mmmm, braaaains.....

[lagilman]

Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs
by Marlowe Hood
Sun Sep 9, 1:33 PM ET

PARIS (AFP) - "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."

results here

In the end, of course, it's all boiled down to "yes, but it depends." As they say, the brain is a malleable thing. But interesting, methought, on both a political and a personal level.

and, of course, A new case study of a stroke patient suggests that adults' brains might be just as "plastic," or capable of creating new neural pathways, as those of children.

Comments

[caryabend.livejournal.com]

Of course they say "It Depends." How well do you think that "Conservatism appears highly correlated with congenital or functional brain damage" would go over?

This naturally follows all those "Presidential IQ" assessments that place most liberal presidents higher (sometimes MUCH) on the scale than their conservative counterparts. It also helps explain the connection between the right and the religious fundamentalists.

I feel bad. For all these years, I've been working under the paradigm that conservatives just weren't all that smart or in touch with reality. Turns out I was dead on, but never once did it cross my mind that they might be honestly mentally challenged.

Now I have a dilemma: With the upcoming holidays, how do I apologize to someone who doesn't have the capacity to process change?

/snark

*ahem*

[lagilman]

Not to spoil your snark, but if you read the entire article you'll see that the Conservatives would have equal opportunity to rag on your indecisive and flip-floppy posterior....

(mocking the loyal opposition is a time-honored right, but let's keep it civil unless you're speaking of a specific person and can back it up, 'k?)

Re: *ahem*

[caryabend.livejournal.com]

Well, it *was* a snark.

You're referring to this part, right?

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.

The snark registers this as backpedaling at best and calls "Shenanigans". Steadfastness and loyalty are admirable traits, but inflexibility and refusal to change do not make others wishy-washy just because new information requires breaking a repetitive action.

One can convincingly argue that the insane repeat an action with the hope of achieving a different outcome. Or, you could read this article and come to the conclusion that they might be conservatives. Make your own analysis.

Keep in mind that the article goes to great and obvious pains to avoid casting conservatives in a bad light, and further tries to remove bias by using inflammatory language in a "humorous" way to achieve some sense of balance.

The snark sees through all that. The snark makes the claims that the article cannot because the snark does not need to be polite, or even fair, much less peer-reviewed or anything resembling accurate.

/snark /snark /snark /snark

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

But but but … I'm a liberal … and I "crave order and structure" and I have little to no "tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and … unexpected circumstances". Are you telling me that I went so far to the left, that I made a full circle? Waaaah!

[onyxhawke.livejournal.com]

Another interesting one I saw a while back showed that those firmly in one political party or another react the same way to information as the 'devoutly' religious when listening to their chosen messiah.

[anisosynchronic.livejournal.com]

The brain is self-organizing and self-reinforcing, and the more reinforcement/consistent training, the stronger the reinforcement. And when people e.g. join groups, the group reinforces the group values and the individual gets persuasion both external and internal, for participating in group-think [Fux News watchers and their Fux News view of the universe, which there is a feedback loop on for the belief that Saddam Husseim launched the mass murder attack on the USA six years ago, that "the War on Terror" has done anything except make the world a worse place--albeit an Army colonel who is an alum of the dorm floor I was on in college, told me that the Iraqis she talked to, remain grateful to be rid of Saddam Hussein--, and other reality distortions (I was at a courthouse that dates back a century yesterday--the building had lots of blocked off former entrances/exits, proof of a more open, more free, more trusting and honest and accessible world and governance-in-the-USA (as opposed to the take-everything-out-of-your-pockets-and-your-coat-etc.-off-and-put-it-all-through-the-X-ray-machine-and-walk-through-the-metal-detector eyewash (won't do anything to prevent an attack with something from outside the building, it might disaccommodate a crazy with a metal gun from carrying out an attack, but someone determined with some gumption, it's not going to make a significant preventatiive or deterrent to... mostly it's eyewash of making it LOOK like Something Is Being Done to improve security. In reality, though, is't like applying expensive but crappy-looking goldtone paint to try to persuade someone the someone it 24 carat solid gold. ]

The reinforcement is organic, in the neutral network, that strengthens the neural connections involved in knowledge/belief/habit/thought process/neuron firing patterns. It becomes automatic reaction, when X happens, do Y, and/or think Z or suspect V. And the more automatic the "learned" response, the less likely someone is to think about it as opposed to react/respond automatically. Conditioning also involved a whole lot of "collateral" stuff, and changing one thing that's ingrained, often requires changing or modifying everything that's around it... the whole reinforcement system of a belief often has to either go, or change, or be gotten away from, by a person to stop subscribing to one of the particular credo statements that's part of the whole. Removing one thread in something that's so tightly woven without having either then entire thing unravel or resist so strongly that the thread can't be removed, may be all but impossible.