The Fear-based World of the Political Right

[cybercoma]

A recent study that conducted MRIs on young adults and compared the results to their political leanings has found that there is an association between political conservatism and a larger amygdala, while political progressives tend to have greater grey matter. The amygdala handles reactionary responses to fear, ie, fight or flight, while grey matter is what allows us to handle complexity. This seems to fit the findings of recent research that showed low-level thinking is linked to conservative ideology. It seems that a more fearful, reactionary mind tends to favour conservative ideology. This has some troubling implications for political debate in an environment where our institutions are becoming increasingly more polarized. Joshua Holland elaborates:

That one ideological camp is so consumed with fear also has a lot to do with why conservatives and liberals share so little common ground. Progressives tend to greet these narratives with facts and reason, but as Chris Mooney notes, when your amygdala is activated, it takes over and utterly dominates the brain structures dedicated to reason. Then the "fight-or-flight" response takes precedence over critical thinking.

[GostHacked]

Stop it... you are scaring me !!

[Bonam]

We've already had two threads on this:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19559&view=&hl=amygdala&fromsearch=1

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18535&view=&hl=amygdala&fromsearch=1

Note my reply regarding the validity of the interpretation of the results. In short, if you want to associate "conservative thinking" with "fear" based on this study, you can equally well associate "liberal thinking" with "emotion". The link between cause and effect is also unclear and was not investigated (see my other reply).

Issues like this, how open it all is to interpret however you want, are why one should be highly skeptical of studies in the social sciences, even when the scientists try to bring in some biology and neuroscience. As soon as one stops talking about concrete facts about brain structure and transitions to talking about "conservative ideology" or whatever, they lose a lot of credibility.

For reference, here is the actual study (notably omitted by cybercoma in the OP to this thread):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211002892

Edited May 8, 2012 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

I didn't say anything about cause and effect. I said they were associated.

[August1991]

It seems that a more fearful, reactionary mind tends to favour conservative ideology.

Huh? We're all going to die!

People like Robespierre, Cromwell, Peter the Great, Stalin, Allende, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Napoleon, Castro offered top-down solutions to current perceived fears, problems. They were "progressives" (in their time/society) because they wanted radically to "improve" their world.

Conservatives prefer slow change. They prefer slow, bottom-up solutions.

Cybercoma, which society is more likely to be sustainable: a society that adopts change carefully, or a society that changes from the top, with the first new idea?

Edited May 8, 2012 by August1991

[eyeball]

They prefer slow, bottom-up solutions.

which society is more likely to be sustainable: a society that adopts change carefully, or a society that changes from the top, with the first new idea?

Probably the society that simply does the appropriate thing instead of quibbling over a bunch of ideological hooey from the dimmer reaches of the past.

[fellowtraveller]

young adults and compared the results to their political leanings

Young adults tend to be left leaning, which is due to their inability to distinguish their ass from their elbow. Getting a job and paying taxes cures this condition quickly in most cases.

[jacee]

Young adults tend to be left leaning, which is due to their inability to distinguish their ass from their elbow. Getting a job and paying taxes cures this condition quickly in most cases.

I don't think people change their affiliation much over their lifetime.

EG I doubt the majority of babyboomers will suddenly turn into Conservatives when they become seniors. (With the Cons and Libs both self-destructing under the weight of their own corruption, however, they may become NDP. )

There are generational differences in cross-sectional age studies but that doesn't necessarily mean there will be longitudinal changes within individuals.

Example: Younger people have better achievement than older people. This is a reflection of the era they were educated in: It doesn't mean we lose skills as we age. Likewise, political affiliation doesn't change with age, but there are generational differences.

[Guest Manny]

I don't think people change their affiliation much over their lifetime.

EG I doubt the majority of babyboomers will suddenly turn into Conservatives when they become seniors.

Oh yes they most certainly do!! And it's called 'wisdom'.

Example: Younger people have better achievement than older people. This is a reflection of the era they were educated in: It doesn't mean we lose skills as we age.

And yet they achieve their greatest successes when they become older.

[bleeding heart]

Young adults tend to be left leaning, which is due to their inability to distinguish their ass from their elbow. Getting a job and paying taxes cures this condition quickly in most cases.

Yes, I hear this hypothesis often...always a self-serving one, from conservatives whose youthful liberalism was mindless and hostile to thought. It's the assumption of "been there, done that," which always assumes everyone else must be as weak-minded as the speaker feels he or she once was. Sort of the way a career thief believes that everybody wishes to steal from him.

[TimG]

A recent study that conducted MRIs on young adults and compared the results to their political leanings has found that there is an ]association between political conservatism and a larger amygdala[/url], while political progressives tend to have greater grey...

An excellent illustration of why such studies are a pile of steaming crap: http://xkcd.com/882/

[Spiderfish]

Yes, I hear this hypothesis often...always a self-serving one, from conservatives whose youthful liberalism was mindless and hostile to thought. It's the assumption of "been there, done that," which always assumes everyone else must be as weak-minded as the speaker feels he or she once was. Sort of the way a career thief believes that everybody wishes to steal from him.

There is some merit to this hypothesis though, if you look at it from a slightly different perspective. It's easy to hold to idealism when you don't have a lot to be responsible for besides yourself. As responsibility grows and there's more to lose on the table, ideals are compromised in favor of pragmatism.

[bleeding heart]

There is some merit to this hypothesis though, if you look at it from a slightly different perspective. It's easy to hold to idealism when you don't have a lot to be responsible for besides yourself. As responsibility grows and there's more to lose on the table, ideals are compromised in favor of pragmatism.

I don't completely disagree. However, I think this is a separate argument, no doubt a complex one, as I don't see conservatism (and certainly not conservatives) as more pragmatic than anyone else.

[Jack Weber]

I don't completely disagree. However, I think this is a separate argument, no doubt a complex one, as I don't see conservatism (and certainly not conservatives) as more pragmatic than anyone else.

Correct...

The political left has its pet projects to waste money on,depending on one's perspective.

The political right has its pet projects to waste money on,depending on one's perspective.

Neither has a foothold on pragmatism or being the puveyor of the public purse any more than the other one.

[bleeding heart]

Correct...

The political left has its pet projects to waste money on,depending on one's perspective.

The political right has its pet projects to waste money on,depending on one's perspective.

Neither has a foothold on pragmatism or being the puveyor of the public purse any more than the other one.

Exactly. Folks on any point of the political spectrum show tendencies of pragmatism, and both tend also towards its opposite.

[jacee]

Conservatives prefer slow change.

BS

They prefer hasty knee-jerk harsh "change" imposed on the rest of us.

Because they're afraid of us.

[capricorn]

Because they're afraid of us.

You take yourself way too seriously. Very simply, the Conservatives are in a majority and are bringing change because they can.

[DogOnPorch]

You take yourself way too seriously. Very simply, the Conservatives are in a majority and are bringing change because they can.

I don't recall all this fuss when Jean 'Elk-Hair' Chrétien was on the throne. Don't worry. The evil that is Harper hasn't found the One Ring yet.

[Argus]

I don't recall all this fuss when Jean 'Elk-Hair' Chrétien was on the throne. Don't worry. The evil that is Harper hasn't found the One Ring yet.

Hell, Chretien attacked and half strangled some little guy half his size, and the left applauded his 'courage'.

If Harper had done anything like that their heads would have exploded.

[bleeding heart]

Hell, Chretien attacked and half strangled some little guy half his size, and the left applauded his 'courage'.

If Harper had done anything like that their heads would have exploded.

You got that right (though, for the sake of clarity, "the left" as I know it despises Chretien...most Liberals are hovering more or less around the centre...though that, too is a problematic term, I know).

A PM behaving that way is completely outrageous. The country should have blown their tops at him.

Edited May 13, 2012 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

The counry should have blew their tops at him.

Shouda coulda woulda...

If Harper had done anything like that their heads would have exploded.

Perhaps Harper will get his chance to brandish the sacred soapstone.

[bleeding heart]

Shouda coulda woulda...

Yep. Didn't, couldn't [sic], wouldn't.

[jacee]

You take yourself way too seriously.

Serious would be :angry: or , not

Very simply, the Conservatives are in a majority

Only in the House of Commons, and the legality of that 'majority' is under criminal investigation.

Among Canadians, the majority (60-70%) are not politically Conservative.

and are bringing change because they can.

And it is knee-jerk, harsh, punitive change and it is being imposed against the wishes of the majority.

Diversity of opinion is a good thing. It helps us see all sides of issues and create workable solutions.

Imposition of one point of view is not a good thing.

Especially when it is based in subconscious fear of 'other'.

Edited May 13, 2012 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

...And it is knee-jerk, harsh, punitive change and it is being imposed against the wishes of the majority.

Ummm...Okay...then why didn't the "majority" get off their collective "majority" asses and give power to a different party?

Do you only like how your government works when things go your way?