Brains of liberals, conservatives structured differently: study

[bloodyminded]

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.

No, universities are not "leftist bastions."

The humanities--only one sector of the university--tends to lean in a mildly liberal direction, in my experience. That's hardly "leftist" in the way the term is normally used. It is an Establishment liberalism, mainstream and uncontroversial.

There is always a small contingent of harder leftists--who are just as good and smart as everyone else working there, by the way--but they are not symbolic of the whole.

And then there's another problem with your theory; what of the other disciplines? Universities are not determined by their English and Political Science Departments. What of, for example, Business Administration? A huge, vital part of the university system. Not quite "leftist."

[WIP]

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)

Beauticians and telephone sanitizers! Really? There have been many studies over the years that show education level skews towards liberalism. It doesn't mean that every university graduate is a liberal, and I'm an outlier, since I have abandoned virtually all of the conservative beliefs I previously had in recent years. But, like they say: the exception doesn't prove the rule.

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!

Forget Al Gore! First of all, he's not a scientist, and 2nd of all he's a big business Democrat who had changed his ideological archetype to match the office he was campaigning for during his long political career.

I'll take your word that Feynman is a conservative, but find me another prominent theoretical physicist! Stephen Hawking doesn't sound like a conservative when hee mentions environmental issues, and tells the hard truth that almost everyone on all sides is avoiding right now: the human race will become extinct within the next two centuries, if we continue on our present course of willful self-destruction. Michiou Kaku does a weekly radio show called Exploration, on the Progressive Radio Network....so I guess it wouldn't be worth my while to go through the trouble of finding and posting the link for you!

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"/

All you have here is a plausible argument that engineers may be more conservative than pure scientific researchers; and there may be anecdotal evidence for that position, since whenever I see one of these bullshit lists of "scientists" who reject the theory of evolution, the evidence for harms of 2nd hand smoke, or reject the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, I find name after name of people with engineering degrees, and few actual scientists...especially in actual related fields of research.

Also, we have the problem that engineers are likely to know which side their bread is buttered on. That's what adds to the confusion and difficulty of trying to understand what is going on with the nuclear meltdown in Japan. We already have the problem of a government and a large utility company that are with-holding information, a Japanese press that traditionally does little if any investigative reporting...and then we have to deal with the claims and counter-claims of what are safe radiation levels. If all of the pro-nuclear engineers would walk the talk and move to just outside the Japanese Exclusion Zone, I might be more inclined to take them at their word!

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!

The study was based on small "l" liberals and small "c" conservatives who follow an ideology, not a political party. We all know that the Liberal Party has ranged anywhere from left to right over the years depending on who was in charge, and what was politically popular at the time. But the old P.C. Party also used to float around the ideological map with all of their Red Tories like Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and those Eastcoasters. I used to hate the way the two governing parties were so ideological flexible, that the only issue they were consistent on was Federal vs. Provincial powers....but now that the Harper Conservatives are a northern branch of the Republican Party, and the powers-that-be are trying to work behind the scenes to turn the Liberals into something of the Democratic alternative, I'm longing for those good old days when a conservative would have to vote for the Liberal, and the liberal would have to choose the Progressive Conservative candidate.

And, as I mentioned in the OP, I would have preferred if they framed their report as studying authoritarian vs. liberal tendencies, since issues of the day will skew whether people identify themselves as conservatives or liberals. Right now in the U.S., Republican Party membership is on the decline, and a most shocking discovery...something almost worthy of starting a new thread....support for capitalism in America has fallen lower than China, Brazil, Germany, Italy, the Philippines and India. Obviously many Americans are feeling shell-shocked by the banking meltdown, foreclosures, and finally starting to realize that they have been getting poorer over the last few decades. If things were going great, support for free market fundamentalism would be right back where it was in the 80's and 90's.

[WIP]

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.

No! What you are doing is bringing an unrelated issue in as an excuse to justify a personal attack.

[TimG]

No! What you are doing is bringing an unrelated issue in as an excuse to justify a personal attack.

This entire thread is nothing but an 'attack' on conservatives. You really have no business complaining when that attack get turned around and shoved in your face.

[wyly]

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.

not surprising at all...there many ranges of human behaviour from one extreme to another, some of our behaviour is hardwired into us others are learned...cab drivers have an enlarged section of the brain that deals with memory which comes from years of learning street routes and multiple options to arrive at any destination...

[wyly]

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?

that would be incorrect, I know many many scientists and none of them is conservative....and there are surveys on voting trends to back that up...most obvious trend is 90%+ are atheists, hardly a conservative leaning... Edited April 9, 2011 by wyly

[wyly]

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

my Neurologist buddy says you are wrong...

[WIP]

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

Check out some of the work by neuroscientist - Antonio Damasio on neural plasticity. Many interviews and discussions on the subject are found here in the archives of the Brain Science Podcast; most of the episodes have transcripts in the show notes.

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. The brain is not fixed at birth! It continues to develop new neural pathways throughout our lives. What the new discoveries from brain research have meant is that the old "nature vs. nurture" debates have been made redundant and obsolete! The real truth is that how we live our lives and make choices determines gene expression...which in turn guides our choices and preferences. The two work together during our lives, and cannot be separated into neat little boxes for study.

As mentioned in the OP, check out the free online copy of Altemeyer's study "The Authoritarians"....and leave something in the tip jar! Altemeyer and other cognitive psychologists, make a convincing case for connecting personal worldview with degrees of authoritarianism and openness. The study also shows fascinating tidbits such as how children raised by fundamentalist parents will be more likely to be authoritarian in adulthood, and how the experience of going to university makes young people exposed to new ideas and people from other places in the world, more open and less authoritarian in their thinking.

[WIP]

not surprising at all...there many ranges of human behaviour from one extreme to another, some of our behaviour is hardwired into us others are learned...cab drivers have an enlarged section of the brain that deals with memory which comes from years of learning street routes and multiple options to arrive at any destination...

Exactly! There was an interesting show on last night...wish I had noticed the title...which was about two neuroscientists studying musicians, and comparing how their brains' function with non-musicians or hacks like the rest of us who never really get the hang of it! The same thing would be found in studying the brains of athletes or anyone and everyone who performs specialized tasks. Our brains' have developed and re-routed to adapt and make us better at what we are doing....or attempting to do!

[TimG]

...cab drivers have an enlarged section of the brain that deals with memory which comes from years of learning street routes and multiple options to arrive at any destination.

Except in the case of cab drivers we have concrete reason for the differences. In this case, the "differences" being measured are really nothing but a lefty stereotype that has no basis in reality.

[sunsettommy]

bloodyminded:

These giant corporations are trying to "advance socialism"?

Yes because they are supporters.They are the main bringer of heavily edited news reporting.

The Environmentalists enjoy large yearly donations from large Capitalist corporations.Despite that those same Eco-nuts are ardent supporters of socialism.They fight against many Capitalist corporations endeavors in several fields.

Then we have CNN CBS NBC ABC,who are ardently liberal.But Foxnews is mildly conservative.Yet it is Firefox who gets slammed by the MSM and even the White House.

[bloodyminded]

bloodyminded:

Yes because they are supporters.They are the main bringer of heavily edited news reporting.

Are you really, honestly saying that the news media "are the main bringers of heavily edited news reporting"?

Like tall people are the primary ones who are tall, you mean?

They're not socialists. They're mostly opposed to socialism on an institutional level. They are close to Establishment power, and serve its interests. You can find exceptions at the margins, but that's true for any truism on almost any subject.

The Environmentalists enjoy large yearly donations from large Capitalist corporations.

No doubt, but this has nothing to do with "socialism."

Despite that those same Eco-nuts are ardent supporters of socialism.They fight against many Capitalist corporations endeavors in several fields.

If you mean a disproportionate number of environmentalists appear to be left-leaning, that's true. But that doesn't mean that environmentalist concerns are inherently linked to socialist ideals. They're not. They're practical concerns, fundamentally beyond the scope of ideologial belief, which for various reasons have been taken on by more lefties than righties. There's no socialist conspiracy here.

Then we have CNN CBS NBC ABC,who are ardently liberal.

This is a declarative sentence, so we have the right to ask for for some good evidence of this hypothesis.

After long years of the claim being incessantly made, no extensive, expansive analytical study has arisen, and no strong eividence has been forthcoming.

What's taking you guys so long to prove the "obvious"?

[wyly]

Except in the case of cab drivers we have concrete reason for the differences. In this case, the "differences" being measured are really nothing but a lefty stereotype that has no basis in reality.

absolutely wrong,our basic behaviour is hardwired into us, some of us are risk takers others are not and with a complete range in between the two...it's key to how species survive it takes the full range of behaviour to ensure the species survives, all being risk takers is dangerously unhealthy, no risk takers are unhealthy as well...with no risk takers we'd still be living in trees, too many reckless souls and we become lion food...

[TimG]

absolutely wrong,our basic behaviour is hardwired into us

I am not disputing that. I am saying that the 'premise' that fear mongering is something unique to conservatives is wrong. People of all stripes engaging in fear mongering when it suits them.

As for risk taking: liberals are generally adverse to taking risks. They want the biig daddy government to protect them all of the time.

Edited April 9, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

As for risk taking: liberals are generally adverse to taking risks. They want the biig daddy government to protect them all of the time.

That's simply not true. But they do tend to feel that power in the hands of elected representatives is more sane (and by definition more democratic)than power in the hands of unelected private entities.

Besides, your being too selective. Anyone who supports the death penalty supports the biggest of Big Government. Anyone who opposes a woman's right to choose supports Big government. Anyone who thinks the "war on terror" is real, and defends the subsequent increase in Government power, supports Big government.

And so on.

It's not a matter of either/or here.

[TimG]

Besides, your being too selective. Anyone who supports the death penalty supports the biggest of Big Government. Anyone who opposes a woman's right to choose supports Big government. Anyone who thinks the "war on terror" is real, and defends the subsequent increase in Government power, supports Big government.

In your opinion. But conservatives are hardly unified in their support for those things.

It's not a matter of either/or here.

I think you are proving my point. The issue is simply too complex to be reduced to a question of 'conservative' vs. 'liberal'. The study is flawed - it needs to be much more specific about what traits it was looking at. Edited April 9, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

In your opinion. But conservatives are hardly unified in their support for those things.

No, and neither are liberals. There are clear tendencies either way, however, especially if we bundle these issues; that is, plenty of conservatives support a woman's right to choose. Far fewer support this, and oppose the death penalty, and oppose Western military aggression, and oppose the government domestic surveilance apparatus. For all intents and purposes, such comprises a conservative stance.

That's not an attack; the liberal position is equally predictable, even by their position on the same bundled issues.

[TimG]

That's not an attack; the liberal position is equally predictable, even by their position on the same bundled issues.

But it is also wrong to say that such a broad spectrum of views can be boiled down to a question of biological differences. I used to be a trudeau style liberal until I learned some macroeconomics. I bought into the notion that Harper was scary simply because he is an 'evangelical christian'. I don't anymore. I doubt my brain has changed.

[Michael Hardner]

my Neurologist buddy says you are wrong...

Why - what about the statement you quoted doesn't compute ?

[Michael Hardner]

The study also shows fascinating tidbits such as how children raised by fundamentalist parents will be more likely to be authoritarian in adulthood, and how the experience of going to university makes young people exposed to new ideas and people from other places in the world, more open and less authoritarian in their thinking.

But it fails to explain why 'fundamentalist' 'authoritarian' and so on are somehow mapped to political parties. It's subjective to say that these things represent conservatives - there are plenty of conservatives who are not these things and there are leftists who are.

[Smallc]

Why - what about the statement you quoted doesn't compute ?

Humans continue to evolve - our brains are changing.

[Michael Hardner]

Humans continue to evolve - our brains are changing.

Ok, so YOU agree with me but my response was to wyly.

[Smallc]

Ok, so YOU agree with me but my response was to wyly.

Didn't you say that the human brain doesn't change?

[Michael Hardner]

Didn't you say that the human brain doesn't change?

Oh, I see... ok... the brain changes and politics change... seems to make it harder to make absolute statements about these things, unless the topic is:

Brains of liberals, conservatives structured differently in 2011.

[Smallc]

Brains of liberals, conservatives structured differently in 2011.

Well, I don't think the study was saying that this is how things always have been and how they always will be, to be fair.