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."
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.
That doesn't explain why we have a Republican president who is by most standards considered mentally challenged.
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?
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)
If Bush is mentally challenged, what does that say about Kerry?
(I don't believe Bush is mentally challenged, I don't believe Kerry is mentally challenged, and I sure as heck don't believe that IQ is anything but attaching a meaningless number to people.)
I disagree. Dick Cheney is a very intelligent man, and while I may not agree with much that he says, a very capable public speaker. Take your liberal smears somewhere else, you damn dirty pinko!
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
"Kidding...kidding.... The Republican does have a heart." Yup, just look at Cheney.
Buhs is not mentally challanged, he's going senile!
=Smidge=
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.
Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -Sir Winston Churchill.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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).
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...
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.