Left/Right - Bridging the Brain Gap

There has been a considerable amount of study in the past few years in the area of neuroscience in regards to the difference between Liberal and Conservative brains. Because of the vehement attitudes between the two political ideologies, scientists are interested in finding if there is an actual physical difference in the cognitive abilities of people who gravitate to one or the other ideology.


Recent studies seem to indicate that those individuals who are liberal tend to have a larger and more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC, whereas individuals who are conservative tend to have a more enlarged amygdala. The ACC is useful in detecting and judging conflict and error resolution, whereas the amygdala is where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place (kind of ironic, when so many conservatives on this forum tend to label liberals as "emotional").


There is also a host of traits associated between liberal and conservative brains. Liberals tend to be more creative, finding solutions to problems outside of the norm, more open to ambiguity. Conservatives tend to be more orderly, organized, and look for quick-efficient solutions. They also tend to place greater importance on social order. These are but a few examples, you can click on the links below for more differences.


Now, as to why or how a brain develops one way or the other is still unknown for the moment, however from my own anecdotal experience I do believe there might be a genetic component. I as well as other people I have known throughout the years, were raised in one particular type of political ideology but embraced the opposite ideology upon becoming an adult. Without assigning a particular judgment on either ideology (both have their negative aspects too) they are obviously traits that have been with us for a very long time.


So if we have had these traits for most of human history then what is it about today's political climate that seems to be more vitriolic than ever before? Political circumstances have been far worse in the past, yet there was still a sense of civility that was expected and maintained. The true culprit for the breakdown in political discussions in the United States is twofold; the rise of political shock-jock pundits, and the ease of spreading one's political views anonymously via social networks.


The anonymity of the Internet seems to have the effect of cloaking people to believe they can say just about anything without there being ramifications for their words. Of course, it also draws like minds together and the whole point of the Internet is now to customize entire webpages that cater specifically to only your interests. So why would anybody not assume their view is popular when all they see is what they are interested in?


Unlike what I see many of those on the right claim, those on the left generally do want to work with those on the right, but the current atmosphere that many of those on the right seem to have is a "winner take all" mentality. In one of the articles below, it states that conservatism may be on the way out because it is incapable of adapting to the rapid changes associated with modern civilization. While I may not totally agree, there certainly rings an air of truth to it. Certainly with many of the issues currently being discussed on this forum we are indeed seeing a backlash to the progress of a new society finally taking a foothold in the 21st century.

Your thoughts?

Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservativeshttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.VZ8VUflViko

Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains​

The Fascinating Differences Between the Conservative and Liberal Personality

 

Very glad that you posted this as an alternate outlook on the notion that there might be a bit more going on in the brain than it appears. Yes, there certainly are political differences, and we'd have to be a bunch of lunkheads to think that these differences are merely a lack of understanding from those on the other side, considering how much time and energy has been wasted trying to convince the other side of the error of their ways. We really DO think differently.

The most obvious technological achievement we have is the internet. However, it is not dominated by one side or the other. It just makes it that much easier to say what we want to say, and do what we want to do.

I disagree about today being more vitriolic than before. Things have actually gotten much better. There are no major world wars going on, no bloody revolutions that turn brother against brother. Altogether, it's become a meeting of ideas, rather than arms. Sure, there are some serious problems, but a brief look at human history will tell anybody that we're doing a whole lot better.

 

I definitely agree in the larger picture that things are much better, but as for the actual political issues themselves, they seem to take a backseat to "showmanship", which is what the modern media runs on.

 

Would you prefer bullets to showmanship?

 

If you agree with this, then isn't it more imperative than ever before to focus on why our elected officials cannot compromise?

This IMO is the greatest damage the T-Party has brought into our current state of affairs -- the inability to reach a compromise. It has turned our government into a serious joke.

 

What happens in brains that change from one to the other or that combine elements of both?

 

I would prefer REAL debate.

- - - Updated - - -

You may just be a moderate. I believe most people are.

 

What has the tea party actually gained? Has the debt or spending decreased by a single penny? No. Has there been a slight return to a constitutional form of government? No.

There has been absolutely no compromise with democrats or the republican leadership at all. What the tea party represents is a set of ideals that have been roundly rejected by the majority of Americans, and their government. You've got your obamacare, your gay marriage, and your debt ceiling increased. You have your bigger government and fewer individual liberties.

Where has the compromise been?

 

Different areas of the brain increase or decrease according to the change. You're not going to find any phrenologically different lumps and contusions from the exterior, but inside, you will find there are differences in how our brains manage the resources they have.

 

Yet your public schools that the left love so much do not teach formal logic, and the debate team consists of some nerds that are routinely beaten up by the football team.

We do try here, but considering that even the left hates what happens in public schools, they are the ones that dictate what is taught. Yet, instead of worrying about what is not taught, such as logic, they focus on what is taught that they don't agree with, like creationism.

You want debate? Fine with me. But the nation on a bell curve simply isn't up to it.

 

My point exactly, but what they have done is brought our legislature down to a snail's crawl. And we do have presidential candidates who are still kow-towing that defunct brand, even if they don't mention it by name.

 

It's certainly not "defunct". Just that the charge of racism in the tea party never amounted to anything, and let's face it, you can't rationally argue against fiscal sanity and a constitutional form of government. So they are now ignored because the republican leadership are as much against the tea party as democrats are.

"Defunct"? lol! No. There are several tea party candidates such as ted cruz, rand paul, and ben carson who are very much in the race.

 

Oh, and since this link you posted says that the left is more inclined towards logic, how come it fails to explain why there is a difference between the brains of conservatives and "liberals"?

I explained it in my thread, but that is sadly lacking in your argument. And since, there is no attempt at explaining the differences, I assume this author simply brushed aside the most important aspect of logic which is consistency in argumentation.

to recap, I maintain that the r/k reproductive strategies involve different resources. R deals with an abundance of resources, and K deals with a limited amount of resources.

Am looking forward to having this rather unfortunate lack of detail in your argument explained.

 

The TEA Party shouldn't compromise. It's called principles.

 

Well, without some compromise, they're just whistling dixie because a majority of the country disagree with them. Why try advocating for change, when you already know your principles are not shared by the vast majority of voters?

Some compromise that leads to their ideals is necessary in order to affect change. But there really hasn't been any compromise at all. And for that, the reason lies at the feet of the republican leadership.

Sometimes I think they should just form their own political party, but the republican party is traditionally the party of conservatives and constitutionalists. To let these current turncoats steal the history of all those that went before them is worth trying to win back.

I don't think they can, but it's worth a shot.

 

The left is more likely to use logic than the right. I am a logical thinker and while there are very few on the left that can comprehend the advantages of the system I advocate, there are near zero on the right that can comprehend it at all.

 

Stopped reading there. Anyone who categorizes human neural capacity or structure as "liberal" or "conservative" is a moron. Those terms are useful political shorthand only in the now for campaigning purposes. I defy you to cite to any cohesive political ideology in any, even legitimate LW "scholarship" as "liberal" or "conservative," You can't because it doesn't exist.

Nor will you find any legitimate neuroscientist doing such "research." That kind of garbage all emanates from the "social unsciences," and from the ever-insecure LW propaganda sewer pipe.

 

The expected standard definition of compromise has always been "I will allow you to take some of my freedom in return for you allowing me to retain some of my freedom."

Which...isn't much of a deal at all, is it?

 

There's no difference in their brain chemistry or phisiology... it's all due to how they have been educated, how many experiences they have gone through in their lives. Anyway judging by each ideology, i can at least say that leftists are more advanced in their reasonements, as they found out that humans cannot be controlled by discipline and strength of the law only, there needs to be a social welfare which helps people go through their lives without having to resort to stealing, killing and raping.

 

This is an interesting issue, check out Chris Mooney's work if you want a deep-dive into the conservative psyche in particular. I think it's apparent that political persuasion is often a manifestation of personality, activated after laying dormant for years by the right combination of external influences (media, family, events, etc.) I work for a liberal think-tank and there is certainly an archetypal personality within the broader industry.

 

Because it has nothing to do with resources!


It is all about how we process information and what we view as a threat. Maybe in the distant past it may have been rooted in how humans addressed resources, but now in the present it has more to do with surviving as a social species.

 

Once again, you are making my point.


Yes, no denying Cruz, Paul, Carson, and you may want also add Trump, are playing to that same disenfranchised Tea Party demographic, all the more reason they don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever making it all the way. Yet their presence and carnival antics will take away the thunder from the rest of the GOP race.

 

Well, by your own admission, you stopped reading because your biases prevent you from seeing anything else. You just demonstrated what extreme right-wing thinking is all about. Thank you for serving as Exhibit A.

 

yes, that's the premise to a competing theory I posted. I mentioned that only to provide an example of a premise that can be extrapolated to explain behavior.

what does "it" refer to here?

 

The "it" is the process of thinking that we label as either liberal or conservative.


Neither position is fixed, as individuals based on circumstances can switch from one to the other, but each of us has a default tendency to one or the other.


One of the links I provided makes mention of the fact of how after 9/11 even the most ardent liberals clinged to conservative symbols.