• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Physiology and politics

Perknose

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Research published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society shows that liberals are basically more attracted to the positive while conservatives do tend to focus more and longer on the fearful and disgusting.

Fascinating!

From The Economist:
AS THOSE who follow American politics know all too well, Republicans and Democrats sometimes act as if they belonged to different species. This, it seems, is more than mere metaphor. A growing body of research is shedding light on ways in which partisans are indeed biologically distinct. According to one famous study, conservatives are not just more god-fearing than liberals (as Americans call left-leaning folk). They are more fearful in general, making them more receptive to threatening aspects of the environment. Hence, the argument goes, their penchant for tougher policing, harsher sentencing, stronger armed forces and other Republican shibboleths.

However, this observation does not by itself explain liberals' preoccupation with progressive policies which often aim to make people's lives more pleasant, as opposed to less unpleasant. Michael Dodd, of the University of Nebraska, wondered whether this is because they are drawn more strongly than conservatives are to the bright side of life. As he and his colleagues report in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, this does in fact appear to be the case.

To arrive at his conclusion, Dr Dodd tested how 46 self-professed right- and left-leaning Nebraskans react to a series of 33 images. Some were associated with negative feelings: a spider on a man's face (fear), an open wound with maggots (disgust) and a man being beaten up by a mob (anger). Others—a smiling child, a bowl of fruit or a cute rabbit—were picked to evoke a warm and fuzzy sensation (positive emotions fall less readily into distinct categories).

The level of arousal was measured by tracking changes in how the participants' skin conducts a tiny current. The nervous system reacts to emotionally salient stimuli by spurring eccrine glands to release moisture. Since more moisture makes skin a better conductor, an uptick in conductivity reflects heightened arousal (a phenomenon polygraphers exploit to help detect whether someone is lying). The results confirmed that nasty pictures aroused Republicans more than pleasant ones did. And, as Dr Dodd expected, the opposite was true for Democrats. In both cases, the more partisan the participant, the more pronounced the respective predilection.

But would Democrats also home in on nice things more readily than Republicans when presented with a mix of pleasant and unpleasant stuff? In a follow-up study, Dr Dodd recruited 76 undergraduates of different political persuasions and employed eye-tracking kit to follow their gaze as they were presented with collages of unpleasant and pleasant pictures. This time it turned out that both sides of the political divide fixated on nasty images more quickly than on nice ones. Both groups also dwelt on them for longer. (This makes evolutionary sense: nasty things can do harm, and so merit more attention than those which are pleasant, and mostly harmless.) But the effect was much subtler among liberals than among conservatives. For instance, they looked at the nasty and nice pictures for just under 2 seconds and just over 1.5 seconds, respectively. The figures for conservatives were about 2.8 seconds and 1.2 seconds.

These findings do not answer the question whether conservativism and liberalism are hard-wired. But, as Dr Dodd notes, this may not matter. Once the distinct physiologies are in place, be they acquired or innate, they are hard to dislodge—and no doubt spur some on the right to dismiss those on the left as ignorant hedonists just as some on the left slag those on the right off as obsessive fearmongers. Moderates will find none of this reassuring. Biology is, after all, more formidable an obstacle to compromise even than ideology.
Click to expand...
 
Seems to me that being partisan is like being a brick short of a full load then it goes downhill from there. 😀
 
I remember a thread a while ago about how the fear center of a conservative's brain is larger than in moderate or liberal individuals (or maybe just more active than larger, it was a while ago afterall). Just seems that negativity in general appeals to conservatives.
 
Tough to say, if a liberal sees a picture of a man with a gun they look away quickly, if a conservative sees a picture of a man with a gun he tries to figure out if it's a 1911, a Hi-power or a Glock. I'd have to see more studies. A hunter will certainly have different thoughts about a rabbit picture then a vegan would.
 
thraashman said:
I remember a thread a while ago about how the fear center of a conservative's brain is larger than in moderate or liberal individuals (or maybe just more active than larger, it was a while ago afterall). Just seems that negativity in general appeals to conservatives.
Click to expand...
Fear of change = conservative.
 
monovillage said:
Tough to say, if a liberal sees a picture of a man with a gun they look away quickly, if a conservative sees a picture of a man with a gun he tries to figure out if it's a 1911, a Hi-power or a Glock. I'd have to see more studies. A hunter will certainly have different thoughts about a rabbit picture then a vegan would.
Click to expand...
At what point did conservatives start believing that all liberals are afraid of guns?
 
Atreus21 said:
How does this mesh with the study that showed conservatives are on average happier than liberals?
Click to expand...

Here's your answer from the psychologists who ran that study:

Why conservatives are happier than liberals

The exuberance displayed by Barack Obama's supporters might make Republicans look like geriatric chess enthusiasts, but a new survey suggests that conservatives are happier than liberals - and offers one reason why.

Liberals, claim New York University psychologists Jaime Napier and John Tost, have a tougher time rationalising social and economic inequality than conservatives.

The recent surge in home foreclosures, for instance, is due to poor economic choices on the part of borrowers, a conservative might think. Liberals, on the other hand, seethe at predatory lenders and lax government regulation of the mortgage industry.

The result: conservatives mix a martini and hit the country club, while liberals write angry letters and stage protests.
Click to expand...
 
There wasn't, by any chance, a declaration by the authors about what party they personally identified with is there? We all know we can trust people not to let their own bigotry, prejudices and biases interfere with government funding, right?
 
Not stating anything either way, but one of the flaws of these studies is that they are always examining things after the brain has developed. There are environmental factors that might be at work.
 
Carmen813 said:
Not stating anything either way, but one of the flaws of these studies is that they are always examining things after the brain has developed. There are environmental factors that might be at work.
Click to expand...

I have no comment about the study itself, but you should take a closer look at the last paragraph.

These findings do not answer the question whether conservativism and liberalism are hard-wired. But, as Dr Dodd notes, this may not matter. Once the distinct physiologies are in place, be they acquired or innate, they are hard to dislodge—and no doubt spur some on the right to dismiss those on the left as ignorant hedonists just as some on the left slag those on the right off as obsessive fearmongers. Moderates will find none of this reassuring. Biology is, after all, more formidable an obstacle to compromise even than ideology.
Click to expand...
 
monovillage said:
There wasn't, by any chance, a declaration by the authors about what party they personally identified with is there? We all know we can trust people not to let their own bigotry, prejudices and biases interfere with government funding, right?
Click to expand...

The Economist generally supports free markets, globalisation,[15] and free immigration, has been described as neo-liberal although occasionally accepting the propositions of Keynesian economics where deemed more "reasonable".[16] Furthermore, the Economist has also long supported government health and education spending[citation needed]. It also supports social liberalism, including legalised drugs and prostitution. The news magazine favours a carbon tax to fight global warming.[17] According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."[18]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_economist
 
Perknose said:
Research published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society shows that liberals are basically more attracted to the positive while conservatives do tend to focus more and longer on the fearful and disgusting.

Fascinating!
Click to expand...

The positives of guns?

The positives of Christians pervading our schools / government?

The positives of banning abortion?

The positives of preserving traditional marriage?

The positives of a strong sovereign border?

The positives of all US citizens speaking English?

The positives of the Iraq war? *cough

The positives of state's rights?

Yes, you look on the bright side alright. Until you actually oppose something. Which, as it happens, can become quite a list.
 
The result: conservatives mix a martini and hit the country club, while liberals write angry letters and stage protests.
Click to expand...

If only we could put some sort of poison in that martini to get rid of them, like say ethanol or something. Oh right it's already in there. So what does this say about conservatives? While conserving the past they want to destroy the future? They are self harming? You know, like when they supported Raygun's destructive debt?
 
Jaskalas said:
The positives of guns?

The positives of Christians pervading our schools / government?

The positives of banning abortion?

The positives of preserving traditional marriage?

The positives of a strong sovereign border?

The positives of all US citizens speaking English?

The positives of the Iraq war? *cough

The positives of state's rights?

Yes, you look on the bright side alright. Until you actually oppose something. Which, as it happens, can become quite a list.
Click to expand...

That's not really how I read "attracted to the positive". The study isn't suggesting that liberals find the bright side of every situation or viewpoint, it's that they tend to focus on situations or viewpoints that are positive already.

So when you talk about wanting a strong sovereign border, the study isn't saying liberals will try to find the positive in THAT viewpoint (since it's after all just one possible opinion about border issues). Instead, liberals will be more attracted to a positive view of the general border security issue...like one that suggests illegal immigrants aren't a serious threat and it's mostly people looking for a better life (for example).

It's basically the same for every example you listed. Opposition to conservative views doesn't mean liberals aren't "looking on the bright side". In fact, focusing on the positive explains liberals' opposition to conservative views on most of those issues you brought up.
 
Rainsford said:
That's not really how I read "attracted to the positive". The study isn't suggesting that liberals find the bright side of every situation or viewpoint, it's that they tend to focus on situations or viewpoints that are positive already.

So when you talk about wanting a strong sovereign border, the study isn't saying liberals will try to find the positive in THAT viewpoint (since it's after all just one possible opinion about border issues). Instead, liberals will be more attracted to a positive view of the general border security issue...like one that suggests illegal immigrants aren't a serious threat and it's mostly people looking for a better life (for example).
Click to expand...

Why seal the border?

  • Positive, we'll keep more American citizens employed.
  • Negative, the illegals take jobs.

Both positive and negative examples are arguments on the same side of the issue. This is a question of what we value, and how that differs. Not whether we're looking at the positive or negative. Whether we take one side or another does not imply such connotations.

It's basically the same for every example you listed. Opposition to conservative views doesn't mean liberals aren't "looking on the bright side". In fact, focusing on the positive explains liberals' opposition to conservative views on most of those issues you brought up.
Click to expand...

I'll take another pass, but this time give examples of a positive supportive argument, VS a negative opposing argument. Though I fear I might have mistakenly baited you into saying it, I hope you find your bold statement ridiculous after this.

More Guns:
Citizens can secure themselves.
Citizens can shoot themselves.

Spreading Religion:
People will be taught morals.
People will be taught bigotry.

Ban Abortion:
Save the life of a child.
Violate the rights of the mother.

Defining Marriage:
Preserve an age old tradition.
Discriminate against people.

Secure the Border:
Employ more Americans.
Citizens cannot / will not do those jobs.

English Only:
Won't need to be bi-lingual to be employed.
Further discrimination, racism, or bigotry.

Iraq War:
Iraqis are free, Saddam removed.
Bush lied, people died.

State Supremacy:
Self determination and stronger representative government.
Inefficient to divide government.

Now that I've bothered with that, I'm absolutely certain you can give me a list of positives for your side AND negatives for mine, but that's not the point. Simply saying we're negative does not do an argument justice. I find it's a difference in our values, even our core values, that determines our position.

We are not a united people, and it is a mistake if anyone would read the article in the OP and use that to dismiss our differences as negativity by their opponents. Note that I'm not disputing the findings, we always knew Democrats were hippies. 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top