One of the many things that fascinate me is looking at how we think. Brain theory may be the stuff of boredom to many, but for some odd reason it really holds my interest. Anyhow, there is a new study that looks at brain function and how it relates to your political attitudes. The upshot of it all, is that your political attitudes may, in fact, be a hardwired thing like being right or left handed.
This is from the LA Times. Check it out--it is some pretty interesting stuff:
Researchers show that liberals and conservatives approach everyday decisions differently.
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
11:07 AM PDT, September 9, 2007
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
Scientists at New York University and UCLA showed through a simple experiment to be reported Monday in the journal Nature Neuroscience 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 showed "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..."
Full article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.story?coll=la-home-center
Given the discussions here, and how intense they get, I have to say I think this study shows some reasons why that happens. What I can't find any discussion of, however, are people who are classed as Independent voters.
What do you all think about that? Are the Indy voters the only ones making full use of their brains?
Regards!
Laura
A fascinating, but also fairly narrow (as the article acknowledges), study! What I wonder is exactly WHY brains seem to be hard-wired differently....nature? Nurture? Many psychological studies have shown early childhood experiences affect, in part, some of our adult behaviors (later mediated by education/socio-economic levels, etc.).
Another thought-provoking study somewhat related to this "knee-jerk" study was conducted last year to replicate the older, renowned Milgram study on "following orders" without regard to human suffering. It appears that nothing has changed in 40 years...people are in general afraid to challenge authority even when "orders" directly conflict with morality and conscience.
It could just be that the liberal subjects were more worried about making a mistake. The claims about Bush are totally ridiculous.
There is no evidence to suggest that some people's ACC is more prone to activation than others... it all has to do with the knowledge you have - and your past experiences. Just because your ACC activates when you see an unexpected letter, that doesn't make you a nuanced person like Senator Kerry or mean that you are open to new ideas.
In general, when the results of a study are published in popular press before an academic journal, you should be very suspicious of the conclusions.
Laura,
Based on my door to door experience in my recent campaign, it was hard not to form an opinion that some voters politics were hard wired to another location, about 6" below the waist line and on the backside.
Now the politics of Gov. B are also wired differently. Perhaps we should call him Richard Head Rod.
Still........... an interesting article.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
Jammiin, I agree with you in questioning the impact of nature and environment on function. Sometimes that I joke that Darcy will become a big fan of Rush when she’s doing the teen rebellion thing—but I do think that kids will mirror the parent’s in many cases. I have always assumed that political leanings would be one of those things that could be influenced by socialization.
What I can’t reconcile in this study, however, is the reported difference in actual brain activity reported in the test subjects. All joking aside, I do think that the clichés of the liberal making excuses or the conservative sitting in some sort of black and white judgment probably do have roots someplace in observable behaviors. Maybe liberal subject really DO try harder to rationalize answers. It is interesting to look at, I think.
Adam, I get your point. I can’t say that I place complete trust in ANY single article I find on a given subject. Yes, pop science AND the reporting of it is flawed. I honestly don’t know if this study is all that bad—but I also thought it was worth bringing up for discussion.
Rex, I gotta tell you, “rectal cranial inversion” seems to be a pretty widely observable trait out there-- irrespective of what doorstep you are standing on. As for Rod, well, he really IS something. Remember, he did not win in Champaign County in that last Primary. The majority of the Dems in this county did not vote for him.
Regards!
Laura
Jonah Goldberg rips into this study here
So, basically, conservatives think the premise of the study is prima facie wrong in an absolute sense, while liberals find it intriguing to consider. Hmmm....
Congratulations. You haven't told us much about our way of thinking. But you've told us a lot about yours.
"Congratulations. You haven't told us much about our way of thinking. But you've told us a lot about yours."
A very interesting commentary; thanks for the link. I do feel obligated to point out that the title/headline is every bit as misleading as the other various media reports about the study. What the author demonstrates is not that the study was rigged to make conservatives look stupid. The study itself is amazingly simple and straightforward, and clearly not riggable in any way.
The thing that has actually been rigged is the way the various media have covered it. I never cease to be amazed by how many over reaching exaggerations can be applied in such a short time. By trying to distill every complexity of a story into a five second sound or word bite, the media inevitably ends up with generalizations so broad as to be meaningless at best, and glaringly inaccurate at worst.
Granted, some of the people who were connected to this research were guilty of assisting in these distortions, but the problem has clearly been in the various interpretations rather than the study data itself.
Actually, there are problems in the study data. For one, information about the percentage of females for each point on the -5 to 5 conservative - liberal scale was not given. Although gender may be simply a social construction, it is known that men and women have different tendencies on certain psychology experiments. Also, only 7 of the 40-some subjects rated themselves on the conservative half of the spectrum. And if you look at the scatter plot of conservative-liberal score vs. ACC activation, you'll notice that the trendline that fits all the data underestimates the average of the actual values of ACC activation for those 7 subjects. In other words, it may be that people who answered in the middle of the scale have low ACC activation, and if they could find any really conservative subjects, they might look like the really liberal ones.
"Actually, there are problems in the study data."
When I said that "the problem has clearly been in the various interpretations rather than the study data itself" I was referring solely to the allegations of rigging. I.e., were the numbers fudged or cooked, or was the study set up deliberately in such a way as to make conservatives look bad? The simplicity of the study argues no on both counts.
The interpretations of the data, however, are clearly being spun in ways far beyond what the data can actually support. Sample sizes are obviously an issue, as is isolation of variables, as you point out.
I also am always curious about how much simple eye-hand coordination plays a role in such a test. Maybe some of the subjects have played more video games. Does that affect one's ability to control repetitive finger behavior (which is what this study really tests, after all)?
And as always, the self-description of political leanings is much more subjective than I ever care for in scientific testing.