posted April 02, 2012 12:56 PM            

"Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds" (by Nigel Barber, Ph.D, published in 'The Human Beast')

"Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

The results are not that surprising as they fit in with conclusions from other studies. Just a year ago, researchers from Harvard and UCLA San Diego reported finding a "liberal" gene. This gene had a tiny effect, however, and worked only for adolescents having many friends. The results also mesh with psychological studies on conflict monitoring...

The born versus acquired perspective on political attitudes is important to psychologists. After all, if political proclivities are fixed at birth in terms of brain anatomy, there is little hope of change. Most of us would probably like to see a world in which political attitudes were less polarized, and more changeable, but that may be a pipe dream...Meanwhile, the neuro-scientific fact of two very different political creatures helps clarify much of the political antics of modern democracies. Most societies are divided into a party that wants change (the more liberal party) and one that is afraid of change (the conservatives). The liberal party is generally more intellectual and the conservative party is more anti-intellectual...

The conservative party is big on national defense and magnifies our perception of threat, whether of foreign aggressors, immigrants, terrorists, or invading ideologies like Communism. To a conservative, the world really is a frightening place.

Given that their brains are so different, it is hardly surprising that liberals and conservatives should spend so much time talking across each other and never achieving real dialog or consensus.

As scientists we hope that these results are replicated because they shed so much light on political behavior. As citizens, we would prefer if politicians were not divided into such different categories of political animal.

If everyone was born with the same brain potential to acquire either conservative, or liberal, views, then we could be more optimistic about prospects for political communication and consensus-building. If voters were of like brain, perhaps they could be of like mind." http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-bi g-fear-brain-study-finds

posted April 03, 2012 07:03 PM            

Both sides use a lot of fear in their political rhetoric (as someone once said you can have a social movement without a god, but never without a devil), and I see a lot of fear from many hardcore liberals as well. For example, many liberals fear what ordinary people will do with guns despite that most people with guns don't harm others either accidentally or on purpose. There's great fear of what big corporations will do and apocalyptic fears for the environment as well, fears not shared by many conservatives. I'm not saying that these fears are entirely unjustified, however many liberals seems to have far more fear than is rational. (I'd also say that the fears conservatives tend to have regarding welfare abuse, crime, foreign enemies and the like aren't entirely unjustified, but are often excessive to what's warranted as well.)

Yet there is a strange turnaround. For example, many liberals feared what the government would do with its police state powers under Bush but since then have been fine with Obama not only doing the same but increasing the police state powers of the state. Indeed, many of the same liberals who gnashed their teeth over mere suspects being waterboarded or Korans being desecrated grudgingly approve--and at least in a few cases even applaud--Obama's administration putting even American citizens on secret kill lists (need I point out that this is far more serious than waterboarding?) and using drone attacks on funerals, killing scores of innocents (including children) to get at SUSPECTED terrorists.

Conservatives do this reverse as well. The Heritage Foundation came up with the original Obamacare as an alternative to Hillarycare in the 90s and was promoted as responsibility rather than dependence on government for health care (that is, an obligation rather than a right). When Romney passed what was essentially Obamacare in his home state most liberals called it heartless while conservatives either shrugged or endorsed it as the equivalent of forcing people to buy liability insurance for their cars instead of leeching off the taxpayers. Yet when Obama ran with it the liberals that once condemned it suddenly supported it (well, not all of them) while conservatives suddenly condemned it. They actually tried to say Obamacare was different until recently as rivals to Romney are now admitting Romneycare is about the same as Obamacare once it became politically expedient to do so. (And btw, both sides have fears regarding this issue--liberals tend to fear grannies dying in the hospital because they don't have the money or insurance they need without UHC while conservative fear "death panels" killing grannies under UHC.)

But if you want to talk about politics and neurochemistry then this article may help explain it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379

posted April 04, 2012 10:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
I don't know about that, especially given that most people are conservative on some issues and liberal on others (plus, many can switch from being one to the other in their lifetime).

---

It was a fun study. However it's true that people are too complicated to fit into any conceptual mold. Even if neurological patterns point to specifics, in the end everything is relative and we still don't know enough about the human mind. Even if people choose to classify themselves it's all based upon how we define various things in society. Even those definitions are relative to our subjective understanding of the world and each other. In theory no term or concept in language has meaning outside of the meaning we as a civilization have given it.

But it was a hoot to read this and do research. I however do see patterns between intelligence and those who are independent thinkers or conventional thinkers. I wouldn't apply that to liberalism or conservatism. I like how the author pondered letting go of limiting concepts and political alignments. Again all these concepts just create another avenue to create prejudices,limit thinking and individualism.