[from Jim]
[Does this study say that the reason why some people become more conservative with age is brain rot? that hardly explains quick changes, such as that of David Horowitz.
[what do such studies say about Marxist brains?]
From the Los Angeles Times
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives
literally think differently, researchers show.
By Denise Gellene
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2007
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that
liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives
because of how their brains work.
In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature
Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that
political orientation is related to differences in how the brain
processes information.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to
be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals
are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits
are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday
decisions.
The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style
and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni,
who was not connected to the latest research.
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very
liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a
keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from
tapping when they saw a W.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning
participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a
letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded
activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that
detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a
more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more
brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they
saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally
accurate in recognizing M.
Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in
reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.
[Does this study say that the reason why some people become more conservative with age is brain rot? that hardly explains quick changes, such as that of David Horowitz.
[what do such studies say about Marxist brains?]
From the Los Angeles Times
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives
literally think differently, researchers show.
By Denise Gellene
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 10, 2007
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that
liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives
because of how their brains work.
In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature
Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that
political orientation is related to differences in how the brain
processes information.
Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to
be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals
are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits
are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday
decisions.
The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style
and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni,
who was not connected to the latest research.
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very
liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a
keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from
tapping when they saw a W.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning
participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a
letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded
activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that
detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a
more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more
brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they
saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally
accurate in recognizing M.
Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in
reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.
12 comments:
Given that a conservative is, by definition, one who has a tendency to be more rigid and inflexible, it would seem that the study is simply discovering that the definition is correct. Such research is certainly of greater value than reinventing the wheel, but a cost/benefit analysis may find that demonstrating that conservatives can't react accurately to a change in their environment is a waste of money. They will be unable to incorporate this "new" information into their personal universe and claim that the M is an inverted example of the W and, therefore, either response is correct. Is there any difference in their assessments of bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein? Both men were and are Arab. Responding to one is like responding to the other.
yup
-- Jim
Poppycock!
Do you think that funny newspaper stories are "poppycock"? or do you think that your rigid support for a knave like George W. Bush cannot be explained by reference to your brain?
Jim
Addendum to jim:
Unless one is a part of the .05% sector and measures their income in the high six figures or better, it will be assumed that voting for any Walker clansman is evidence of a complete lack of a brain. This fact is still another critique of the original thesis that left and right sides of the brain have some influence on political perspective. It is, of course, possible that the left hemi-right hemi dominance over thought has an indirect influence on political ideology. Witkin et al have, a while back, argued that the world is divided into analytic and global perceivers of external reality. They made no value judgments in this regard, but noted that the global processor is grossly influenced by extraneous perceptual factors, ie they are easily led astray.
i had long believed there was a difference between conservatives and liberals in brain styles if not brain function. i am not sure this study adds anything like proof. especially as i have ecountered very conservative-like perseveration among designated liberals quite recently.
i think it might be possible that those who are "liberal" in a college environment which today tends to be "conservative" may indeed be more able to look beyond the "expected" answer than are today's college conservative.
but if forty years later someone is still repeating the "liberal" slogans, or defining the world according to a "liberal" perspective handed to him by the liberal fashions of his youth... we'd have to rethink our conclusions about the relative rigiity of brain processes as a basis for the liberal - conservative divide.
i would not, for example, say that a conservative "by definition" is rigid and inflexible. i would say that a conservative is "by definition" someone who trusts the status quo more than an untested scheme to bring universal peace and justice by upsetting the established order.... no doubt due to their own advantages within the established order.
what do such studies say about Marxist brains?
since no electroencephalograph can withstand the contradiction driven critical flows within a marxist's brain, it was not possible to determine whether marxists have brains.
i have heard, though, that some skulls were opened
and those on hand were quite shaken then made joyful by what they saw.
I have it on excellent anthropoligical authority that the marxist brain is encumbered by rhetoric and hyperbole. Rational analytic ideation is, therefore, overwhelmed by the inclination to perceive the world through a veil of inuendo concerning the good of all the people which, being obscured by said veil, the good of none of the people save that haloed .05% that sit at the top of all pyramids,
to obscure
is to expose
all veils do both
not all veils are equal
The Marxist brain knows that, in the circuit of capital as a whole, M changes into C and then P before returning as C' and, ultimately M', whereas W is what is left over after subtracting sv from M'-M.
value portion appropriated from direct producers, s-man, but who labeled it 'W'
sandwich,
help me out here, besides ongoing primative accumulation from non and semi-capitalist producers, would nonreplacement of fixed constant capital along with destruction of nature enter into that "left over after"?
Or that monetization of these provides a larger than otherwise M' = profits of destruction, with the possibility that contracted reproduction provides the appearance of its opposite?
One giant going out of business process elegantly expressed as "W"
Post a Comment