# Brain 'link to political views'



## soya (Jun 29, 2010)

Neuroscientists are examining whether political allegiances are hard-wired into people after finding evidence that the brains of conservatives are a different shape to those of left-wingers.

Scans of 90 students' brains at University College London (UCL) uncovered a "strong correlation" between the thickness of two particular areas of grey matter and an individual's views.


Self-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala - a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion while their political opponents from the opposite end of the spectrum had thicker anterior cingulates.

The research was carried out by Geraint Rees, director of the UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, who said he was "very surprised" by the finding, which is being peer reviewed before publication next year.


It was commissioned as a light-hearted experiment by actor Colin Firth as part of his turn guest editing BBC Radio 4's Today programme but has now developed into a serious effort to discover whether we are programmed with a particular political view.


Professor Rees said that although it was not precise enough to be able to predict someone's stance simply from a scan, there was "a strong correlation that reaches all our scientific tests of significance".

"It is very significant because it does suggest there is something about political attitudes that are either encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that our brain structure in some way determines or results in our political attitudes."


Mr Firth - who recently declared he had ended public support for the Liberal Democrats - said he would like to have party leader and now Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg subjected to the tests. "I think we should have him scanned," he said.


He said the coalition made him "extremely uneasy" but would not rule out voting Lib Dem in future: "I would have to see what identity they took on because I don't recognise them at the moment. I think all three parties are in a state of re-evaluation."


Talking about the experiment, he said: "I took this on as a fairly frivolous exercise: I just decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don't agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it and they actually came up with something."


Brain 'link to political views' - Politics, News - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk​


----------



## PseudoSenator (Mar 7, 2010)

Of course there's a definitive link between brains and political views.

Those on the right don't have one whereas those on the left do. :crazy:

Seriously though, this research makes sense. The amygdala controls emotions such as fear, emotion, etc. We can see these personal factors in the behavior and policies of those on the right-- many Republicans in the United States discriminate against ethnic and racial minorities. Their primitive aversion to outsiders parallels prehistoric tribe mentality. Republican and Tea Party rallies are far more incendiary and aggressive in nature (guns at rallies), and violence has seen frequently. This is disproportionately true for the right. One wouldn't expect a more pronounced amygdala to coexist with a more pronounced frontal love/cerebral cortex.

I _wonder_ if we can make the leap of saying that xxFx types lean to the right.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

*Googles anterior cingulate*

That part of the brain deals with emotions and empathy among other things. So if anything, feelers are more likely to be liberal.


----------



## undead (Nov 28, 2010)

People with a more pronounced amygdala are more likely to be sensitive to violations?


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

That explains why the Right loves big armies, guns, and low taxes. They are ruled by fear. It also explains why Leftists are for higher taxes, stronger government, and no guns (I'm a leftist pro-gun). It is because they are less afraid of life. It sounds like "Liberal Pussies" is an ironic term.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> That explains why the Right loves big armies, guns, and low taxes. They are ruled by fear. It also explains why Leftists are for higher taxes, stronger government, and no guns (I'm a leftist pro-gun). It is because they are less afraid of life. It sounds like "Liberal Pussies" is an ironic term.


I don't think it explains either of those things. The original conception of the United States was of a country that had low taxes, small government, available firearms and some significant military force. Given the success of the United States in those early years, and the massive economic problems we have now, it seems reasonable to want that version of the United States. It's two different views on the purpose of government, but I doubt it has much to do with fear.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

^ All politics is about who should govern and what can they do.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> ^ All politics is about who should govern and what can they do.


Right. My point is, it's about who should govern and what they can do... not fear.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

I've come across plenty of liberals who are racist, sexist, trigger happy, and homophobic, and I've also come across conservatives who believe everyone should have equal rights, but not special rights. Btw, it was liberals who invented racism, sexism, and homophobia in the first place. And don't even try to convince me otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time. If you do try, you're a troll with nothing better to do.


----------



## zwanglos (Jan 13, 2010)

Why even enter into a discussion if your tagline is 'I don't want to discuss this'?


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Because I know that most liberals don't care if the person/people they're debating/arguing with is right or wrong, most of them always want to have the last word and arrogantly assume they're right and have won because they got the last word.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> Because I *know* that *most* liberals don't care if the person/people they're debating/arguing with is right or wrong, most of them always want to have the last word and arrogantly assume they're right and have won because they got the last word.


Do you actually have anything to support that claim, or are you just passing off your opinion as fact? Also, your post is extremely hypocritical - you've made an arrogant assumption about most liberals and concluded that therefore you are right.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Actually yes, ALMOST every liberal I've seen on the news and come across on the internet are arrogant hypocrites.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> Actually yes, ALMOST every liberal I've seen on the news and come across on the internet are arrogant hypocrites.


How does that support your statement?


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Ok, right now I'm tired and It's almost my bedtime and I don't have enough time to type in all my statements, but I promise to do it all later.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

What is "left" and "right"? Are we talking about social conservatism/liberalism or the fiscal variety? Both? Do we have certain policies in mind in particular?

It goes without saying there should be a link between brain type and political affiliation, but for me "left" and "right" are very fuzzy terms mired by decades of polemic that have almost ceased to mean anything in my mind.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

I don't care much for politics but it seems I must explain to skycloud86 why I believe a lot of liberals are arrogant hypocrites. First of all a lot of liberals are environmentalists and believe that humans actually have the power to "save the planet" when we already have enough trouble taking care of ourselves, and believe the myth that humans are responsible for making the earth warmer even though the earth has been getting cooler not hotter in the last decade. Second, most liberals believe that rich people are evil despite the fact there are liberals who are rich and give little if anything to charity and liberals never have anything bad to say about them. Third, a lot of liberals believe if a christian or a jew commits a crime then all christians and jews must be evil, but if a muslim commits a crime they're just an extremist and don't represent all muslims. Fourth, liberal vegetarians believe eating meat is wrong even though It's been proven that eating meat is good for people and fail to see that animals are lesser than humans. Fifth, a lot of liberals believe they can say whatever they want, even if it hurts people, but if a conservative says something that hurts people, they should be silenced and punished. I've got more reasons why I think most liberals are arrogant hypocrites but I must take a rest for now.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> I don't care much for politics but it seems I must explain to skycloud86 why I believe a lot of liberals are arrogant hypocrites.


So you don't care much for politics, yet seem to care enough to generalise an entire political group as arrogant hypocrites? Why would you be bothered if they were? It's like someone saying that they don't watch a certain sport, but any team that plays in red within that sport cheat.



> First of all a lot of liberals are environmentalists and believe that humans actually have the power to "save the planet" when we already have enough trouble taking care of ourselves, and believe the myth that humans are responsible for making the earth warmer even though the earth has been getting cooler not hotter in the last decade.


So are a lot of conservatives. It's not an ideology exclusive to liberals. 

Global warming isn't necessarily the warming of the planet, it is when the climate becomes more extreme. 



> Second, most liberals believe that rich people are evil despite the fact there are liberals who are rich and give little if anything to charity and liberals never have anything bad to say about them.


So, in this case “most” means the ones who aren't rich?

I do agree that there are lot of famous liberals who talk a lot about charity and helping the poor and disadvantaged, but don't actively do anything.



> Third, a lot of liberals believe if a christian or a jew commits a crime then all christians and jews must be evil, but if a muslim commits a crime they're just an extremist and don't represent all muslims.


Do you actually have any evidence to back this up? What about the number of liberals who seem ardently atheist? 

I suppose you then do not see a difference between an arrogant, hypocritical liberal and an arrogant, hypocritical conservative?



> Fourth, liberal vegetarians believe eating meat is wrong even though It's been proven that eating meat is good for people and fail to see that animals are lesser than humans.


Where has it been proven? Do you have scientific facts that state that eating meat is good for humans, even though red meat in excess is very bad for humans? Also, why does this make them either arrogant or hypocritical? If they don't eat meat, they don't eat meat. Are you going to say that someone who smokes is arrogant and/or hypocritical because not smoking is good for you?

Animals are lesser than humans? Firstly, how do you come to that conclusion? Secondly, I don't think people who get attacked and/or killed by sharks, lions, bears etc would agree that animals are lesser than humans. Thirdly, humans are animals as well. 



> Fifth, a lot of liberals believe they can say whatever they want, even if it hurts people, but if a conservative says something that hurts people, they should be silenced and punished.


A lot doesn't equal most. Also, there are lots of conservatives who do the exact same thing, just with the roles reversed.


----------



## magister343 (Jan 3, 2011)

I remember another studying linking larger more active anterior cingulate gyrus to preferences for Introverted Intuition. Intuitives in general would have their brain more developed than sensors here, but INxJs most of all.


Intuitive preferences have been pretty clearly linked to social liberalism. There is a strong correlation between Si and social conservatism. Se users tend not to have strong political views.

Feeling preferences are slightly less strongly correlated with left leaning economics. Thinking preferences (especially extroverted thinking) correlate with right leaning economics.

All of the TJ types are much more likely to be republicans, and unlikely not to have political affiliation. INFJs are the most Progressive of the types, the least likely to be republican but not quite the most likely to be democrats. INTPs are the most likely of the thinking types to be democrats, but are still more likely to be republicans and are the most likely all of types to refuse to identify with either party. 




Fear, especially when repressed, makes pretty much anyone more trusting of authorities and willing to oppress those that are different. A more developed amygdala may indicate individuals living in fear.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

magister343 said:


> I remember another studying linking larger more active anterior cingulate gyrus to preferences for Introverted Intuition. Intuitives in general would have their brain more developed than sensors here, but INxJs most of all.


Why would all intuitives have a better developed anterior cingulate gyrus? Wouldn't Ne use a different part of the brain?


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Ok, first of all I never generalised an entire group as being arrogant hypocrites, I said MOST liberals are arrogant hypocrites, and jsyk, liberal atheists are often the most compassionate to muslims but hateful to christians and jews, want proof? Just look at the news and youtube, but I do agree that some liberal atheists hate muslims as well as christians and jews. And no I don't care much for politics, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to talk about it once in a while. And I also agree that some humans can be animals, though it seems when a human is called an animal, It's not a good thing, and animals are lesser than humans because they don't contribute to society like humans do, and unlike animals, humans have the ability to reason if they try, and
about red meat, I never said that was good for people, meat is good for people when it's cooked all the way through.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> Ok, first of all I never generalised an entire group as being arrogant hypocrites, I said MOST liberals are arrogant hypocrites,


Which is a generalisation. Have you actually got evidence that clearly states that most liberals are both arrogant and hypocritical? Do you also have any evidence that the number of arrogant and/or hypocritical conservatives is any less than the number of liberals with such qualities?



> and jsyk, liberal atheists are often the most compassionate to muslims but hateful to christians and jews, want proof? Just look at the news and youtube, but I do agree that some liberal atheists hate muslims as well as christians and jews.


Some liberals are like that, yes, but the number of conservatives who attack atheists, Jews and Muslims is probably similar.



> And no I don't care much for politics, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to talk about it once in a while.


Of course, but you seem to have a clearly strong view of most liberals.



> And I also agree that some humans can be animals, though it seems when a human is called an animal, It's not a good thing,


That's because many societies, including many Western societies, see animals as below human beings, as lesser creatures even though humans are a fairly unremarkable species. Yes, we have many qualities and abilities that no other animal has or ever will have to the extent that we do, but outside of that bubble of exclusivity, we're all just animals that can be killed, hurt or whom can be controlled by animalistic instinct.



> and animals are lesser than humans because they don't contribute to society like humans do


So, would a mentally or physically disabled person be lesser than a mentally or physically able person because they can't contribute to society like humans do? You're assuming that animals even have the ability to contribute to human society in the same way that humans can.



> and unlike animals, humans have the ability to reason if they try


That makes them lesser? Other animals don't need to reason, they have no place for that in their lives.



> about red meat, I never said that was good for people, meat is good for people when it's cooked all the way through.


I still don't see why it makes them arrogant and/or hypocritical if they choose not to eat meat.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Actually, mentally retarded people contribute to society more than animals do, I've seen it myself, I even have a slightly younger brother who's handicapped. And yes, one reason animals are lesser than humans is their lack of reason, if an animal gets angry with you like a bear for example, they're harder to reason with than most humans. And the reason I think liberal vegetarians are arrogant and also crazy is that every animal rights campaign is run by liberal vegetarians and want to outlaw meat products for everyone or at least make them more expensive, just look at PETA, they said so themselves they would be willing to let people continue dying of aids if it meant protecting the animals from being experimented on to find a cure.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> Actually, mentally retarded people contribute to society more than animals do, I've seen it myself, I even have a slightly younger brother who's handicapped.


I didn't say that mentally disabled people contribute less to society than animals, I was saying that you were assuming that animals are capable of contributing to society in the same way that humans can, even though they can't. Both the animal and the mentally disabled person cannot contribute to society in the same way as a mentally able person can, and that's no fault of their own.



> And yes, one reason animals are lesser than humans is their lack of reason, if an animal gets angry with you like a bear for example, they're harder to reason with than most humans.


Are you surprised at that or something? Reasoning is a human trait, not a bear trait. It sounds almost as if you would actually try reasoning with a bear.



> And the reason I think liberal vegetarians are arrogant and also crazy is that every animal rights campaign is run by liberal vegetarians


Wrong, not all animal rights campaigners are liberal and/or vegetarians. You're making a generalisation.



> and want to outlaw meat products for everyone or at least make them more expensive


Actually, the aim of many animal rights campaigners seems to be focussed on preventing vivisection rather than outlawing meat products for everyone or to make such foodstuffs more expensive.



> just look at PETA, they said so themselves they would be willing to let people continue dying of aids if it meant protecting the animals from being experimented on to find a cure.


PETA are very extreme and tend to be on the fringes. I wouldn't consider most liberals or most animal rights campaigners to be supporters of PETA.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

Alright, I guess I was wrong when I said every animal rights campaign is run by liberal vegetarians. And I don't know where you got the idea I would try to reason with a bear when I was trying to explain they can't be reasoned with, especially when their angry. And jsyk, nothing anyone says will change my mind about my belief that animals are lesser than humans, if I had a choice to save a human family members life or a pets life, I'd choose the human family member.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SuperDevastation said:


> Alright, I guess I was wrong when I said every animal rights campaigns is run by liberal vegetarians.


Fair enough.



> And I don't know where you got the idea I would try to reason with a bear when I was trying to explain they can't be reasoned with, especially when their angry.


Your post made it sound as if you consider reasoning with a bear to be a possibility.



> And jsyk, nothing anyone says will change my mind about my belief that animals are lesser than humans, if I had a choice to save a human family members life or a pets life, I'd choose the human family member.


I don't believe that having such a belief means that animals are lesser. Most people would choose their human family members over an animal because it's another human, and members of the same species will want to protect their own first.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

skycloud86 said:


> Global warming isn't necessarily the warming of the planet, it is when the climate becomes more extreme.


This makes it the most convenient ideology ever. If it's warmer than usual, colder than usual, wetter than usual, dryer than usual, snowier than usual, windier than usual... Big storms, no storms. it's all hailed as 'proof' of climate change! The whole reason there are weather 'averages' is because the weather is often above or below them. Always has been, long before Global Cooling, err Warming, err 'Climate Change'.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

NeedsNewNameNow said:


> This makes it the most convenient ideology ever. If it's warmer than usual, colder than usual, wetter than usual, dryer than usual, snowier than usual, windier than usual... Big storms, no storms. it's all hailed as 'proof' of climate change! The whole reason there are weather 'averages' is because the weather is often above or below them. Always has been, long before Global Cooling, err Warming, err 'Climate Change'.


If you bothered to learn about what the theory of global warming_ actually postulates_, you would not make such silly statements. You might want to learn what it actually is about before you dismiss it so cavalierly.


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

lirulin said:


> If you bothered to learn about what the theory of global warming_ actually postulates_, you would not make such silly statements. You might want to learn what it actually is about before you dismiss it so cavalierly.


I know what it states, all the CO2 and other chemicals released into the atmosphere during the industrial age up till now will warm the planet 1 or 2 degrees C over the next 100 years or so, and this is somehow catastrophic.

But it's not convincing! It certainly doesn't help that they've been caught fudging data several times.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Fill in the "somehow" in your statement. Once you learn that part, _then_ you can properly claim to understand the theory. Right now there is patently a huge gap in your understanding.


----------



## zwanglos (Jan 13, 2010)

SuperDevastation said:


> And I also agree that some humans can be animals, though it seems when a human is called an animal, It's not a good thing,


Why's that? Many times it seems just to be a statement of what some people consider scientific fact.



> and animals are lesser than humans because they don't contribute to society like humans do


'They don't help me, therefore they are less than me'? 'Society' was created by humans, to help humans -- I don't understand why it should be other animals goal in life to help us. In fact, from nature's point of view, all our society does is harm wildlife anyway.

And, actually, animals do 'contribute' in many ways:
- chickens, cows, pigs, sheep and other barnyard animals literally give their lives every day so that you can have your thoroughly cooked meat which is good for you. They also serve secondary functions, like sheep providing raw materials for the textile industry, cows provide milk etc. Before modern machinery, bulls/oxen were also used to help plow fields.
- Certain breeds of dogs perform functions that are beneficial to humans -- border collies help herd sheep, St. Bernard's help save humans who have been lost in snowy areas, hound dogs help out on the hunt, etc.
- Before the invention of cars and such, horses served society as a mode of transportation, and are still serving in that function in certain areas today.
- Certain birds can be use for hunting, or were used prior to modern communications as a method of sending long-distance messages.

But yeah ... think about all the poor treatment that the above-mentioned animals suffer at our hands -- those are the ones that _help_ us, and we treat them as less than human anyway.



> and unlike animals, humans have the ability to reason if they try


_If_ they try...


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

> But yeah ... think about all the poor treatment that the above-mentioned animals suffer at our hands -- those are the ones that help us, and we treat them as less than human anyway.


Humans come first, not animals, that is the way of it, like it or not.


----------



## zwanglos (Jan 13, 2010)

'Humans come first' ... okay, such a statement makes sense when confronted with the question about choosing the life of a human being over the life of an animal, such as with your outrage against PETA members.

A lot of cruelty inflicted against animals such as, say, the dog, isn't necessary in the slightest, however. Are you saying this mistreatment of animals can be explained away because they are 'less than human'?


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

> A lot of cruelty inflicted against animals such as, say, the dog, isn't necessary in the slightest, however. Are you saying this mistreatment of animals can be explained away because they are 'less than human'?


Actually no, I agree torturing animals is wrong, but not as wrong as torturing humans, except maybe really evil ones who refuse to ever consider becoming good.


----------

