Slashdot Mirror
Is "Left" Vs. "Right" Hard-coded Into Your Brain?
New submitter kyjellyfish writes "Research published in the journal PLOS ONE, suggests that your parents 'Left
or 'Right' party affiliations are not the only factor at work shaping a person's political identity. Differences in opinion between 'Lefties' and 'Righties' may reflect specific physiological processes. In research performed over 10 years ago, brain scans showed that London cab drivers' gray matter grew larger to help them store a mental map of the city."
From the article: "Other scans have shown that brain regions associated with risk and uncertainty, such as the fear-processing amygdala, differ in structure in liberals and conservatives. And different architecture means different behavior. Liberals tend to seek out novelty and uncertainty, while conservatives exhibit strong changes in attitude to threatening situations. The former are more willing to accept risk, while the latter tends to have more intense physical reactions to threatening stimuli."
I was a hard-core conservative a few years ago, now I'm a hard-core liberal.
Did my brain rewire itself?
Nope, your brain is just fucked up; "hard-core" leanings toward any political party these days is insane.
It's not hardwired: If it were, we'd be able to do these scans at birth or an early age and find similar patterns. But we don't. Which means the brain's structure changes in order to specialize in certain thought and behavior patterns. The fact that this applies to politics as well as, say, geospatial, tasks, should be absolutely no surprise.
It's disengenuous to suggest these things are hard-wired because they imply they cannot be changed. Except they can: I've known many people who, after experiencing a significant emotional event, altered their politics, religious affiliation, and even base personality traits. The human brain is exceptionally malleable. This study only offers a snapshot at a particular point in time and suggests that if certain structural properties are present, the thinking pattern is likely to be of a certain type. It does not say whether that structure was present before, after, or the extent to which it can be changed, and if so, how quickly.
It's like taking a photograph of a car driving down the road and assuming that it's on that road, and only that road, forever.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you get ever increasing evil.
"His name was James Damore."
Oh look, it's news reinforcing the false premise of the two party system.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
I was a hard-core conservative a few years ago, now I'm a hard-core liberal.
Did my brain rewire itself?
It's more likely that your definition if conservative and liberal changed.
My people call themselves conservative or liberal, while meaning totally different things.
Infact, the original meaning isn't left right :
the normal opposite of "conservative" would be "progessive" ( sticking to what's known to work versus taking the risk of trying new things ).
the normal opposite of "liberal" , would be authoritarian ( liberalism favoring more freedom , whereas authoritarianism favoring less freedom ( more control by state ) ). Although there is also the distinction between liberal (state should ensure freedom ) and libertarian ( state should be minimized, thus providing more freedom)
Left : more personal freedom, less economic freedom.
Right : more economic freedom, less personal freedom.
For example, you could be a left-leaning conservative liberal, which would mean that you value freedom, with emphasis on personal freedom, but prefer to stick to tried and true policies for achieving this ( just an example, I'm not saying you are ) .
Slipping shoelaces ?
yeah because they don't mind having their lives ever more micromanaged and sanitized by big daddy.. see I can stereotype and ad-hom too..
Neither "hard-core conservative" nor "hard-core liberal" refer to any political party. Ideologies perhaps. You could equate Tea-Partiers to the former and Occupiers to the latter, but neither group appears to have much faith in their "designated party" from the 2-party system we've got. Liberals complain that Obama is perpetuating and strengthening heavily criticized policies from GWB. Meanwhile, the conservatives have been throwing their stalwarts (Arlen Spector, John McCain, and now Chuck Hagel, et al) under the bus for not being suitably uncompromising about their core ideologies. And the GOP is torn apart as their try to pander to this group while distancing themselves from nutjobs such as Todd Akin.
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
Most of the liberals I know like guns, explosives and all kinds of interesting things. Although it does help that most of the liberals I know are also engineers so I don't know what we qualify as. Although I do know some strange liberals since they also like creating custom lifeforms to do interesting things like bacteria to clean up environmental damage, make medications etc.
Most see magazine limits as pretty stupid since you can print your own. Most I know are also completely okay with universal background checks since from what myself and others have read most of the weapons used in illegal crimes are coming from legal dealers that are selling without the checks or they come from gun shows where the checks are not required.
I don't see how universal background checks are at the expense of freedoms anymore than a driver's license, fishing license, hunting license etc is.
Often I wonder what engineers really qualify as. Most I know end up with the same end results as liberals on many issues but for radically different reasons. They also agree with conservatives on many issues but for radically different reasons. It seems to be more about practically and what works for the given situation. If the situation changes so does the solution but it doesn't matter if someone slaps a liberal or conservative sticker on an idea, So long as the idea is the best we have for the given problem under the given circumstances that is all that matters.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Slashdot is populated almost exclusively by the extreme left.
You clearly wouldn't know "extreme left" if it bit you in the butt. What passes for "left" in the USA is middle-of-the-road most everywhere else. And in any case, Slashdot has more than its share of libertarian types and go-it-aloners.
I don't see them favoring the rights of women very much or gays. That is the major reason that I just can not support them.
It doesn't matter what my views on abortion are. I don't have the right to impose them on someone else.
My views are the same on gay marriage. It is not something I will do but that does not change that others want to do it and they should have that option.
The republicans say they are the party of small government and getting government out of peoples lives but they don't act like it. Also I will say the democrats are just as bad but on different issues.
If the republicans would actually accept these social issues and actually be the party of smaller government it would be much easier to support them. However their history indicates this is just a talking point and not an actual action they take when given power.
I don't like the democrats either but they have tended to be far more accepting of other lifestyles and choices over the last 20 years or so and do more to push technology. Right now most people still don't realize that many of the jobs are gone and will never be coming back and our society is not really trained for the kinds of work that is needed now.
I am not saying that everyone needs a college education but there are good jobs that do need trained technicians that we should be teaching people to do and it doesn't matter if you are a democrat or republican. If you can find a program that costs $x and pays back >$x in tax revenue it is a good idea to do it since it puts more people to work and makes them productive citizens.
It is so tiring to hear ideas painted with liberal or conservative and then automatically thrown out. In many areas we need welders, electricians, etc but the funding is not there to get people out of poverty to train for those jobs and end the cycle. We also have a pretty decaying infrastructure in this company and are losing a LOT of jobs to places like germany with better infrastructure.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
What about those of us that want a universal health care system because the system we have now costs society more in things like crime, lower productivity and inefficiency that a universal system would?
It has nothing to do with fear, it is just practicality. The profit motive for medicine is not really working and it leading to pretty poor health outcomes. Based on various recent studies our computer systems give about 40% better patient outcomes at about 50% of the cost.
I think the medical system is due for a massive overhaul to make it work better and cheaper but I don't see that happening with the corporate system we have now and I also doubt that the kind of universal health care system we can get in this country would get us there either but it would still be better than what we have now.
For global warming the way I see the problem is companies are allowed to damage private and communal property without paying for it. If companies that damaged underground aquifers by fracking had to actually play the FULL COST to clean up the damage they would do it safely or stop pretty quickly. The entire reason that companies can do all this polluting is they are externalizing the costs to the taxpayer and future generations in return for profits for them right now. Look at BP, the fine they got for polluting the gulf of mexico is insignificant compared to the costs of the cleanup. So long as that remains true they are going to keep doing it because that is the way the incentive structure is setup. You get the behavior you incentivize for, not the behavior you claim to support.
For guns I just want universal background checks. I don't care about the clip sizes or the types of weapons very much. Especially given that pistols are the most common weapon used to kill people not rifle type weapons.
I do like government protection against unemployment. Mostly because I like that more than desperate people doing whatever they can to get food for themselves and their family which costs a lot more to the society than just helping them. However I don't think we help people effectively. If you lose your job it would be nice if your skills could be evaluated and training offered for indemand positions. So a welding company that can't fill a position could basically tell a government jobs program about the position and a person could be offered to be trained for that position.
Sometimes social programs are just the cheapest way to solve a given problem. It is a nice idea to say that everyone needs to stand on their own and deal with their own problems. However humans are also pretty violent when pushed into a corner and if someone has no other way to get food they will tend to just take it which is more expensive for all of us.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
I don't think it's at all reversed. Here's how I rationalized it: At a low level, people with "conservative" brains tend to be risk-averse. As a result they engage in less risky and novel behaviors, and overall have more positive (or less tragically negative?) outcomes. The end result is that they tend to be more self-reliant, and in their higher cognition don't see why one should need an extensive social safety net, and therefore oppose it. Conversely, people with "liberal" brains seek out novelty and therefore expose themselves to more risk. As a result, some liberals end up with tragically bad outcomes, and the ones who don't (i.e., have trained themselves to be appropriately risk-averse) can cognitively understand how one might end up in a bad spot. This, coupled with their tendency towards feelings of connectedness and presumably empathy, result in a greater desire for more extensive social safety nets.
Put another way, conservative brains are all like, "Well, I would never let myself get into that position. Even if I did, I'd get myself out of it. I don't see why they deserve help." and liberal brains are all like, "Even if that person didn't make the best choices at every juncture in their life (or even made lots of bad ones), I can totally understand how they made the choices they did. At some less wise point in my life, I might have made the same decisions. They deserve our help."
I don't come from a country that uses the term 'liberal'. However, I *think* I'm a liberal, and OP is easy to rebuff.
1. Freedom of speech must be balanced against those that seek to cause harm, i.e. by inciting violence. The state should press charges if you for yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre. This means, don't be surprised if I object to your poorly worded 'critical expression' if I feel as if it will incite violence.
2. I'm not *for* guns, or else I'd be *for* guns for everyone, especially those that cannot afford them. I don't see anyone argue *for* subsidised guns for everyone.
3. I'm not afraid of self-empowerment. It just shouldn't come at the cost of not restricting the freedoms of others. The bucket filling program that you write about is probably less a liberal position, but more a tool to manage a classroom. Anything to help kids think about their actions is a good thing.
4. I don't prefer either. The end of the scale, aggression, is generally a form of coercion. If you need to be aggressive towards someone, you're probably removing their ability to make their own decisions.
I finish off my post with some sweeping generalisations, and then a emotive, rousing call to arms. Just kidding.
Note that being 'out-numbered' isn't an excuse to be an asshole.
i don't see anything about the rat race in his post. The deal is simple - if it's your choice to be more social and grind less at work, accept the consequences (eg lower standard of living, low disposable income) like an adult. The choice is fine, but the oversized sense of entitlement would be wrong, as it would have to be funded by people who might hate work just much as you if not more, but don't skip the hard parts of life, who have the fruits of their labor taken from them.
Are you trying to tell me that most of everywhere else in the world considers the level of retarded behavior and thought process in somewhere like San Francisco is "middle of the road"? I'm glad I don't have a visa...
The problem is actually that the WAY that "middle of the road" is implemented in such places is retarded.
Both traditional "left" (as practiced in parts of Europe) and traditional "right" (the US Conservatives) have their advantages and disadvantages. Personally, I lean significantly more "left" than "right", but I can certainly see some disadvantages to my preferences and some advantages to the other way of looking at things. However, when you take a "right" stance and then implement ONLY SOME "left" policies, you end up with a complete shitstorm that fails to work at all.
You can't have "a bit" of public transport and then ignore your road infrastructure - you need a LOT of WELL PLANNED public transport in order to even consider reducing your investment in roads. Likewise, you can't have a half-hearted attempt at a public health system and expect it to help everyone as it should. Nor can you simply throw in free education without changing a lot of the systems around it in order to compensate for the financial upheaval it would cause.
Now, I'm in favour of good public transport, public health-care, and free education; but to me, the way such things get discussed in the US miss the point entirely. The European left and the US left both share the goals of having these things, but the European left at least pays attention to how it can be achieved without fucking everything else up badly in the process; something I feel the US left ignores on the vast majority of occasions.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
And SF is one of the most prosperous places on Earth. (The New England states are more prosperous but they have also had a lot longer to develop.) It seems that being run like a circus and being full of lazy people works. That, or your generalisations weren't worth the bother of writing down because they are just lazy Conservative stigmatising of anything new.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
This in fact highlights the difference between how the left and right perceive freedom of speech.
To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to constructively criticise without fear of censure.
To the right, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to verbally abuse others.
This is why from the left we get laws against inciting racial hatred, but from the right we get "free speech zones".
The marriage thing isn't really an issue of freedom - nothing stops gays from having religious ceremonies and making lifetime commitments - it's more an issue of forcing others to agree that gay marriage is good
You know, I'd have no problem with churches banning gay marriage and stopping gay people from having the religious ceremonies. They are free to have pretty much any views - consistent or self-contradictory - that they want, and I'm free to point and laugh at them. The thing I find indefensible is that a gay person who has been in a monogamous relationship with another for 20 years is not permitted to be their next of kin for legal purposes, while a drunk heterosexual couple that just met and stumbles into a wedding chapel can get this - along with certain tax breaks - immediately. These legal rights should be granted to any couple (or even group) that wishes to have them, not reserved for certain combinations of genitalia.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
In the terrified imagination of Glen Beck
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
All those who scream meritocracy do not know any better, or the fact that the guy who coined the term meant it as a derogatory phrase for the scary future we're headed into.
Meritocracy sounds great on paper but is terrible in terms of social consequences. It allows entrenched elites to stay entrenched and over time, removed generational mobility. It's a term thrown around so casually in the US that people think of it as a positive trait. It's anything but.
While average income is indeed high in San Francisco relative to the rest of the US (40-50% higher), the cost of living is also double (100% higher) the average cost of living in the US. Sounds like a net negative to me.
How is giving preferential treatment to the highest corporate bidder == small, constitutionally limited government? Or banning gay marriage? Or limiting women's choices? Or cutting entitlement programs to shift funding over to the military? I'm ok with the small, constitutionally limited government that conservatives always talk about, I just don't want the social and moral legislation that always seems to be mentioned in the next breath.
As we see from the resounding success of social policy in Europe, where every country has coffers full of tax revenues and a vibrant, healthy workforce to support the millions upon millions of pensions.
Ah, you mean like Germany? Yes, you are right, they have implemented it very well.
SJW n. One who posts facts.