The Political Brain - Why do Republicans and Democrats differ so emphatically?

[toms]

I was going to post this on the election thread, then i thought it was probably mildly relevant to the bigots thread, the christianity thread and several others where there are obvious "gaps of comprehension". (I got told off on one thread for saying i found a lot of religious types to be less empathetic.)

 

From the NYTimes (reg. req.): The Political Brain -- "Why do Republicans and Democrats differ so emphatically? Perhaps it's all in the head." Researchers from UCLA have seem to have found that liberals have, on average, a more active amygdala than conservatives.

According to the article, studies of stroke victims "have persuasively shown that the amygdala plays a key role in the creation of emotions like fear or empathy." So is this scientific "proof" that liberals tend to be more compassionate but also more cowardly? Regardless, this seems to have implications for more than just politics.

Favorite quote: "Perhaps we form political affiliations by semiconsciously detecting commonalities with other people, commonalities that ultimately reflect a shared pattern of brain function."

 

from slashdot, full article

[Cpt. Bannon]

This does bring up an interesting (and somehow unsuprising) point. In all of my experience, i have seen that many liberals show far more regard towards their emotions (even disregarding facts), whereas conservatives tend to show a much higher regard for facts/logic.

[SkinWalker]

Interestingly enough, I've noted quite the opposite. In fact, I'd say that right-wing extremist and fundamentalist views, such as the so-called christian right, neo-conservatives, etc. all find emotional bias in issues such as abortion, xenophobic behavior, gun control, prayer in schools, anti-gay legislations, etc.

 

All the while, the more liberal republicans and democrats demonstrate more critical thinking and realize that abortion isn't as simple as pro-choice/pro-life, the world is smaller and globalization is a fact whether we like it or not, bans on assualt weapons don't infringe on the constitutional rights that were written when flintlocks were considered state-of-the-art, public schools should be completely secular, and gay marriage can only add to a society not take away from it.

 

(By the way, if you oppose any of these issues, I didn't bring them up to debate here. There are probably already appropriate threads for them).

 

Emotions drive us all. But liberalism isn't simply the opposite of conservatism. Liberal attitude is the normal state of being for one who is a critical thinker and who uses logical reasoning. Conservatism and neo-conservatism, however, are nearly wholly based on emotional and illogical responses to supernatural and superstitious tradition.

[Cpt. Bannon]

what rock have you been hiding under? do your research (dont just take moveon.org's word) and you'll see that the facts usually support the conservative point of view. take, for example gun control: the facts are that any gun control legislation would be ineffective because 80% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained in the first place. also, in every country to enforce strict gun control, the gun crime rate has actually increased dramatically...

 

'nuff said

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon

what rock have you been hiding under? [...] (dont just take moveon.org's word) [...]'nuff said

 

Getting emotional?

 

And I haven't actually been to moveon.org.

[Kurgan]

It IS important to realize that Reps & Demos aren't opposites like black and white.

 

It would probably be difficult to find a Rep or Dem who was a "model" (ie: was 100% in line with the official "party platform" of either party).

 

There is a spectrum in either party, from the most extreme right to left wing. They don't agree on everything, but there are people in both parties that agree on a lot (and people who switch parties sometimes, but not always when they disagree on a large number of issues).

 

Now to some people they simply vote (here I'm talking about voters, not politicians) for one party all the time. This I think is more like the idea of the social club or brand loyalty. "It worked fine for me in the past, why change?" etc.

 

Then there's the argument that the official "centrist" (most popular since it appeals to the most people, ie: compromises to stay in power) position of either party is virtually identical and so the two party structure will always remain intact, with the appearance of competition, such as Coke vs. Pepsi. ; )

 

Then again, the logic of the competition between the GOP and Democratic Party is simple... both groups want to be in power, and have their piece of the pie. And they can "watch each other" while keeping any third parties out, etc. making their contest simpler for themselves (if you have ten opponents instead of one, you have to do a lot of watching!).

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon

what rock have you been hiding under? do your research (dont just take moveon.org's word) and you'll see that the facts usually support the conservative point of view.

 

Indeed? Aside from your point on gun control, what other facts are supportive of your conservative viewpoint? Because in all my debates with conservatives the one thing I've found most prevalent is their innate ability to completely ignore factual evidence that has been brought to attention. They also seem to be immune to logic, though again, this is only MY experience with conservatives, though the very definition of conservative would preclude them using logic or rational thought in their views, but instead relying on tradition and archaic belief systems.

 

 

 

 

con·ser·va·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv)

adj.

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

 

[Cpt. Bannon]

not my conservative viewpoint. i'm a libertarian, probably favoring more changes than both the democrats and the republicans combined. what I am saying is that if you watch a debate or an interview, there is a much higher likelyhood that emotion will come to be most (if not all) of a liberal's argument than of a conservative's arguement. i'm not aying that conservatives lack any emotion in their reasoning, i'm just saying that liberals, in general have much less of a balance between logic and emotion.

 

also, have you read the first post? or the article it refers to?

 

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Liberal attitude is the normal state of being for one who is a critical thinker and who uses logical reasoning.

 

you cant be serious...

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon

you cant be serious...

 

You know, seeing as how this is the place for serious discussion and debate, you should avoid simplistic statements like that where you're assuming that it's accepted that you're right, and actually give some reasoning why Skinwalker can't be serious.

 

I think you might need to read my definition of Conservative if you're going to call yourself a conservative that advocates more change than liberals. Since by definition conservatives OPPOSE change.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon

This does bring up an interesting (and somehow unsuprising) point. In all of my experience, i have seen that many liberals show far more regard towards their emotions (even disregarding facts), whereas conservatives tend to show a much higher regard for facts/logic.

 

*cough*Bull*****cough*

 

what rock have you been hiding under? do your research (dont just take moveon.org's word) and you'll see that the facts usually support the conservative point of view.

 

In what world?

 

take, for example gun control: the facts are that any gun control legislation would be ineffective because 80% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained in the first place.

 

'Illegally obtained' could mean breaking into a civilian's home to get his 'legally obtained' gun. So that doesn't cut it.

 

also, in every country to enforce strict gun control, the gun crime rate has actually increased dramatically...

 

??? Mayhaps you could show me that statistics?

 

what I am saying is that if you watch a debate or an interview, there is a much higher likelyhood that emotion will come to be most (if not all) of a liberal's argument than of a conservative's arguement

 

Then maybe you should stop watching Fux News, and start looking for a real news station.

 

Politicians talk out of their arses most of the time, regardless of their PoV or party line.

 

Now as for the article: I find it hard to believe that they're onto something, because if they were, you'd think that other parts of the world would have similiar marked divides through their political spectrum. Rather, I think that what they have found is the difference between a moderate and an extremist. That could perhaps explain the difference between the two parties, as the GOP evidently contains more extremists than the Libs.

[C'jais]

That's enough dog-piling, guys.

 

Interesting research indeed, but I don't think it's that simple. People change their opinions all the time, and it's quite rare for a person now to vote for the same party his entire life.

 

And of course, this research is being shoe-horned to fit the American two-party system with no regard for more complex political parties. "Liberal/Conservative" is only one axis of the spectrum, with "Authority/Anarchy" being another.

 

RE Conservative: while the dictionary may state that the meaning of the word means to preserve the status quo, it has a more modern meaning that can be boiled down to "If it aint broken, don't fix it" - one that a lot of people can agree with. Similarily, "Liberal" has gone from meaning someone that respects the innate rights of the individual, believes in a non-dogmatic church and government and favours laissez-faire economics - to a wishy-washy sentimental tree-hugger. As you can see, most Republicans would gladly subscribe to the first meaning of the word.

[Cpt. Bannon]

Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City? Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the United States? National polls [of the US] of defensive gun use by private citizens indicate that 3.6 million crimes annually are prevented by armed individuals.

 

In 98 percent of the cases, the armed citizen merely has to brandish his weapon. As many as 400,000 people each year saved a life by being armed.

 

At ET: maybe you should've read my psot...i did say that i was not a conservative

 

and as for facts supporting republicans more than liberals...ewll have a look at this:

 

Over 30 years ago Vice President Spiro Agnew famously referred to the press corps as "nattering nabobs of negativity". Then-speechwriter now-syndicated-columnist William Safire takes credit for providing the memorable alliterative phrase, calling it one of his "witty put-downs of the left-stooping liberal media". A little research (but not in most dictionaries) will tell you the word "nabob" was long-used as a derogatory term for a self-appointed arbiter of social or political morality, and for a pompous, self-important person. "Nattering" of course, simply means idle chatter, so Safire/Agnew seemed to be dismissing the pompous media naysayers of the day as irrelevant, or at the very least, far from accurate.

 

Today's naysaying liberal media has come frighteningly far beyond that point, and the relentless spin they put on the news influences far too many Americans who evidently can't or won't think for themselves. Repeated surveys have shown that 85- 90% of journalists working for the elite media vote Democratic in every presidential election in recent years, and they intend to do so this year. They also intend to influence as many voters as they can, even when the facts have to take a back seat. I try to be open-minded about the sincerity of most liberals, but a recent survey causes one to seriously question the intelligence and gullibility of nearly half our voting population.

 

Opinion Dynamics Corporation conducted a telephone poll last month of nearly 1000 voters, asking them to identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans in order to put the results in context. The responses to questions about the state of the economy are particularly troubling. When asked if the economy is getting better or worse, 72% of those identifying themselves as Democrats say that the economy is getting worse, and including the 14% who said the economy is staying the same, fully 86% of Democrats simply refuse to face facts. I have never in my life seen a more blatant example of partisan politics winning out over reality. This partisan opinion flies in the face of months of hard facts to the contrary from all official sources, and is a testament to the power of the Bush-hating liberal media to influence the electorate. Forget facts, it's the spin that matters today in America.

 

Consider just a small sample of the true economic facts:

 

 

Counting May we now have nine consecutive months of dramatic job gains, with a total of over 1.4 million new jobs since August. Over 1 million of those are in the past 4 months alone, with gains in virtually every sector of the economy, including high-paying manufacturing job gains in each of the past four months. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Even before the May numbers came in, it is a complete lie that there has been any net loss of jobs whatsover during the Bush administration. See my previous column on "The Unemployment Lie" for details.)

 

 

Overall economic growth for the past four quarters has been at the highest rate in almost 20 years, as measured by the growth in Real Gross Domestic Product. The consensus forecast for the remainder of 2004 is for annualized growth of 4.6%. In only 12 quarters out of 40 during the booming 1990's did the growth exceed the current rate, and not a single time during the 90's did four consecutive quarters have an average annualized growth rate as high as the four quarters just ended. Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

 

 

The unemployment rate has been holding steady at 5.6%, lower than the average rate of the 1990's, the 1980's, and the 1970's. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

 

For the past year real hourly compensation has increased faster than the average rate of increase for the entire 1990's. Source: U.S. BLS.

 

 

For the past 12 months the S&P 500 is up 21%, the NASDAQ is up 36%, and the DJIA is up 22%. The stock market is literally booming.

 

 

Total homeownership is at an all time high. Minority homeownership is also at an all time high. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

 

In the same Opinion Dynamic survey conducted in May, when asked why the economy was getting better/worse, the top two reasons given for saying it was getting worse were, no jobs (37%) and higher gas prices (31%). The number three top reason given by Democrats was some vague "general sense" that it was getting worse (10%) without them being able to give any reason whatsoever why they felt that way. That tells me media spin has filled their heads with mush.

 

Obviously the "no jobs" myth is totally without merit. As for high gas prices, I can remember when I was a kid buying gasoline for the lawnmower in the early 70's, needing 50 cents to fill up my 1-gallon can. So today, 35 years later, gas prices have doubled twice to about $2.00. During the same period, the CPI is up by a multiple of 5, indicating that overall prices have gone up much more than gasoline. And in constant dollars adjusted for inflation, gas prices today are nowhere near what they were in 1981, when the average price in today's dollars was $2.81. That's just another myth we hear loudly touted in the media, that gas prices are at "an all time high". This baloney is even on John Kerry's campaign web site. The fact is that gasoline, adjusted for inflation, costs about the same today as it did in the 1930's, and has cost about the same for most of the time since, with the single exception of the oil crisis in the early 80's.

 

So why do 86% of Democrats refuse to recognize that the economy is growing by leaps and bounds? The tax cuts are working, and even with an inherited recession and a war to fight, Bush is doing very well on the home front. (yes economists have now officially recognized that the recession, now over, did begin before Bush took office)

 

Support the candidate of your choice, just don't insult the rest of us by basing your decision on fairy tales you know are false, or worse, by actually believing them. And don't trust those nattering nabobs of negativity in the media.

 

-this column published in Cherokee Ledger-News 6/17/04

 

back on the main topic: i think that the higher amygdala activity in liberals is not the cause of liberalism, but vice versa (unlike how it comes across in the article)

[toms]

The basic truth is that people will vote for whoever they vote for... most of the FACTS have nothing to do with it.

 

This is partly to do with the way their brain works (see fisrt post) and partly to do with the way they have been raised (a lot of people will always vote the way their parents voted, a few will always vote the opposite).

 

There is only a very small minority of the population who aren't so attached to either side that they would vote purely on the BEST CANDIDATE.

 

This isn't helped by the fact that 99% of all the "facts" we are fed in things like political adverts are a load of rubbish. This just leads to the situation where supporters will believe anything their side says, and opponents will dismiss anything the oposition says... regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

 

All claims about tax, the economy, the law, etc... are all usually a load of rubbish when you examine them in detail.

 

"Moveon.org Voter Fund falsely attacks Bush, who comes back with a misleading ad about Kerry."

 

"Miller said "Americans need to know the facts" about Kerry's record, but his applause-getting recital is a decade or so out of date. Kerry did oppose all the weapons Miller cited when he was a candidate for the Senate in 1984, and did vote against the B-2 bomber, Trident nuclear subs and "star wars" anti-missile system more than a decade ago. Kerry also voted in three different years against the entire Pentagon budget.

 

But in his nearly 20 years in office Kerry's record has evolved. Kerry hasn't opposed an annual Pentagon appropriation since 1996. And he's voted for them far more often than against them."

 

"Ad claims Kerry cast "98 votes" to raise taxes, but the total is misleading."

 

http://www.factcheck.org/

 

Turns out there is a constitutional right for campaigns to lie to voters http://www.factcheck.org/SpecialReports.aspx?docID=188

Which can only add to the movement of people who either stick with one side, no matter what they hear... or just disengage from the whole process.

 

The whole process has degenerated into two groups who are shouting lies at each other, but no-one is listening to anything anyone says. And an ever growing group is just ignoring the whole thing.

And businesses just fund BOTH sides, so they know they will win.