Study: Brains of liberals & Conservatives may work differently

[Howard Beale]

Here's something different, fwiw

Quoting a bit:

.....In a study likely to raise the hackles of some conservatives, scientists at New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles, found that a specific region of the brain's cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives.The brain region in question helps people shift gears when their usual response would be inappropriate, supporting the notion that liberals are more flexible in their thinking...........The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences........Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times more likely than conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts and were 2.2 times more likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

As an aside, I'd think that this would also make Liberals better poker players.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles,

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, this doesn't sound biased in the least.

And it has been my experience that people at every end of the political spectrum share this inflexibility in their thinking. It is called fanaticism and it is rampant these days in conservatives, liberals, etc. etc. I feel like open, honest, thoughtful debate is a thing of the past.

[Kaj]

Too bad libertarians weren't included. But the data doesn't surprise me based on interactions with both groups. Liberals do tend to more readily debate the issues even if they might be stubborn, whereas conservatives tend to more readily label the debater or the issue rather than actually debate it, in my experience, which is a small and possibly biased sample. I think this forum is a case study in itself, and I'm sure people of each persuasion will say this forum supports the conclusion that their "side" is the most rational.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
New York University and the University of California, Los Angeles,

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, this doesn't sound biased in the least.

And it has been my experience that people at every end of the political spectrum share this inflexibility in their thinking. It is called fanaticism and it is rampant these days in conservatives, liberals, etc. etc. I feel like open, honest, thoughtful debate is a thing of the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like how you immediately insinuated bias based on no evidence other than which schools were involved? There may indeed be bias, but that should be based on an analysis of the study itself. It's telling you didn't write "UCLA and NYU? We can't discount experimenter bias" but instead wrote "lol, this doesn't sound biased in the least" which exactly supports the point I made about conservatives resorting to an attack on the debater as a first response.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
And it has been my experience that people at every end of the political spectrum share this inflexibility in their thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read another article on this study and the study reached the same conclusion: people who are ideologues reflected the same lack of ability to consider new evidence compared moderates.

As for the conservative/liberal findings, LDO.

[DING-DONG YO]

You're attacking me now, dude. I didn't attack anyone. My comment was meant to show my skepticism that this study was scientifically sound, as UCLA and NYU have been historially liberal schools. Maybe the study is sound, but I am skeptical. For instance, I would like to see the education level of the liberal and conservative participants.

And FWIW, this board immediately and unequivocally pounces on any viewpoint that can even be construed as consversative. When I made my comment about my thoughts on Iraq in another thread, you immediately tried to throw me into the ra-ra flag waving Bush is our savior camp, without considering what I was saying at all.

look in the mirror and think before you start throwing stones next time.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW, this board immediately and unequivocally pounces on any viewpoint that can even be construed as consversative.

[/ QUOTE ]

This board is full of ancaps. That's so far right, you can't see FreeRepublic from there.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
...When I made my comment about my thoughts on Iraq in another thread, you immediately tried to throw me into the ra-ra flag waving Bush is our savior camp, without considering what I was saying at all.

look in the mirror and think before you start throwing stones next time.

[/ QUOTE ]

So that is how you describe the exchange below, huh? That's precious.

Here's your initial post, which was a direct reply to my post:

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus, you guys are just as big of sheep as the blind bush-supporting neocons.

I don't like Iraq. I don't like how we got there. I don't like Bush.

However, I think pulling out of Iraq now would be a huge mistake. If we do that, we are dooming that country to a horribly violent and bloody civil war. Then when that's over, the most likely scenarios are either Iran will take over or another batthist type party will.

On top of that, pulling out of Iraq will embolden every other single terrorist cell/group and anti-American regime. It will send one hell of a strong signal that we're weak and won't follow-through.

Yea, I don't like Iraq, but I'm sure as hell not in the "bush is a moron so we should pull out" school of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

My reply:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... but I'm sure as hell not in the "bush is a moron so we should pull out" school of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor am I.

I'm more of the "we're not accomplishing anything which will lead to sustained peace, but instead spending billions to prop up a continued fight that everyone knows will have no lasting significance once we eventually pull out (Army Chief of Staff essentially said as much himself this week), so let's pull out sooner than later, or at least admit that victory is an illusion and start planning for reality when we leave and getting the international community to assist rather than the victory fantasy we've been spoon fed from the very beginning" school of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Full thread

P.S.: You're doing a good job in this thread of demonstrating the tendencies this study supposedly describes. You started it with labels. You came to the conclusion that I was accusing of being a flag-waving Bushie, even though I never mentioned Bush nor mentioned anything regarding your politics. How the hell do you stand by your assertions here? It is laughable.

[DING-DONG YO]

It is indeed precious:

Your comment:

[ QUOTE ]
So do you believe "victory" is a reasonable goal and is possible given the current strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

my reply to your final quote above:

[ QUOTE ]
wasn't saying you were necessarily.

And I don't agree with what you said, but I do understand and respect that line of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway, we've both said our piece, you've linked the thread. People can decide for themselves. Feel free to continue this there.

/hijack

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
It is indeed precious:

Your comment:

[ QUOTE ]
So do you believe "victory" is a reasonable goal and is possible given the current strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway, we've both said our piece, you've linked the thread. People can decide for themselves. Feel free to continue this there.

/hijack

[/ QUOTE ]

And what's so wrong about that reply? I merely asked you a question regarding our presence in Iraq which you claimed was necessary. I didn't call you names. I didn't smear your politics. You said we must basically stay the course and I asked if this meant you believed we'd be able to achieve our goals with this strategy.