[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with Adanthar, Im far right, I may happen to disagree with the religious, anti-freedom turn the right has taken recently( when did it happen anyway [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]? ) but if they ever get back to the way theyre supposed to be,where do I sign up to vote for them? ( In fact many USA libertarians are going to vote for Ron Paul , a candidate that belongs to the Republican party)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm basically the same way as you, but I don't consider this "far right." And I think this highlights why the study OP talks about is so absurd.

"Right" and "Left" are transient terms. They change as the strategies of the rival political parties change to encompass what they hope is a majority of voters.

So how does this study define "liberal" and "conservative"? What the hell does that mean? The two parties' ideologies are just a compromise of a bunch of unrelated issues, and there's no reason to think the brains of a Democrat would be any different than the brains of a Republican. So if this study shows that there is, to me it's more likely that the study is just flawed.

For example, two people who think exactly the same might vote for different people just because one person likes to smoke pot and really enjoys it (so he picks a Dem and considers himself a "liberal"), and the other person is having financial trouble and the tax money he'd save is really important to him (so vice versa).

If you just focused the study on "What's the best possible solution to X issue?" and included only people who have thought about it deeply (and not just people who label themselves some loose term), then I'd be willing to buy the idea that people who reach different conclusions have different innate brain structures. This study just reads as if it's comparing chocolate ice cream lovers vs. vanilla. It's meaningless.