Aspies For Freedom

Are you Liberal or Conservative?

Maybe it's wired into your brain...

Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs

by Marlowe HoodSun Sep 9, 1:33 PM ET

The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.

Aristotle may have been more on the mark than he realised when he said that man is by nature a political animal.

Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits.

Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions.

Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.

Intrigued by these correlations, New York University political scientist David Amodio and colleagues decided to find out if the brains of liberals and conservatives reacted differently to the same stimuli.

A group of 43 right-handed subjects were asked to perform a series of computer tests designed to evaluate their unrehearsed response to cues urging them to break a well-established routine.

"People often drive home from work on the same route, day after day, such that it becomes habitual and doesn't involve much thinking," Amodio explained by way of comparison in an e-mail.

"But occasionally there is road work, or perhaps an animal crosses the road, and you need to break out of your habitual response in order to deal with this new information."

Using electroencephalographs, which measure neuronal impulses, the researchers examined activity in a part of the brain -- the anterior cingulate cortex -- that is strongly linked with the self-regulatory process of conflict monitoring.

The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine.

Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed."

Whether that is good or bad, of course, depends on one's perspective: one could interpret the results to mean that liberals are nimble-minded and conservatives rigid and stubborn.

Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal.

As to the more intriguing question of which comes first, the patterns in neuron activity or the political orientation, Amodio is reluctant to hazard a guess.

"The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood," and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage, he said.

"But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development," he added.

Obscuring causal links even more is the fact that the brain is malleable and neural functions can change as a result of new experiences.

More accurately, that is why you have been programmed.

I think it's nonsense.  There have been plenty of people who have moved from left to right, and vice-versa, so I don't think it is at all genetic.  Whether or not someone is liberal or conservative may have a lot more to do with how their parents vote, than anything else.  For example, my parents are Republicans, so in the past, I've generally voted Republican, although I'm somewhat more liberal than they are.  If someone doesn't like their parents, they often will vote for the other party.

People like Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Jerry Pournelle and David Horowitz had all been Marxists or Communists at one time, and have since moved to the right.  Scott Ritter has said that he used to be a Republican, and now he's drifted over to (what I consider to be) the lunatic left.

The genetic aspect sort of makes sense to me... I have both ardent conservatives and radical liberals in my family tree, so it doesn't seem so strange that I ended up as a libertarian (more of a green-libertarian, though).

Please don't assume too much about people you've never seen.  Where did you get your license to read my mind?  Try to get your money back, you're wrong about what is really in my mind, in my heart.

Stop assuming.  There are plenty of people in the world to worry about, believe me, I don't like them EITHER.

I heard the same report on the morning news radio station.  Conservatives did not take a new route to work if it was longer.  Liberals did.

I wait it out, it suggests I am conservative, my route is too short but to wait it out.

But can a conservative (maybe one with respect to religious literalism, plus an economic conservative) be politically liberal (maybe not with pork barrel stuff)?  If you do separate church and state I think it is possible.

Besides, an intelligent Christian would realise that nothing is gained by turning America into some damn police state.  Exactly what do you accomplish if you have a bunch of frightened obedient bunny rabbits that never get saved?

I'll tell you what.  Some well behaved people going in the wrong direction.

Intelligent and honest Christians know the objective is to save souls, not enforce fascism.  

We accomplish nothing with fascism, we even push people away from getting saved.

That is why intelligent and honest Christians have a healthy regard for the separation between church and state.

I have fear of oppression and I would be comfortable with the idea of peace through strength.  That would be the general idea of the Marsh military, to reassure the public that they are safe from external enemies.

In fact, in practice, my dad feared the Christians all his life.  I would expect our military to have had some indoctrination in the persecution potential of external enemies, especially Christian, up to maybe 1992.  But being a humanist member country we probably withdrew that in 1991-1992, even before I converted in nov. 92.  

I would think the period 1990-1992 would be equivalent to the Troubles in northern Ireland, it was in my life.  

The humanist entente never supported Christian persecution at any time.  Never.  That's part of the reason I liked Rachael Meads' ideas so much.

:O

:pause:

:shock:

{click}

umm... ignore previous post... two pages of a thread and I only read the first...

he he he. I'm going to take a nap.

Very interesting, Ian.  Do you have a URL for that?

The USSR was attacked three times in the 74 years (1917 - 1991) it was around.
1.  World War I, by Germany
2.  A coalition of countries to help the White Russians, including Japan and the United States, after WW I
3.  World War II, by Germany again

I don't know whether or not history made Stalin paranoid or not.  Seems he was far enough along on his own though.

I do not believe they hate us because we are free.  I think Trash Bin Laden made himself fairly clear when he ranted about the U.S. occupation of Saudi Arabia, the embargo on starving Iraq, and support for Israel.  The U.N. partitioned Palestine anyway so I think that is legitimate.  The rest, not sure how justified they are.

Necrobumping this because there's been some recent discussion of what Liberal and Conservative are really about...

Actually, the original study was done in the UK, not America.

The American follow up avoided the use of party affiliations. I know the words "Liberal" and "Conservative" are actual names of parties in many countries, but in the US there are no such parties. There is a strong tendency for conservatives to vote Republican and liberals to vote Democratic, but that's only because our idiotic Two Party System makes alternative party voting useless, particularly on a national/federal level.

The study looks at actual conservative and liberal values. Very few true liberals feel the Democratic party actually reflects authentic liberal values, and an increasing number of conservatives feel the same about the Republicans.

Liberal and Conservative core values are not at all limited to any one nation. Certainly Liberal values are much more aligned with European thinking than American. I find nothing Americo-centric about the study, though, of course the article about the study is from an American newspaper.

I tend to think political affiliations are extensions of family structures and parenting styles. Look at radio fanatic and self proclaimed conservative Michael Savage ranting about how The Big Powerful Authoritarian Brutal Father can cure everything from autism to terrorism and the economy.

I hold with George Lakofff's idea of Liberal / Progressive values:

Moral values at the national level are idealized family values projected onto the nation. Progressive values are the values of a responsible nurturant family, where parents (if there are two) are equally responsible. Their job is to nurture their children and raise them to be nurturers of others. Nurturance has two aspects: empathy and responsibility--both for yourself and your children. From this, all progressive values follow, both in the family and in politics.

If you empathize with your children, you will want them to have strong protection, fair and equal treatment and fulfillment in life. Fulfillment requires freedom, freedom requires opportunity and opportunity requires prosperity.

Since your family lives in, and requires, a community, community building and community service are required. Community requires cooperation, which requires trust, which requires honesty and open communication. Those are the progressive values--in politics as well as family life.

Take protection. In addition to physical protection, there is environmental protection, worker protection and consumer protection, as well as all the "safety nets"--Social Security, Medicare and so on.

Equality means full political and social equality, without regard to wealth, race, religion or gender.

Openness requires open government and a free, inquiring press.

Progressive political ideals are nurturant moral ideals.

Good point.

Conang, I really think if you wrote to George Lakoff and told him you  saw his article, and you quote that list, and you tell him you would like to see the progressive movement include neurostatus / diagnosis, and explain a bit about what you mean -- I would bet he would totally get it and take it to heart.

I'll PM you his contact information: