect this study is another example of data mining.

[M.Dancer]

So how does this explain the cringing fear leftists have of conservative policies?

cringing abject fear...

[eyeball]

So how does this explain the cringing fear leftists have of conservative policies?

cringing abject fear...

It's evidenced-based.

[Shady]

So how does this explain the cringing fear leftists have of conservative policies?

cringing abject fear...

Exactly. If it wasn't for fear, leftists wouldn't have anything to run on.

[Jack Weber]

Exactly. If it wasn't for fear, leftists wouldn't have anything to run on.

Really??

"The Coaliton of Seperatists and Socialists!!!"

Nah...No fear mongering there,right?

[eyeball]

Exactly. If it wasn't for fear, leftists wouldn't have anything to run on.

Run away from you mean. If it wasn't for leftists the human race would still be fearfully clinging to a treetop in Africa.

It was probably the scolding and screeching of the more fearful conservative monkeys above that drove the others to venture even farther into a dangerous world and in so doing take our species to a better place.

[WIP]

Actually, this people like WIP are unable to deal with uncertainty and he is a tireless fearmonger. So unless WIP is a conservative I suspect this study is another example of data mining.

I live in an uncertain world with no gods or supernatural forces, that is heading towards a secular apocalypse with no rapture or Jesus coming back to fix everything! That's facing reality. You call it fearmongering because you don't have the courage to deal honestly with world as it is.

[WIP]

If my curiosity was greater, I might cough up the $31.50 it costs to buy a copy of the research paper, since the blurbs I was able to find, like the one on CTV News or an almost identical brief piece from the LA Times are short on substance. I mentioned Robert Altemeyer previously because his psychological test results using carefully selected survey data, identified the basic difference as how a person rates on a scale of authoritarian thinking in his book (which I have plugged many times here) that's still available free online: The Authoritarians

In a general sense conservatives are going to tend to be more likely to be authoritarian in their thinking, because they follow a political ideology based on notions of adhering to traditions, whereas liberals are supposed to embrace change and new discovery. But, an authoritarian movement could develop on the left if democracy and civil society start to breakdown....which may not be that far off from the looks of things....while there is a contingent of secular, dope-smoking libertarians who quote Ayn Rand, and do a lot of the intellectual heavy-lifting for their more dull-witted rightwing brethren. So, if the political situation changes in the coming years, it may be harder to figure out which side has the most fear-driven authoritarian followers, and who has the most open-minded, cosmopolitan liberals.

[Bonam]

while there is a contingent of secular, dope-smoking libertarians who quote Ayn Rand, and do a lot of the intellectual heavy-lifting for their more dull-witted rightwing brethren.

I challenge you to find a study that shows a correlation between smoking dope and quoting Ayn Rand. Somehow I strongly doubt you'll find one...

[TimG]

I live in an uncertain world with no gods or supernatural forces, that is heading towards a secular apocalypse with no rapture or Jesus coming back to fix everything!

No. You only expect government to fix everything. It is nothing to be proud of. You are incapable of living with risk. All risk - not matter how small - must be regulated out of existence. That is why I say you are incapable of dealing with uncertainty.

You call it fear-mongering because you don't have the courage to deal honestly with world as it is.

There is no "reality" in your rants about climate and nukes. They are products of a fevered imagination. Even people who agree with you poltically do not buy into you claims of doom. You are a fear-monger. Edited April 9, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

No. You only expect government to fix everything. It is nothing to be proud of. You are incapable of living with risk. All risk - not matter how small - must be regulated out of existence. That is why I say you are incapable of dealing with uncertainty.

You are just playing a stupid game of making counter-accusations...something you do ad nauseum as a global warming denier elsewhere!

I expect government to be able to function and do what it was intended to do. And until we fire this prime minister, who is trying to destroy the effectiveness of government institutions by following the Republican strategy of appointing incompetent boobs to be department heads, or firing those who actually try to do the jobs they were hired for -- case in point would be the firing of Linda Keen as nuclear safety watchdog for refusing to allow the Chalk River nuclear station to re-open until it met safety standards, we will not have much success at improving how government functions and serves the people.

There is no "reality" in your rants about climate and nukes. They are products of a fevered imagination. Even people who agree with you poltically do not buy into you claims of doom. You are a fear-monger.

I'm not running for election anywhere, so I don't care who agrees or doesn't agree with me on any issue. You have some personal stake in denying climate change evidence provided by the 97% of scientists who do climate research. Your capacity to deny a strong expert consensus on the evidence puts you squarely in that conservative, authoritarian camp that follows its leaders without question.

[WIP]

I challenge you to find a study that shows a correlation between smoking dope and quoting Ayn Rand. Somehow I strongly doubt you'll find one...

My thoughts may have been skewed by watching PJ O'Rourke at the time I was writing that post!

[Wild Bill]

My thoughts may have been skewed by watching PJ O'Rourke at the time I was writing that post!

More likely, reading an old copy of National Lampoon!

If the OP premise is correct, then why is it that technicians, engineers and scientists in the hard sciences like physics tend to be more conservative in their politics?

Why do the leftwingers tend to be "beauticians and telephone sanitizers"? (with apologies to The HitchHiker's Guide to The Galaxy)

Why are the Richard Feynmans rarely liberal? While the typical leftwing champion is an Al Gore, who tells us to use CFL bulbs while using up the power of a small town in his own home? He wasn't a conscious hypocrite. If he was, he would have made his home more efficient BEFOREHAND and not needed to come up with that line about buying offset carbon credits! That was so lameass, considering it would have been better to not produce the carbon instead!

No, Al Gore, the typical leftwinger, was so technically ignorant he had no idea of any contradiction!

The practical types support the conservative parties because they appear more "utilitarian", i.e. they appear to be more workable, eschewing leftwing approaches for often appearing to be more "symbol" than "substance"/

What's more, the support follows the party ideology of the moment and not the party name. If the Liberal Party went Blue I'm sure they would steal much of this present Conservative support. Look how much more successful the Labour Party of Britain became after modernizing and ditching so much of the brainless old socialist shibboleths. That new support came from practical thinkers who formerly did not respect them.

I think your OP is really just another case of an assumption being accepted BEFORE there's any real evidence or proof!

Edited April 9, 2011 by Wild Bill

[bloodyminded]

More likely, reading an old copy of National Lampoon!

If the OP premise is correct, then why is it that technicians, engineers and scientists in the hard sciences like physics tend to be more conservative in their politics?

I can't vouch for it, but I have heard that the vast majority of "hard" scientists tend to lean somewhat leftwards, (with one or two disciplines excepted, for some reason).

No, Al Gore, the typical leftwinger, was so technically ignorant he had no idea of any contradiction!

Al Gore is a mainstream, Establishment liberal, which places him around the North American centre, politically.

The practical types support the conservative parties because they appear more "utilitarian", i.e. they appear to be more workable, eschewing leftwing approaches for often appearing to be more "symbol" than "substance"/

I hear many conservatives saying similar things, to be sure. I don't believe it's a consensus opinion.

[BubberMiley]

This is no surprise, really. Why else would all the universities have turned into bastions of leftist propaganda? Why are left-wingers more likely to be university educated than right-wingers.

They got bigger brains. That's why.

[Shakeyhands]

Look at our little microcosm of society here on MLW. What sort of threads and responses do our resident left wingers and right wingers post. It's clear that this study has some validity.

[TimG]

You are just playing a stupid game of making counter-accusations...something you do ad nauseum as a global warming denier elsewhere!

I am simply using you and an example in order to point out that this study is complete nonsense. All it does is rehash left wing stereo types of the right and I suspect the study itself is finding a 'signal' that is barely detectable in the noise.

[TimG]

I can't vouch for it, but I have heard that the vast majority of "hard" scientists tend to lean somewhat leftwards, (with one or two disciplines excepted, for some reason).

There is a lot of self-selection going on. People who like the idea of chasing government grants for a living and landing a job they cant be fired from tend to be left wing. People with a more free enterprise bent go into corporations and maybe start their own. Most academic scientists are from the former group. Most engineers are in the latter.

[Michael Hardner]

In a general sense conservatives are going to tend to be more likely to be authoritarian in their thinking, because they follow a political ideology based on notions of adhering to traditions, whereas liberals are supposed to embrace change and new discovery.

Since these things change with time, and the human brain really doesn't - I reject this study.

If that had couched it in something more permanent than the politics of the day, such as human behavior, then it could be believed.

For example, some kind of correlation between non-conformism and the individual brain could explain why a liberal appears in a group of conservatives or vice versa. But since ideology today is so ephemeral I don't see how you can tie a brain characteristic to a 'liberal' or a 'conservative' whatever they are.

[sunsettommy]

LOL,

The major liberal bastions use fear everyday.

Environmentalists are mostly liberal.They use fear mongering everyday.They preach all kinds of doomsday bullcrap,unless the rest of us give them what they want.

Mainstream Media are mostly Liberal.They use propagandizing fear mongering everyday.They advance socialism through fear and intimidation.

Democrat leftists use fear mongering regularly.Witness the statements they make every time Republicans want to make budget cuts.

We also have leftist scientists using fear and intimidation.They make threats on freedom and even life.Unless the skeptics back off from wanting to discuss the science.Right now DR.Mann is suing Dr. Ball for Libel he did not commit.It is to sow fear and intimidation.Dr.Mann is getting a lot of support from David Suzuki and other anti freedom environmentalist organizations.

I was once a liberal,but got tired of the lies and fear they continually sow.Plus they are not respectful of the American Constitution.

[sunsettommy]

This is no surprise, really. Why else would all the universities have turned into bastions of leftist propaganda? Why are left-wingers more likely to be university educated than right-wingers.

They got bigger brains. That's why.

Carl Sagan was a die hard liberal.But as a scientist he was terrible.Where there is smoke,there is Carl.

Many Universities are leftists bastions.Because that is the way to propagandize the still malleable minds of the young.They have to because that is an arena with little opposition.They also control the tenure process,thus deliberately selecting like minded people.

Someday you will realize that most of the demonizing that goes on are mostly from the Liberal side.

[bloodyminded]

Mainstream Media are mostly Liberal.They use propagandizing fear mongering everyday.They advance socialism through fear and intimidation.

These giant corporations are trying to "advance socialism"?

And the argument is that capitalists are practical?

I was once a liberal,but got tired of the lies and fear they continually sow.Plus they are not respectful of the American Constitution.

By coincidence, I used to be a lot more conservative. It didn't take, I guess.