Re: Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

jimstevens wrote:
[Default] On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:05:06 -0700, El Castor
<No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:49:23 GMT, jimstevens
<jimstevens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[Default] On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:23:40 -0700, Islander
<nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

El Castor wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:37:27 -0700, sordo@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center
>From the Los Angeles Times
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 whose politics ranged from "very
liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard
when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping
when they saw a W.

M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants
to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.

Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded
activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that
detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a
more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more
brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw
a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate
in recognizing M.

Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in
reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of
Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said
the results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual
differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to
brain activity."

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as
conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with
conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the
distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated
a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived
Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush
in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind
about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more
readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and
political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in
science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science
and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and
liberals.

Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New
York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of
human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one
political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block
distracting information could be a good thing depending on the
situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions
on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors,
including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and
some conservatives favor abortion rights.

Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives
and liberals looked difficult given the study results.

"Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree?"
Amodio asked. "Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get
along."

denise.gellene@xxxxxxxxxxx
Studies like this always have to be approached with skepticism. Behind
the thing there is almost always a left winger with an axe to grind --
as in this case. That bias is likely to be accentuated by a left wing
newspaper -- like the LA Times. Garbage.
Hmmm, attacking the messenger, Jeff?

Yes, any scientific study not only should be, but is viewed with a critical eye. This is how science works as opposed to how belief like that which you expressed attempts to discredit legitimate research.

A friend in the research community liked to describe the eternal tension between those who want things to remain the same and those who want things to change. That tension is a good thing. If the conservative view always prevailed, there would be no progress and if the progressive view always prevailed, we would have chaos.

It is a pity that in things politic that the tension becomes polarizing. Politics could take a lesson from science where controversy leads to advances.
If you believe these guys are just scientist doing their little jobs
with no political bias. Here are some studies Jost has conducted.
Pure political bullshit. He runs right at all the politcal
stereotypes you and the left have about conservatives and flips them
based on 'science'.

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost%20&%20Hunyady%20(2005)%20Antecedents%20and%20Consequences%20of%20Syste.pdf
System-Justifying Ideologies, Their Descriptive Contents, and
Illustrative References
Ideology Descriptive Content Sample illustrative reference(s)


Protestant work ethic People have a moral responsibility to work hard
and avoid leisure
activities; hard work is a virtue and is its own reward.
Jost & Hunyady (2002)

Meritocratic ideology The system rewards individual ability and
motivation, so success
is an indicator of personal deservingness.
Jost, Pelham, et al. (2003)

Fair market ideology Market-based procedures and outcomes are not only
efficient but
are inherently fair, legitimate, and just.
Jost, Blount, et al. (2003)

Economic system
justification
Economic inequality is natural, inevitable, and legitimate;
economic outcomes are fair and deserved.
Jost & Thompson (2000)

Belief in a just world People typically get what they deserve and
deserve what they get;
with regard to outcomes, what ‘‘is’’ is what ‘‘ought’’ to be.
Jost & Burgess (2000);
Lerner (1980)

Power distance Inequality is a natural and desirable feature of the
social order;
large power differences are acceptable and legitimate.
Jost, Blount, et al. (2003)

Social dominance
orientation
Some groups are superior to others; group-based hierarchy is a
good thing.
Jost & Thompson (2000);
Sidanius & Pratto (1999)

Opposition to equality Increased social and economic equality is
unattainable and
undesirable; it would be detrimental for society.
Jost & Thompson (2000);
Kluegel & Smith (1986)

Right-wing authoritarianism People should follow conventional
traditions and established
authorities and stop getting rebellious ideas.
Altemeyer (1998);
Jost, Glaser, et al. (2003)

Political conservatism Traditional institutions in society should be
preserved;
social and economic inequality is acceptable and natural.
Jost, Glaser, et al. (2003)
Thanks, Jim.

For the inquisitive mind, not satisfied to be fed pap, the internet is
your friend. An expression suggested by our friend Sordo.

It pisses me off that we get fed such horseshit and it goes right on
the plate as 'select cut' and if anyone dares challenge; they get
hammered by Paul or someone else.

Having said that, Paul is one of the good guys here generally even if
we don't agree on much.

Well, thanks for the compliment ... I think.

I'm a bit curious about what I triggered to inspire two extensively referenced responses. Both of the authors that you cited are published and I assume that they are sometimes reviewed by qualified experts in the field. Since they are publishing in a field of science, their work has to stand on it's merits, if not in the popular press, at least in the journals. If it is just political pap, you can be assured that it will be hammered by qualified reviewers and Amodio, at least, will not advance beyond Assistant Professor.

Jeff chose to dismiss the work, at least in part because he suspected a liberal bias (It seems to me that Jeff sees liberal threats everywhere) and probably because it was published in the LA Times. If I hammered Jeff, it was because he didn't bother to address the merit of the article or even the qualifications of the author, but chose to dismiss it for "liberal bias."

But, why is he (or you for that matter) threatened by this particular piece of work? I didn't see any implication in the article that conservatives think from a "reptilian brain." Why such a strongly defensive response?

Rather, I pointed out in my response to Jeff, that a tension between conservative and liberal views is a good thing as long as it does not become destructively divisive as it has in politics. I think that the postulate, if found to be valid, that the brains of conservatives and liberals have different structure might be an important insight if we are to figure out a way to bridge the enormous gap that presently exists.
.

Relevant Pages

  • The Truth about Reds and Blues (and Purples)
    ... While 22% of conservatives said they "never" enjoy entertainment that reflects values other than their own, just 7% of liberals felt the same way. ... This is just one conclusion from this far-reaching survey and research project which was designed to probe the thinking of Americans about the subjects of politics and entertainment. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Washing Away the Conservative Movement
    ... Unfortunately it is an innovation that also manifests a concomitant desire to think and even learn about politics in private so as to, again, avoid possible reprisals from a public revelation of political positions and, additionally, the acrimony that often accompanies adversarial democratic politics. ... Attempting to rely on the idea that Liberals are "generous, progressive, and reforming" and Conservatives are "cautious and tend to conserve/preserve" is to completely misunderstand the terms as used in today's political debates. ... The Harper Collins "American Government & Politics" ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
    ... liberals and conservatives ... Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very ... Here are some studies Jost has conducted. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • How to spot a baby conservative
    ... Future liberals, ... confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals. ... at personality, and this time at politics, too. ... American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: NBC: The Way Bush Treated Helen Thomas....
    ... he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. ... The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals. ... A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. ... Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)