The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
Next, you should do a study on the neurological patterns of Taoists and Anarchists.
I’ll throw my two cents in: I’d bet they use more their corpus colosum.
Posted by Whatever on 10/07 at 11:09 PM
Let’s change social security and Medicare! These are decades old programs that were set up generations ago. Adhering to them - wanting to keep them - is a conservative idea. Wanting to change them is liberal, and those who want to eliminate them are open to new ideas a change.
But it is “conservatives” who want to change these programs. It is “liberals” who cling to half century old programs that are obviously breaking down.
This one example - and there are lots of others - show the fallacy and bias of your argument. Lots of liberals are against change. The Tea Party was founded for change, but are labeled “conservative”.
Posted by Ron Amundson on 10/08 at 03:52 AM
Actually, many liberals would like medicare for all… such would be a huge change, and would likely result in substantial personal financial change. Many liberals would embrace such as a core aspect of equality, even if it would affect them personally in a negative direction. A conservative view on medicare would be cost constraining, benefit reductions, or abolishment, so as not to affects one own, or ones families finances. A similar example could ripple through social security changes, and many other issues where divergence of opinion exists.
Posted by Joern Pallesen on 10/08 at 08:43 PM
Great article - scientifically sound - and I agree: Both parties must “cowboy up” - (marvelous expression !)
Given a two-party, “winner takes it all” system, provides for political stability, - (I for one don’t think so), - the US “democratic” (...) mindset would seem to be conservative.., certainly from a European perspective.. - I was wondering whether there has been any serious talk amongst liberals about reforming the rules of the game, in order to make way for alternative parties.. - I am aware that the chances of this happening in the US are probably slim, but then it is perhaps such alternative parties that need to cowboy up.., as the Pirate Party has done recently in Berlin, nicely reported by Hank Pellissier !
I am a social-liberal myself, in the sense of being a libertarian with social responsibilities.. , or, if you like.. an anarchist who accepts the legitimate role of the state. Sounds a little paradoxical perhaps.., but that is the essence of being a social-liberal: finding the right balance of social justice and individual freedom, something we are quite good at in Scandinavia, if you don’t mind me saying so.. : )
Reading up on the Democratic party, I learn that Liberals in the classical sense make up for the majority of “Democrats”, others are “Progressives” and “Centrists”, and there are even conservative and libertarian Democrats..
- What I am asking myself is this: Has there not been an epidemic of change from “classical” Liberalism towards a more postmodern liberalism..
These thoughts are meant to illustrate, that a simple right-left dichotomy is an over-simplification of the neural correlates of our political mindset(s). - but I am sure you agree with that, and your highly intelligent analysis should be an eye-opener to stubborn types in both camps..
Again: great job !
Posted by Mark on 10/10 at 05:39 PM
Hi,
The use of neuroanatomy to supposedly determine someonone’s tendency towards particular political persuasions smacks of a reductionist tendency among natural scientists to try and explain social phenomena using theories more suited for the natural world. Historically, this method was used to develop various theories about ethnicity and persons who were said to have criminal tendencies.
Political outlook is generally determined by social position and privilege. Of course, there is the issue of “cultural hegemony” in which people subscribe to the dominant political culture and myths of a society, which might not be in alignment with their objective economic interests.
However, this “false consciousness” can only be maintained so long as their material needs are being met. If a prevailing political order can no longer meet the needs of the majority, the “false consiousness” begins to break down, and the objective economic and political position of the different social layers become clear.
These social layers have a diversity of political interests which finds its expression in various tendencies across the political spectrum, based on the level of consciousness of their objective economic interests.
So rather than looking to the brain structure of individuals to try to understand political positions, a more appropriate methodology would be to determine the economic and social interests of various groups of people and how these interrelate.
Posted by Peter Werne on 10/11 at 05:59 AM
Of course there is a difference. Liberals don’t use their brain at all.
Posted by Joern Pallesen on 10/11 at 08:05 AM
@Mark
Well said, - but please take notice of what Andrea is careful to say: “Correlations are also not the same as causation”.. , - which of course also applies to correlations with “social position and privilege”.. ? - You, - on the other hand, state categorically, that NURTURE is the determining factor, so maybe it is you who are being “reductionist”..
Yep, - the old nature -nurture dichotomy necessarily pops up, and rightly so. - Should we perhaps follow Andrea’s advice to reach for common ground, i.e. consider both sides…
A comment on :
“If a prevailing political order can no longer meet the needs of the majority, the “false consiousness” begins to break down, and the objective economic and political position of the different social layers become clear.”
I guess you’d say OccupyWallStreet is a perfect illustration ..
Posted by Chris B. on 10/11 at 04:50 PM
Wow.. I almost feel dumber for having read this. I think I’ll just shoot the person who forwarded me this link. As a conservative (and perish THIS thought) military officer (with a political science degree).. I cannot help but respond the same way all the generals I’ve ever briefed respond to me.. “So what? Therefore what?” Whats your point? Where are you ultimately going with this? and why should I care?..and get to your point sometime today.”
I get that you think liberals are more flexible in their thought processing..and that conservatives like to keep the status quo (you said “protect the homland.” Huh? Umm…ok). Wow…could you be more wrong. And, further…YOUR political bias has been revealed! lol “Science,” my butt. You’re clever though. I’ll give ya that.
As a political junkie, I think the author has this all bass-ackwards (and thats being kind). I can go to: townhall.com/columnists or some other conservative blog and find countless conservative authors (of various ages, races, and both genders) who disagree on HOW to fix/address a particular political issue (there are NO cookie-cutter conservatives, trust me!)..and they’re all smart folks; many with post grad degrees, etc.. from all the snotty elitist ivy league schools in the northeast, which SHOULD give them at least creds in the academic world, right? At least one would think so. Heck, if you go watch Bret B.‘s show on FoxNews and see folks like Charles Krauthammer (a pretty smart cookie in his own right who got his MD in psychiatry from Harvard no less..and worked for both Carter, and even did speech writing for Mondale..before seeing the light) on the round table at the end of the show…THEN contrast to the litany of mind-numbing, ding dongs over at MSNBC on Rachel Maddow’s show or Ed Shultz’s and ALL of their talking points and conclusions are all the same! And, they talk as if they’re SO smart..and yet, they’re stunningly dumb! Thats the irony! lol Its like watching Jon Stewart…but worse (more like Bill Maher over at HB-HO). There is NO contrast, and its all meanspirited. I’m sure Bill and Jon will be cracking jokes about Dick Cheney when his poor heart finally does give out. I mean, seriously guys. Get over it. And, if you need yet another serious example, take a look at what our President is doing; trying to ramrod yet another “stimulus” package through Congress since the first couple, which have set us back over $14 TRILLION in debt, hasn’t been enough. Unreal. Its like that definition of insanity where you do the same thing over and over and expect a different result. Obama has NO other course of action in his liberal playbook. So, spend more of our hard-earned tax dollars on nonsense like so-called “green jobs” and jellow wrestling in Alaska. Yep, that’ll help get our economy movin’ right along! Morons. Ya don’t even have to make this stuff up. Anyway, bottom line.. Its the liberals who seem to not be flexible. They look to government to solve all their problems, and the funding mechanism is taxing and then income redistribution from the “haves to the have nots.” Thats it! Thats ALL they have. Heck, take a look at those losers making a mess on Wall Street. Its like a bunch of bussed in Seattle or Berkeley hippies who are generationally displaced from the ‘60s still protesting the same nonsense they’ve been protesting for 40 years!. They parade “socialist” banners with that goofy “peace” symbol on it, and decry the evils of capitalism. NOTHING has changed! Go find some videos from the ‘60s and ‘70s of rallies, so-called “civil rights” marches, and other such nonsense. Its all the same. Really. Its eerie. And, HollyWEIRD (another bastion of liberalism) is the same way. They cannot get over Vietnam or Nixon. They’re stuck there as well. So, every few years they come out with something about one or the other…or that obnoxious fat dude with the baseball cap puts out another “documentary” (some more “science” I’m sure) to address just how bad capitalism is…or make fun of Bush (memo to all…hes not the president anymore..just sayin). Thats all they have.
A couple observations: #1) There are NUMEROUS studies (from Harvard, Yale, etc.) that show those who consider themselves “conservative” or registered “Republicans,” as a percentage, have more advanced educational degrees and are in professions such as lawyers, doctors, accountants, finance, engineers, and/or own small businesses. Thats simply statistically, factually true. And, “facts are stubborn things.” As a conservative, I’d like to think that means we’re smarter and contribute to the actual health of our economy. But, you be the judge.
#2) By contrast, there are also numerous “studies” which show, clearly, that those who consider themselves “liberal” or registered Democrats tend to gravitate toward acadamia (ie this author…nuff said) and positions in government (federal, state, etc.). That makes perfect sense to me. They are part of the buracratic muck..and contribute to..well…not really sure..other than sucking my hard-earned income for stuff like this. I guess maybe getting grants (from our hard-earned tax dollars) to commission yet another worthless “study” to tell us how dumb we are for having elected politicians who will punk us over and over for more waste… I guess thats the “value” in it.
#3) Its been MY experience that its not about being mentally flexible (is that code for “open minded?” lol I don’t know what mental flexibility means or has to do with the time of day.). Conservatives look yes, at history, to see what has or has NOT worked and use that as a BASIS (NOT final say) for recommending VIABLE courses of action. Yes, they MAY see SOME things (not all) as right vs wrong (I dunno…maybe committing murder might be one of those?), or do-able…and NOT do-able. Does it work? Or will it NOT work? Whereas, liberals want a utopia and see government as the way to achieve their perfect utopia/nirvana society (practicality be damned)...and that THEIR way is better and so they see themselves as morally superior (just watch how Rachel Maddow or Bill Maher talk about conservatives, and thats all ya need to see)..and that conservatives (esp Republicans) are evil because they would dare question some of their silly notions. And THEREFORE, doing whatever is necessary to defeat conservatives, or belittle them personally, is fair game. Conservatives, in general, don’t do that. They focus on the solutions to the problem; not getting into personalities and making ad hominem attacks on those with whom they disagree. And, conservatives tend to be more pragmatic. They accept what is..and try to find solutions or better courses of action, that address/fix the problems in a realistically way. Just look at the attacks from the cookie-cutter black liberals (the usual suspects) who are attacking Herman Cain. They see him as a threat because hes not part of their cookie-cutter club of liberal Democrats. So, they attack him personally, because they cannot attack his ideas. Why? Because, frankly, they’re pretty dumb…and have NO new ideas. They’re not “flexible.” So much for “science.” I think I need a beer, or twelve…and see what “scientific” positive effect it has on my inflexible brain.. unreal.
Posted by rascheR duB on 10/12 at 09:25 PM
This article is shot through with way too many egregious presuppositions to deal with in a single comment (and I’m not going to try to address them all), but the most glaring is the author’s personal conviction that “[l]iberals will rally with data and strong, logical arguments, and conservatives will hammer away about family values and stability.” This stream of thought is presented throughout author Kuszewski’s piece, but one wonders about these polarities (logic versus values, change versus stability) and whether they were conjured from anywhere other thanother than the author’s own fantasy world.
In contrast to Kuszewski’s stereotypes, nothing could be easier than to find dogmatic new-age liberals who hold fast to their conventional pieties. On the other hand, many conservatives who read the Wall Stret Journal or The Economist are well-versed in “data” and “strong, logical arguments.” Liberals are just as likely to lead with an emotional appeal as with a logical argument and are also as likely to stand for stability and to resist change (many libs resist change to public education models; postmodernist leftists can be among the most smug science deniers), while conservatives are just as likely to demand consistent proofs and to entertain well-reasoned change. The big problem in this discourse is that change and stability don’t denote specific positions in themselves; they are strictly relative and contextual terms, i.e., what seems like logical change to a person of one political stripe will seem like a reckless threat to the stability and values of another.
So whither doth all this vaunted brain science lead us when our author can’t even clearly articulate the endpoints to which the science’s findings correspond?
Yes, it is all too easy to have one’s judgment about political realities colored by the current, ideologically-charged state of U.S. politics and by the hyperventilating coverage in the varied media, most of which tend to be politically biased. One would expect that a thinker trying to take on these issues would filter out the folkish stereotypes. Kuszewski’s fundamental categories are tainted and rendered dubious by her own prejudices.
Posted by DanielHeth on 10/16 at 11:06 AM
David references this article in his latest episode… http://weekinreview.tv/2011/10/14/episode-2/
Fascinating information, but questionable political generalizations & assumptions.
This pivotal paragraph is self-contradictory:
” . . . Really, it isn’t so much the specific issue that defines the thinking style, it’s the preference for either stability or change. Depending on the current events, this can mean very different things.”
The first sentence from the Guardian article sets up the premise, and the next one minimizes the possibility of its application.
. . . and the premise sounds wrong to me too.
I believe current “conservatives” to be from either of two camps under that flag. The worst are basically disingenuous & willing to literally sabotage the nation in the hope of maintaining their temporary, and often accidental, economic advantages.
The others, are purely ideological puppets who vicariously identify with their financial masters under the mistaken hope that they actually have a good chance of stealing the type of wealth that will finally allow them economic security in a cut throat society.
Either way, a very bad lot that does not deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt when discussing the best course if action for this, or any, nation to undertake in the future.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog