Slashdot Mirror
Brain Scans May Unlock Candidates' Appeal
Anonymous Voter writes "Applying some of the same brain-scan technology used to understand Alzheimer's and autism, scientists are trying to learn what makes a Republican's mind different from a Democrat's."
How's that go
The Democrat is all heart and no brain, the Republican is all brain and no heart?
Kidding...kidding.... The Republican does have a heart.
Perhaps data has not been properly entered. Please try again.
People from [your party] have a brain, and those of [other party] don't!
Moo.
Many people I know vote based on what those around them think. One friend in particular agrees with me on every individual issue, but is voting for Bush because it goes against her southern upbringing to vote for a liberal. So which are we discussing here, whether people are voting red or blue, or whether their world view is left or right?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Brainscan Tech #1: Did you move Mr. Bush into the scanning field?
Brainscan Tech #2: Yes, why?
Brainscan Tech #1: Hmmm. That's odd. I'm not getting anything on the brainscan display.
This story may be "hard news" and "serious science" but why the hell this isn't also under the category of "It's Funny, Laugh!" is beyond me! I know I did!
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Didn't I just read this somewhere...
- Coca-Cola Rewires Your Brain; Pepsi Cannot
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Slashdot editors don't like science unless it's outer space.22:21 Tuesday 19 October 2004
Rejected
Where's that article... okay, here it is, althought I suspect it will have gone into subscription-only archive by now. Probably there's a mirror somewhere.
One of the points was that, using brain scans, we can accurately predict which of the colas you'll prefer. Also, there's no scientific basis for the "blindfolded taste test": it'll come out 50/50... which makes me wonder what a truly "blindfolded" political survey would show.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Republican brains are hotbeds of selfish control-freakishness, and Democrat brains are missing something.
What about Independent brains? (There aren't any, of course. But I'm open to the possibility. If you see an Independent brain floating by, let me know!)
2) It's not an uninteresting question, but as the typically inflammatory submission here demonstrates, both the media and the jackasses here are unable to look at it in an un-stupid way.
Uh, you forgot to work in a mention of France.
Amateur.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
It's interesting that that the democrats' Amygdala lights up more than the republicans' for Sept. 11 surprises me. I thought the Republican platform was fear of terrorists and "remember 9/11", not the dems'. For the non-neurologists like me, read the Wiki Article
It is also a 'fact' that 90% of the KKK will vote for Bush, at least by your logic of baseless assumption.
It is also a fact that 'inner city welfare types' are U.S. citizens, and therefore entitled to vote for whomever they choose.
It is also a fact that felons in prison do not get to vote.
It is also a fact that you have failed to account for the non-gutless French. Who do you suppose they would vote for?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
We have a one party system if anyone has noticed. The current political atmosphere, the bitterness in the media between the sides is a clever ploy to move the population as a whole. Now we have a system where you can do one thing and accuratly predict the behavior of 90% of the people. For example, the GoP says something is bad the DNC will say it is good. This follows down to the dittoheads.
Further more, why do we have the electorate almost evenly split? It could be that both candidates and policies are so aligned that the population is simply guessing, which averages out to 50/50 with suble varioations depending on date, mood, the location of UFO's overhead etc.
This is all conspiracy theory and ass blown conclusions (aka my opinion) so take it for what you will.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
"Of the known unknowns a decision can be made. For the unknown knowns, we have to be flexible."
This actually makes sense from a real-world (not computer) engineering point of view, but the overuse of the word makes it look/sound clownish.
Maybe I'm right but someone will probably correct me.
It is also a fact that you have failed to account for the non-gutless French. Who do you suppose they would vote for?
In a recent poll of all non-gutless French, both of them said they would vote for Kerry.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Yeah, I suppose setting up a straight line like that is a lot like leaving your kid brother at Neverland Ranch on a Friday night.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Seriously, all these surveyes, tests...and no third party info. Frankly, Im not horribly surprised by the results...Im quite aware of people crazy connections to "their" canidate.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
" It is also a 'fact' that 90% of the KKK will vote for Bush"
Seems low, I can't see one KKK member NOT voting for Bush. He supports adding discrimination to the Consitution, what more could a good KKK member want?
BTW, I can taste the difference in Coke and Pepsi. I prefer Pepsi, but I really don't care. My wife, however, is very sensitive to the difference. When she was pregnant even the smell of Pepsi would make her nauseated, but Coke was fine.
However, I think most people don't know the difference. When Coke came out with New Coke many people complained bitterly. The leading crusader for the switch back to "Old Coke" was Gay Mullins. However, when given a taste test with Coke, New Coke and Pepsi, he chose PEPSI! When given a second chance, he said he could not tell which he liked best. In his case, it apparently was "all in his mind." The only reference I could find quickly on this is this usenet post.
I can't see one KKK member NOT voting for Bush
Two words:
Condi
Colin
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
For years, Soviet doctors and psychiatrists attempted to medicalize dissent, institutionalizing "patients" and subjecting them to a variety of experimental drugs and other treatments designed to "cure" them of anti-communist thought. When that didn't work, they just threw them in the gulag.
I'm sure those old Soviet doctors are glad to see their work being carried on here in the US.
Tokens. Colin for one definately seems to be on the outside looking in.
It is also possible that the feelings people had for their chosen candidate (a sense of connection by Kerry supporters, or a feeling of friendship by Bush supporters) have more to do with the personalities of each candidate as perceived by their supporters. That is, Bush is a more friendly type, so Bush supporters perceive him as being a friend of sorts; Kerry is the "way out" from the current admin for his supporters, so they perceive him with a strong sense of connection.
Another possible alternative link involves the activity in the amygdala when shown a Bush ad including scenes from the September 11 attacks. Rather than being an innate difference between people of political leanings, this could be the result of the two wings of the media either harping on or justifying the use of September 11 imagery in Bush ads. Bush supporters find the imagery of the attack aftermath as connected to Bush to be reassuring, because they feel he is doing the right thing with regards to terrorism; while Kerry supporters find the same imagery to be alarming because the linked imagery of the attacks with Bush provides no reassurance (because they disagree with how Bush has handled terrorism).
Tell that to Zaphod Beeblebrox. GWB probably got tips from him when he preformed his own brain surgery.
As an fMRI researcher this article is frustrating. Simply knowing what areas of the brain are being utilized for a task says nothing about the political views of a person. Nor does it reveal how to recruit voters for your cause. It is a single person's reaction to seeing someone that they either affiliate with or don't - the same as most other social interactions.
Couple this with the fact that you cannot discern much from single subject data in fMRI. With some robust paradigms you can get good signal, but only through hundreds or thousands of trials on the part of the subject, adn then only for more basic sensory processes. I doubt these conditions were met for experimental research paid for by outside parties.
I agree that we will be seeing more of this, but take it allwith a grain of salt, please. fMRI is beginning to get a bad rap and it is studies like this that are making it happen...
You might want to check out the Constitution Party. That's were all the fun people seem to be going.
Perhaps somewhat ironically, most Klan members I've met are die-hard Democrats. Naturally, this goes back to when the Dems had the "fighting cock" as their mascot with the slogan "White Supremacy" as its banner, and these folks are currently in their late 60s to mid 70s.
They seem to hold on to some ideal that while the people they vote for publically display their affection and attention towards racial and ethnic minorities, inwardly they are working in favor of their extinction (i.e. supporting abortion for inner-city black women but not for upscale white women, supporting welfare programs imbalanced in favor of minorities so they'll never escape poverty, etc... (this is their justification, I'm not saying it's fact))
Politics is all about emotion. I know some republicans and libertarians will disagree with this, but they do so because they get an emotional response to their ideas that are based on logic. Ultimately, they feel more comfortable with the policies of their candidates. It just sits right.
I know I feel a strong aversion to big government. I feel inspired by the idea of lower taxes and reduced government. I have an emotional connection to these issues that obviously a lot of others don't.
What makes a good politician is he understands what excites people and how to get them out there to do something for the candidate for free. It's called leadership, charisma.
Real leadership is positive. You saw it with FDR, John Kennedy, and Reagan. They gave a vision, then spread that vision to the masses, then coordinated the effort to achieve that vision.
Most politicians are not good at what they do. (I'll leave a judgment of their character or their ability as a governor or legislator as a seperate issue.) The only way they can inspire is by fear and hatred.
Luckily, fear and hatred are emotions that are easily conquered by vision and inspiration. For instance, Dr. King's speech "I have a dream" inspired probably the majority of the people to lower their fear and hatred of racial integration.
I think that politics will always be a human art. There will only be a handful of really good politicians out there. They will be the ones to add that touch to the campaign and speeches that all the science and understanding in the world can't bring. There is a soul to good politics that can't be described with machines and numbers.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
And when viewing the opposition, all had increased blood flow in the region where humans consciously assert control over emotions suggesting the volunteers were actively attempting to dislike the opposition.
Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the volunteers were actively trying not to, say, angrily yell "BUSH LIED MILLIONS DIED" at the screen? Using this line of logic, you might as well say that Democrats had more amygdala activity then Republicans in response to the 9/11 ad because they were actively trying to be afraid of airplanes smashing into buildings.
Rob
at first I thought they had bush and kerry brainscanned
Life has become the ideology of its absence - T.W. Adorno
The article mentioned only showing politically based images to the test subjects. People who have claimed a political party are very likely to have made up their minds about a number of different issues. Is it unusual that a Democrat who feels Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse for the Iraqi war would be more upset that a Republican who feels that 9/11 is being avenged by the Iraqi war?
The results of the study would be more interesting if the subjects were shown generic imaegs. Thunderstorms, babies, sunsets, etc., and then see what parts of their brains were stimulated.
John Ellis
Shouldn't this read more like, 'What makes the minds of Democtrats and Repubilcans different'? The way it is worded in the article implies something wrong with Republicans.
Leave it to research scientists to have no clue that people actually gain wisdom as they experience the "outside" world. I can only guess that they're still stuck in the "college liberal" mindset because they have never left their campus labs. Now, they need to do "brain scans" to solve the problem of their own inadequacies.