Red Brains vs. Blue Brains?

eLoco writes "From the NYTimes (reg. req.): The Political Brain -- "Why do Republicans and Democrats differ so emphatically? Perhaps it's all in the head." Researchers from UCLA have seem to have found that liberals have, on average, a more active amygdala than conservatives. According to the article, studies of stroke victims "have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy." So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly? [DISCLAIMER: this is not a troll; I am a liberal]. Regardless, this seems to have implications for more than just politics. Favorite quote: "Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function.""

Comments

Geographic Distribution

[scorp1us]

Liberals come from cities, Conservatives come from rural areas.

I think it is the lifestyle of where you live that governs the formation of the brain.

Look at this county map. Here is a equally hi correlation to rurality=convervativeness.

Maybe conservatives are inbred, not born? (Laugh, it's a joke, not a troll.)

Re:Geographic Distribution

[nine-times]

Liberals come from cities, Conservatives come from rural areas.

What's kinda funny is that city-liberals often don't really understand this. People in rural and conservative areas watch movies and TV, and they see city-life. They get their daily dose of liberal slant, and they can compare it to their conservative slant and that of their neighbors. People in the big city, however, watch their own liberally-slanted media, generated by there generally liberal neighbors, and think that, since they aren't seeing other points of view, there are none. However, the key is that they aren't watching movies and TV made in bum-f*ck nowhere. They aren't getting the other side, and so they are sincerely astonished when the whole country doesn't agree with what they thought was the only way of looking at things.

I suspect some of the difference between urban/rural areas and their liberal/conservative slant comes from the fact that city living is, by nature, more socialistic. You rely much more on public transporation and city services and street-sweepers and whatever else. Living in New York, for example, things like the subway and rent-control are just necessary facts of life, like the sun and the moon (and the ever-present pink glow in the sky at midnight). The municipal influence is tangible, lubricating your interaction with all the other people you're packed in with, and staving off chaos. With the comforting goverment, omnipresent already, you think, "Couldn't the government just take care of this other thing, too?"

In the country, you don't generally feel a government unless you go looking for it. It feels much more like you're on-your-own, except maybe for neighbors and such (which feel like neighbors and not cityscape). Whenever the government does play a role in your life, it's usually annoying and intrusive. It's paying taxes and needing to get permits and such. You don't necessarily feel like there are police roaming the streets, and the boundaries of life are more well-defined, so shot-gunning anyone who dares to come up on your property unannounced makes a certain amount of sense. You know you're going to have to do for yourself, because no government is going to patrol the wide-open empty spaces "just in case", and so you'll often find yourself wondering, "why do we need so much government, anyway?"

Anyway, it's a theory.

Re:Jesus H Christ

[dsanfte]

Many gays do in fact have kids. The bodily functions are all there and correct, and many don't discover that they're gay until adulthood when they're married. They often say they felt "different" for their entire lives, and didn't know why.

A friend of mine didn't realize he was gay until he'd already slept with several men, and he lost his virginity originally to a girl.

This isn't as straightforward as you might want to believe.

I was conservative, and am now a radical liberal

[Cryofan]

Basically, my entire adult life, up into my 40s, I was conservative. I came from a quite conservative west texas ranching family. However, even though I have always been a very avid reader, I had not really been directly exposed to deliberately and overtly leftist writings until I got on the Internet in the mid 90s. And I really got into the Internet and computers once I was exposed to them (even picked up a second degree, a BS in Comp Sci).

So for the last 8 years or so, I gradually became more and more exposed to direct contact with leftist thought--but only through the Net. I basically rejected leftism, however, but really out of habit. By 2001 or so, I still had not really taken the time to really delve into the deep background and rationale of leftism.

However, my acceptance of radical life extensionism (cryonics, etc), and my acceptance of atheism made me ready to accept a radical change in worldview, I suspect.

Also, the events of 9-11 and its aftermath, and the Iraq war and the media propaganda drive associated with it made me much more aware of just what was going on, with respect to media manipulation. I had come across the ideas of Noam Chomsky in about 1989, but had rejected them--although I had been exposed to them only second hand, through an establishment filter.

These prior events set me up for a move to leftism. THat, and my research into a possible move to another country. I quit my W-2 job last year and went contract. And when contract work died down, I had time to do even more research.

By late last year, I was a confirmed leftist. And I will never look back.

THere is an old saying that a husband will not leave a wife unless he has someone else already waiting for him to make him a comfortable home. In other words, even if his current wife has some real problems, he will not take action unless he can walk right into a better situation.

THe Net offers a leftist community, one that was not possible in meatspace USA, outside of certain locations. With a community of leftists ready to accept strayers from the establishment pack, I think more and more will go Left. Join us!

Mod parent up

[OG]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up (don't know why you got modded down). Interesting research by Andrew Newberg (University of Pennsylvania) used imaging techniques to study the differences between the brains of laypeople and religious clergy-type people (Franciscan nuns and Buddhist monks). He found that certain brain regions were stronger in those who meditate often than in the laypeople. He also studies their brains when meditating (or, in the case of the nuns, chanting), and he found an increase in the brain areas during that time period. Coupled with the idea of neural plasticity, it could be that the actual practice does increase those areas (like your exercise analogy).

Newberg has a book out entitled "Why God Won't Go Away." I haven't read it, but I did have the pleasure of seeing him give a seminar at my school last year. There's also a documentary that's being screened called "What the Bleep Do We Know." It's kind of a "Sophie's World" docu/fiction hybrid, but it has interviews with mystics and neuroscientists and philosophers detailing modern ideas about the mind. Again, I haven't seen it (hasn't shown in South Carolina...go figure) but it sounds really interesting.

Possibly.

[khasim]

Skinner is my favorite psychologist. I recommend reading "Beyond Freedom and Dignity" and "Walden Two".

But he wasn't talking about biology as being the determining factor on behaviour.

He was all about conditioning. If you raise a child in a specific manner, the adult will behave in a specific manner. Unless their environment changes (environment meaning just about anything, not just the weather).

He said that behaviour is physiological responses to external stimuli.

And contrary to what people may read on the 'web, his daughter did not commit suicide.

Re:The bravery of liberals

[Oddly_Drac]

"but when peaceful means fail and tyranny rears its ugly head, then blood must be spilled."

That sort of depends on who decides on the true meaning of the word 'tyranny', and to what extent you're willing to try 'peaceful means'.

Personally I've always believed that there is no point where you can justify the murder of another human being on such wishy-washy subjective justifications, which is one of the reasons why governments tend not to place overall control in the hands of one individual.

"Because I believe there may come a time where I need to defend my ideals with violence."

And this is different to white supremicists, how? Because you're in the majority?

"In no religious or political tradition is the forceful opposition of tyranny considered a sin or a crime."

Yeah, governments don't like to bite the sociological hand that feeds considering that most have come from armed uprising in the first place, but you're wrong in terms of the Roman Catholic church mandating excommunication in the case of resistence to papal bulls. Nice rhetoric, though.

"The liberals who founded America did so by violently opposing British tyranny"

*cough* Native Americans *cough*

I also have a problem with this depiction of 'British Tyranny' which does appear to be the revisionist line of history, particularly as it would have never become what it did without the help of our ancestral enemies, the French.

"empathy towards who?"

Empathy is not conditional and represents the ability to empathise or put yourself in the place of other people.

"I, like Christ Jesus, will agitate for a change in this situation until my dying day."

You should read the bible without the bits by Paul. Paul was the agitator (and a Roman citizen), whereas Jesus was more interested in people themselves. Incidentally, it's why Jesus' brother, James, was written out of the new testament. He was more a follower of the path of poverty while Paul was working on his Roman franchise. The parables were basically stories intended to make the world a better place by taking on the stories, so don't agitate, just help.

"I hope it does not come to that, but if it will, I will not run from it."

That's a fairly grandiose statement that doesn't have any basis in fact. For a start, you have a militant bearing which indicates that you have a viewpoint of the world 'as it should be', an idealism I share, but I'd never try to achieve it through the spilling of blood, because at the point where you start killing, you've lost any shred of humanity that gives you the ability to empathise.

Incidentally, it's a damn site more brave to stand up for ideals unarmed. Most people forget this.

I don't see it that way.

[khasim]

I would be considered a "Liberal" on most people's scale.

But I'm pro-gun. And I favour a strong military (but I oppose "Star Wars" because I don't think it is necessary now nor do I believe that it would work even if it was necessary). I also believe in more State's rights and a reduced federal government.

"Conservatives tend to believe that people behave in the way they do as a result of something about them in particular - their nature."

I also believe that. But I also believe that the way they were raised affects their choices. Someone who craves power can go into politics or religion or financials or just be an abusive husband.

"Some people are just good and some people are just bad."

Good and bad are personal evaluations. Saddam is "bad" but the US government thought Saddam was "good" when he was fighting Iran.

Personally, I thought one tin-pot dictator was fighting a authoratarian theocracy and I didn't see any "good" in either side.

"Liberals, on the other hand, see everyone as more or less products of our environment - the way we are nurtured."

But our environments do shape the choices we have. It takes someone with a LOT of self-focus to overcome the obstacles of his environment.

So, someone with a lot of character (an internal trait) can overcome his environment, but most people do not have that and become products of their environment.

"To illustrate my point, consider gun control."

I'm completely in favour of the 2nd Amendment.
-but-
I'm also in favour of a waiting period. I don't want someone buying a gun because he just found out his wife is cheating on him. I'm also in favour of registering guns which includes ballistics. A bullet pulled from a murder victim should be traced back to the gun that fired it and the person who purchased it.

I believe that 99%+ of the people who own guns are responsible gun owners and no threat to themselves or society.

But I also believe that a responsible gun owner would register his weapons, properly secure them and immediately report any that were stolen. This is his responsibility to society. When you exercise certain rights, you take on certain responsibilities.

So, is that "Conservative" or "Liberal"?

"Poverty is another example of the difference."

Easily answered by my previous statement about character and environment. Those with weak to average character will end up as products of their environment. Those with strong character will overcome those obstacles.

Now, take Enron and such. Crime does not depend upon poverty.

"How does this tie into free will? Conservatives make no effort or attempt to explain why bad people are bad. They just are."

Which is why I am not a Conservative.

"Liberals, on the other hand, attempt to explain bad behavior. They say it's a result of our upbringing or our environment. By attempting to explain it, they don't leave a lot of room for free will to say that the people made the choice to be bad."

I believe that people do make their own choice.

Here's an example: Exercise.

Everyone (Conservatives and Liberals) knows that you should exercise. Yet not many people do. Is that because they are "bad" people who have chosen not to exercise? Or is it because the parents didn't love them enough?

I believe that it is because most people do not have the character to force themselves to do what they know is good for them and would rather take the easy way.

As in the exercise example, so as in Life.

Re:Wow....

[mkuki]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents plus some personal experience. I am always wary of explanations that ignore societal factors. Yes, blacks on average are notably poorer than whites and a small part of that may have to do with so called 'black culture' (black culture is not a monolith, there are multiple parts to it but the media potrays only the bad/dysfunctional sub cultures) but if one is trying to claim that the disparity is not due to a large part on discrimination and exclusion then you are sorely mistaken.

I am a black african who grew up middle class at home and I now work in hi-tech (software engineer) in the Boston area. I have faced discrimination in the past but as one climbs the social/financial ladder its effects become less pervasive (but still as painful). However, every once in a while its pervasiveness becomes apparent. My girlfriend and I were recently looking for an apartment and since I was the one who had a lot of free time we had a number of interesting experiences

1. Spoke to a realtor and when we showed up the first thing out of his mouth was that we should look for low income housing (huh?)

2. Had a realtor I spoke to (people sometimes mistake my accent for British or something) and made an appointment to see quite a few apartments. Spoke to him multiple times (called him from work and he stated he had quite a few places to show us). When I showed up he suddenly got this look when he saw me. First words out of his mouth were "So, do you work?" (this after I had spoken to him by calling him from work and stating that I would be leaving work early to meet him. He them claimed that he really had nothing to show us and hurriedly left (this one I shall be reporting to the BHA)

Had realtors just yank my chain, treat me rudely etc. I got to the point where I would joke with my girlfriend (who is white) that maybe she should do all the looking and booking and then I would show up at the end.

We eventually gave up and decided to do Craigs List and only do for rent by owner, since by doing this we were dealing with young enlightened people, we had much better luck .

On the whole my experiences with realtors is very disheartening. Now, I have only had to deal with this (and the occasional N word yelled, treated suspiciously by policeand people etc) for only a few years and also not during my formative years. If I had to deal with this all my life I can tell you I would be a very different person.

As far as affirmative action goes, I whole heartedly support it. I know that I have benefited from it (I know jobs that I would have never gotten even to the initial interview unless the companies involved were not afraid of not looking as if they were following certain mandates. Also for the longest time when job hunting I would make sure that my first few interviews were over the phone (but then again, a study done last year in the Boston and Philadelphia area found that job applicants with black sounding names were called back 50% less than job applicants with white sounding names (this after controlling for education).

As far as the black intelligence argument that is used as an explanation all I can say is give me a break!. I remember that in the Bell Curve it was stated that the average I.Q of Africans was something like 75 or 80 (borderline retarded). The fact tha such a book could be greeted with anything but scorn says everything you need to know about race relations in the U.S