Slashdot Mirror
Reactions To Disgusting Images Predict a Persons Political Ideology
LuxuryYacht writes A new study shows that the way your brain responds to photos of of maggots, mutilated carcasses, and gunk in the kitchen sink gives a pretty good indication of whether you're liberal or conservative. "Remarkably, we found that the brain's response to a single disgusting image was enough to predict an individual's political ideology," Read Montague, a Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute psychology professor who led the study, said in a written statement. 83 men and women viewed a series of images while having their brains scanned in a functional MRI (fMRI) machine. The images included the disgusting photos described above, along with photos of babies and pleasant landscapes. Afterward, the participants were asked to rate how grossed out they were by each photo. They also completed a survey about their political beliefs, which included questions about their attitudes toward school prayer, gun control, immigration, and gay marriage. There was no significant difference in how liberals and conservatives rated the photos. But the researchers noted differences between the two groups in the activity of brain regions associated with disgust recognition, emotion regulation, attention and even memory. The differences were so pronounced that the researchers could analyze a scan and predict the person's political leaning with 95 percent accuracy.
First:
Second:
So what would the results be if the recruits were from a more "Liberal" country?
That is the problem with these "studies". DO NOT look in your backyard for cases that support your bias. Look for cases that contradict your bias. Even if you have to look at the people in other countries. Particularly countries where there is less focus on the items that are controversial in the USofA.
I wonder how long before your thoughts will be ruled physical evidence ?
I'm a little curious what precisely they were showing to these people.
I mean... the images could have had political connotations that are not evident in the abstract's description.
In any case, politics are largely taught cultural traits rather then innate biological traits. So... not entirely sure where this is going.
Someone that watches more horror movies for example is going to have a higher threshold for disgust and shock probably then someone that doesn't.
I know that most men for example don't get grossed out, threatened, or shocked by things will tend to cause many women to gag, become uncomfortable, or otherwise become startled.
Then you have age and generational issues in that given ages and generations have different cultural perspectives that influence the way they respond to things.
My grandfather for example fought in WW2 but I'm pretty sure I could shock or gross him out with stuff that wouldn't really bother most of my peers.
It is a very murky issue and from what I am reading here they don't appear to have controlled for all the variables properly.
I'd want to grab college students for example because they're all pretty close to the same age. That would limit the study to some extent and control for some of the age issues. And then the images you show them really do need to be examined for subtle political connotations which really are very hard to eliminate. ... this is a stickier issue then I think the study properly appreciates. That said, glad they're having fun with the MRI machine... looks neato.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's strange how the bogeymen groups known as "liberals" and "conservatives" are apparently some sort of ill-defined hivemind.
The "issues" appear to be from the American political arena, which is about as much about political ideology as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is about sports. They're also highly polarised, in that they all come in red and blue versions with no alternative views possible, that are then conveniently grouped such that anyone leaning toward either colour in any one issue is then expected to be leaning toward matching colours in the other issues.
So what does this study tell us? I think we're seeing two cases of pervading and mutually opposed groupthink, where the patterns have become distinctive enough to be discernible -- recall that limited "thought readers" already exist. In other words, I don't see a necessity for biological predisposition here. It could be, but do note that to people used to multi-party systems (n>>2), "American politics" looks like an one-party system consisting of two factions that are only interested in duking it out with the other group, to the point of (either faction) being willing to shut down the government over some petty squabble or other. In other words, the discerning this thing does is really quite limited because the source spectrum is so poorly populated with just two possible inputs that are strongly polarised against each other to boot.
I've never considered my political ideology to be something that exists on a linear scale. How I feel about a particular political issue is often different from the feelings of either of the large political groups, and where my feelings align with those of political groups, I have some that align with people of groups considered to be at either end of this scale. I could be mistaken in thinking that other people are similar to me this way, but when I read about a study that first confines political ideology to a linear scale, and then uses [insert method] to predict where one lands on that scale, I have to give some thought to the possibility of inherent confirmation bias in the design of the system.
Obvious differences indeed - I'm guessing the conservatives' brains lit up in the areas associated with planning the work to clean up the mess, and liberals' brains in the areas with hope that the government would fix it?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
"Is this testing whether I'm a republican or a lesbian, Mr Deckard?"
Just don't ask the subjects about their mother...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Ahh, now I understand the 6 years of political gridlock by the Republicants... they're planning to clean up the mess! That explains it all. So what decade are they going to get around to cleaning it up?
You should probably say that these are aborted babies. Some people might have a high gore threshold but still might see these as triggers.
Go to a mosque and talk to a muslim. You might learn something.
I rather wouldn't. It might be disturbing.
I'm sorry, but the more we learn, the more we have to accept that being religious in most forms is simply being delusional in the truest sense of the word.
Ezekiel 23:20
Or perhaps some of us simply value mind over matter. The precursor to a human being is a lump of molecules, then a lump of cells, then a very juvenile vertebrate individual with zero consciousness. At some point, it becomes a human being as we know it where virtually everyone thinks it's wrong. Some people would apparently like me to think that disposing of a zygote is murder. In that case, well, you'd have to put Mother Nature on trial. It's she who sacrifices about one zygote for each two live newborns. The problem is that there's no fixed boundary. And since you're applying a binary classifier on this problem, and people are different, almost by definition, there will always be regions when someone thinks it's right and someone else will think it's wrong. Ever for the zygote, there will be people who will always think it's wrong. I'm sorry, but this whole issue seems like a manufactured problem. There's no solution to this in the same sense that there's a solution to "do alien civilizations exist?" or "does P=NP?". It's simply an issue of a completely different class. To be honest, I find it puzzling that people even argue about it as if trying to convince anyone about one's own opinion - which is what you seem to be doing - made somehow sense. I don't think it does.
Ezekiel 23:20
Go to a mosque and talk to a muslim. You might learn something.
I try to avoid crazy people who believe in imaginary bullcrap.
It seems very reasonable to blame those with the greatest share for wealth and power for the current state of society, rather than the impoverished and marginalized.
Though the latter position has a long heritage, stating back to the days when isolated, quirky old women were burned for being witches, somehow causing famine and pestilence despite their poverty and lack of influence.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Changing regulations to make oral contraceptives over the counter is not the same as forcing others to pay for them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Conservative believe people suffer because they have freely made bad life choices. People who suffer therefore do not deserve our assistance or our sympathy, as they are wholly to blame for their condition. Public policy should discourage bad choices by allowing these people to suffer the consequences of their freely chosen action. Welfare, unemployment insurance, and public healthcare are wrong, as they go against the natural order by isolating people from the consequences of their actions.
Conversely, the wealthy and powerful have made good life choices and deserve our admiration. Public policy should encourage these high ranking individuals through lower taxes and less regulation of their activities.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
"Political Gridlock" is a fabricated phrase coined by petulant children who are actually saying "Do it my way, damnit!"
It is not the job of Congress to ensure that laws get passed. It is not the intent of our government's structure to ensure that compromises are met and new rules are enacted. It is structured so that unless there is a majority in agreement, not one god damn thing is forced upon the people.
Somehow we've lost sight of that fact, and now we measure the effectiveness of Congress on an abundant tally of their bloated, incongruous and often self-contradicting and self-serving laws, rather than on how intelligently and efficiently they structure the few laws that should be actually enacted.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
I'm sick of this thread, and I'm sick of all of you. You're all petulant children throwing tantrums. These comments aren't even worth reading. They're all just more of the same bashing without any substance or actual discussion.
This is INTERESTING and you're all too busy throwing out tropes that any honest actor would dismiss as ad hominem attacks to actually discuss this. Conservatives react slightly stronger to disgusting images. We know this of course. This has been theorized and shown before. Of course, a more liberal person will have different areas light up too.
This means there's a very real perception filter difference happening here, and perhaps we need to extend a little empathy across the quite imaginary isle and try to TALK to one another.
No. Liberals do not want to laze around and let the government do everything for them. No. Conservatives do not want perpetual war. No. Liberals do not want other people to pay for their stuff. No. Conservatives do not blame unions and immigrants for everything. You people should KNOW these simplistic tropes are full of it, and here they are flung around as if true.
I'm liberal. My best friend is conservative. When we listen to each other, really listen instead of hearing what the TV wants us to hear from each other, we can have very nice discussions about economics and the world. We both want bankers punished for what they did. We both want the economic system to be regulated. We both want clean air and water. We both want to get the !@#$ out of the middle east. We both want to live in a country that's fair and just. Our differences are far less than our similarities.
Bah. I'm ranting.... this is interesting science and all of you completely missed it in an attempt to sling shit all over. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Your sig references a bible verse, so I assume you identify yourself as Christian.
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. -Ezekiel 23:20
Comment removed based on user account deletion
According to Pew Research, Americans are 0.6% Muslim.
http://religions.pewforum.org/...
Where did you find 20%?
-Dave
How is it a "bad life choice", say, to be born with cerebral palsy or to develop type 1 diabetes mellitus?
Unless a "pro life" person is against all killing of humans—including institutional killing (war, police shootings, death penalty)—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all. Additionally, unless a "pro life" person also promotes policies which improve conditions for humans outside the womb—including promotion of good education, access to quality nutrition and healthcare—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all.
Now, there are a few people who meet those criteria. I don't see eye-to-eye with their position on abortion (and sometimes even birth control), but I respect their conviction, consistency and intentions. You may be one of those people, but I sincerely doubt it: you have identified yourself with conservatives, a group which often (but not always) tends to be at odds with all of the other values I listed. (And yes, I realize that many liberals tend to also be at odds with some or all of those values. This is why broad political affiliation is problematic.)
Until the "pro life" movement becomes anything other than an absolute joke, hypocritically shaming perceived moral ills most of its members broadly support in other contexts, it can expect to become increasingly marginalized as a more empowered generation elects to make decisions about whether or when it parents children by answering questions like:
- Is parenting something I'll ever want?
- Is parenting something I want right now?
- Will I be able to provide a good life for the child?
- Will I be able to be a responsible and loving parent?
All of these can have a profound impact on the life of a child, and ultimately an adult as well. It's astonishing that so many "pro life" people readily dismiss them. Pro "life", but what kind of life?
It seems very reasonable to blame those with the greatest share for wealth and power for the current state of society, rather than the impoverished and marginalized.
It may seem reasonable, but it largely isn't. It is just another set of scapegoats used to rally people. They don't make the countless individual decisions that people make as to how to act in their day to day live, what values they have, and how they act on them.
The position you reference has a long and bloody heritage too. You only need to look at the Marxist revolutions that have taken place around the world leading to mass murder and the impoverishment of entire nations due to misguided values.
People keep trying to claim that corporations are evil, or that they run the government. Can you show me one vote cast by a corporation in the Senate? Corporation is just a word for things we do together voluntarily.
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
That only proves the bias of the researchers in not including Two Girls One Cup