# The brains of Conservatives are different from Liberals



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

So apparently there is a real difference in the brains of Conservatives and Liberals. According to a study Conservatives had larger amygdalas, almond shaped structures that are linked with emotional learning and the processing of fear. While Liberals had a larger anterior cingulate cortex a comma shaped region near the front of the brain that is involved in decision making.






Liberal vs. Conservative: Does the Difference Lie in the Brain? | Healthland | TIME.com

Thoughts anyone?

Also, if you're going to post make sure it's relevant and not just to troll on someone's views. No derailing freak outs!


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Nothing new or surprising. Sometimes I joke that the push for healthcare reform is a deliberate political agenda to get psycho-pharmaceuticals into more people. If there is no reasoning with them, at least you can offer them the help they need.

However, in reality I think the difference is often overstated and only makes sense in context. For example, the US has by far the worst social record in the developed world, is the most capitalistic, the most religious, and among the most classist with the lowest social mobility. Such extreme environmental influences can exaggerate the differences and so you'll have some countries like Italy where a porn star was repeatedly elected to parliament and others where the politicians routinely have mock wrestling matches on the floor in order to prove to their constituencies they are fighting for them. In the US we have trash talking politicians, talk radio, and Fox News that could make a professional wrestler blush and put UFO conspiracy theory nuts to shame. 

Its the context that either supports and exaggerates the differences or doesn't and it isn't an issue of whether the chicken came first or the egg, but how the entire system functions. I'm reminded of a troop of baboons that lost all their more aggressive males to T.B. from digging through a garbage dump. To the surprise of the researchers the remaining baboons made it clear to any newcomers wishing to join them that aggressive behavior was socially unacceptable. Similar dramatic culture changes have occurred among people as well suggesting the ability to adapt to changing circumstances is more important for us then innate predispositions. The more intelligent and complex the behavior of the animal, the more important flexibility becomes and having some individuals with variations in predispositions helps to make rapid transitions possible.


----------



## MyName (Oct 23, 2009)

"Emotional Learning" sounds like a synonym for "learning from experience" which is basically what conservatism is, so that's not surprising. Also, there's very little difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US based on actual policy, so there's no reason to think there would actually be one in the brain :wink:. (although the study was from the UK of course)


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

if it's true, does that mean a person can;t hold being a conservative against them? "It's just how I'm wired."


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

bellisaurius said:


> if it's true, does that mean a person can;t hold being a conservative against them? "It's just how I'm wired."


No doubt they'll argue that whenever it suits their agenda and argue otherwise for everyone else.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

So true, wuliheron, so true.


----------



## Narrator (Oct 11, 2009)

MyName said:


> "Emotional Learning" sounds like a synonym for "learning from experience" which is basically what conservatism is, so that's not surprising. Also, there's very little difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US based on actual policy, so there's no reason to think there would actually be one in the brain :wink:. (although the study was from the UK of course)


Could you expand on 'emotional learning' and 'learning from experience' because I think I'm misinterpreting them?
I personally relate to the phrase emotional learning, I don't think it = learning from experience, it's an aspect of it, but they are definately not one and the same as I understand them - I'm talking about following the passions, the techniques, the feelings, and perhaps even individual characteristics _witnessed in/of the individual_ at the time, which provide a tone by which to compare/follow the theory. Maybe you're thinking of people responding more blindly to the knee jerk/intense emotional responses of people and being swayed. I suppose it could also be the path to building wisdom - so it's very much related to the person themself and the motions they go through rather than a technique.
I also think everyone learns from experience...isn't that what learning is? - experiencing something - through your eyes/ears/mouth/in your mind etc, becoming farmiliar with the idea, perhaps making your own jumps, but this in itself is an experience. Learning is an experience, it's something new. Moreover in a basic sense you're always experiencing...you'd have to be blind/deaf/incapable of sensation/dead inside not to be experiencing anything.

I don't know about brain's themselves - more studying for further subtleties would be interesting/useful - but I would say there's a pretty big difference between Conservatives and Liberals in the UK (Though the parties themselves might be debateable in terms of what they call themselves and their practices, but that's seperate from the people, and the ideas they favour - therefore it's about the way the person described themself, rather than what politicians of the day are up to). I also think logic drives ideology too here (though people may have strong feelings about it...I suppose you could say it's emotionally driven in that people are at least in part emotional about what's 'good' in their eye/it's always gonna be in self-interest to an extent), if politics comes up people are focused on the aims of the party in essence, perhaps they'll express personal, emotional opinions on the people themselves (they certainly do have them and express them), but it's not the people they judge. But that's just people I come into contact with, and that's not representative of the country. And those discuss politics are more likely than not gonna discuss it in terms of ideas/policies, rather than feelings. And there are those who tend towards the 'He's a dick, I'm voting for the other guy' approach, and there are those who don't care/arn't interested. There are also people swayed by certain policies expressed in the right way (influenced by the politician/campaign).

I do believe nurture and personal experience play a big part however, in terms of whether one's a conservative or Liberal.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Headliners.. This is a trick people use in spreading propaganda. 
A sensational headline and some surface conclusion in the first paragraph.

And then those who have their bias confirmed stop reading. Those who feel challenged are upset and disgusted and stop reading. 
And the gap continues to grow.

Keep reading.

The people who conducted the study go on to say it's pretty much bullshit and there are more unanswered questions than answered.

SO if it is inconclusive and raises more questions than it answers... Why is the OP paraphrasing the title to something much more conclusive?


----------



## Lorkhan (Feb 23, 2012)

interesting, i'll add the psychological statistics to the mix:

[video=youtube;vs41JrnGAaxc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc[/video]


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

bellisaurius said:


> if it's true, does that mean a person can;t hold being a conservative against them? "It's just how I'm wired."


They can snap their fingers and say, "I was born this way, baby."


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

MyName said:


> "Emotional Learning" sounds like a synonym for "learning from experience" which is basically what conservatism is, so that's not surprising. Also, there's very little difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US based on actual policy, so there's no reason to think there would actually be one in the brain :wink:. (although the study was from the UK of course)


They actually duplicated the test in CA and found the same thing.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> No doubt they'll argue that whenever it suits their agenda and argue otherwise for everyone else.


I think that would mainly apply to politicians though and not the people following the party. But great picture though!


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

Arclight said:


> Headliners.. This is a trick people use in spreading propaganda.
> A sensational headline and some surface conclusion in the first paragraph.
> 
> And then those who have their bias confirmed stop reading. Those who feel challenged are upset and disgusted and stop reading.
> ...


Because the one that I did want to put seemed too long.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

> emotional learning and the processing of fear


I don't think that's exclusive to 'conservative brains'(w/e the study definition was), 90 percent of the liberal left rhetoric uses those two on a constant basis, to suggest that anyone with liberal tendency is somehow more logical is utter non-sense, which of course was readily disseminated by the young turks.. proof below


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

ENTJwillruletheworld said:


> I think that would mainly apply to politicians though and not the people following the party. But great picture though!


I think you give people too much credit and politicians just tend to be caricatures of their constituents. People can be entertained by anything, but programs like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are popular for a reason. According to the National Science Foundation one in five Americans still believes the sun revolves around the earth.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> I don't think that's exclusive to 'conservative brains'(w/e the study definition was), 90 percent of the liberal left rhetoric uses those two on a constant basis, to suggest that anyone with liberal tendency is somehow more logical is utter non-sense, which of course was readily disseminated by the young turks.. proof below


Proof of what? Everything they said made sense to me...


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Actually this is a much better, and far less damning social psychology approach. The psychologist here correlates conservative with certain Five Factor traits, but doesn't go as far as to say it is some biological disposition. In fact the entire Cenk Uyger piece is exactly what Haidt is talking about when people try to create justifications for or against their own dispositions. For anyone hoping to understand the liberal vs. conservative malaise that plagues America right now, this is probably the definitive interview to watch because Haidt doesn't take a side, despite his own admitted biases but rather points out the perspective differences.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Proof of what? Everything they said made sense to me...


missed the ''awesome 20 $ minimum wage'' part?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Cover3 said:


> missed the ''awesome 20 $ minimum wage'' part?


What? If everyone was paid, at minimum, $20.00 per hour, that wold be fucking awesome. But even they said that they don't think it's feasible, and that it's really just a bargaining tactic later on in the video.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

This isn't going to be used to justify "treating" conservatives as being mentally ill, is it? I don't like conservatives much but I don't think it's a good idea to treat people with differing political views as being mentally ill.


R.C.
_Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean.........._


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Just one more expected little scientific step towards my beloved sophocracy ..


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

RobynC said:


> This isn't going to be used to justify "treating" conservatives as being mentally ill, is it? I don't like conservatives much but I don't think it's a good idea to treat people with differing political views as being mentally ill.


Truth is the attribute of a good idea (of reality, since that's the purpose)


----------



## Bunker Man (Jan 4, 2011)

Having a larger amygdalas also is linked to being able to connect with and empathize with people better. So...

The average liberal is slightly smarter...
And the average conservative is slightly more caring, but antipodally suspicious of those who violate their schema of caring...

...We already knew this. I want to know where the average libertarian, centrist, and statist fits into this.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

But like...aren't people who want the old USSR also conservatives? Those people who sadly walk around Red Square wanting things to be as they once were?

I'm beginning to wonder if capitalism just makes people stupid. Like they're blinded by the flashing commercials, or something. Everything that causes the United States to stand out conservatively as a bastion of flagrant ignorance nearly mirroring the Third World is the result of a bad society with bad education. 

It has nothing to do with brains, though I would agree that @Bunker Man that all it probably indicates that in the U.S. more people who go left make moral decisions with rational reasoning versus emotion. 

That doesn't mean, however, that all leftists base their moral reasoning in rationality. I think there's blind emotionalism on the left as well. 

It's just in the U.S. specifically it takes a very specific kind of utter irrationality to cling to the far right. I mean your ability to reason yourself out of a shoe box should be questioned...


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

MyName said:


> "Emotional Learning" sounds like a synonym for "learning from experience" which is basically what conservatism is, so that's not surprising. Also, there's very little difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" in the US based on actual policy, so there's no reason to think there would actually be one in the brain :wink:. (although the study was from the UK of course)


I learn from experience and I am not a conservative. That's because in the United States accepting conservatism essentially is equal to being very poorly educated about factual statistics of the state of our nation versus every other nation in the developed world. 

I'm not a blind liberal, though, either. Blind liberalism also has a kind of overt dogmatic emotionalism that I cannot stomach (like the whole anti-white/dammit ****** thinking, and the people who don't take personal responsibility into account at all, as well as trusting the system too much is creepy). 

SO I think people can be emotionally geared leftist.

I also believe there are rational conservatives. But those rational conservatives are usually moderate Republicans, or the sort of libertarians who realize that it's crazy and impractical to completely dismantle the system and who want a smaller government with greater rationality in moral choices, which is why they usually aren't violently and dogmatically opposed to things like gay rights and protecting the environment, which are RATIONAL moral choices.

In the U.S. unfortunately, though, our far right is just...a circus. I don't know what's wrong with these people, but they need help. More importantly the rest of us need help in being protected from them.

I don't comprehend how an intelligent educated person could not look at the statistics that correlate things like education and affluence with PEACE and things like ignorance and poverty with CRIME, as well as the fact that rehabilitation means less prisoners in prison, which benefits society as a whole in the long run.

Of course, people also don't understand why all of those Nazis followed Hitler, either. 

I think going to either extreme means you're not thinking as much as you probably should be. And if you cannot think for yourself, then you need access to facts, not propaganda.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ENTJwillruletheworld said:


> I think that would mainly apply to politicians though and not the people following the party. But great picture though!


No it does apply to a lot of people following the party. Corporatism has gotten mixed up culturally in protestant Christian values, it's very strange.

Say what you will about the Catholics, their insular nature and the fact that they value education so highly means that many very religious Catholics understand that the teachings of Jesus have nothing to do with "the gospel of prosperity" and that being cruel to the poor isn't exactly a very Christian thing to do.

I will say, though, that this is how the politicians trick the working class into being Republicans: they use religion as a moral tool to detract from what they're really up to with corporatism, corporate welfare, big oil, et al.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I'd also like to mention also that the Republican party isn't what it once was. There actually was a time in the United States when you actually could come to this country as a very poor immigrant or be working class and much more easily work your way up the ladder with hard work and initiative, you know, before corporations drove out all small business, etc. It's pretty crazy if you look back on this country as recently as the early-to-mid 20th century versus now.

And apparently the U.S. is now at a record place of fiscally holding people down into their social class, even compared to other countries which are supposedly more "socialist."

What a fucking joke.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Awesome, more useless political factionalism. It really says something that even though politics can't be boiled down into a "liberal/conservative" dichotomy, and even though the creator of the study criticizes it, it will still be used to advance ridiculous arguments that only serve to make people feel better about their own opinions.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I will say, though, that this is how the politicians trick the working class into being Republicans: they use religion as a moral tool to detract from what they're really up to with corporatism, corporate welfare, big oil, et al.


I agree with that 100%.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

timeless said:


> Awesome, more useless political factionalism. It really says something that even though politics can't be boiled down into a "liberal/conservative" dichotomy, and even though the creator of the study criticizes it, it will still be used to advance ridiculous arguments that only serve to make people feel better about their own opinions.


Take a population of people and divide them into two or more groups according to some arbitrary criterion.

Since there is individual variation, it is obvious that one group will have the largest amygdalas. One group will be the best educated. Another will have the largest penises. Now cherry-pick which results you would like to publish.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@timeless



> Awesome, more useless political factionalism. It really says something that even though politics can't be boiled down into a "liberal/conservative" dichotomy, and even though the creator of the study criticizes it, it will still be used to advance ridiculous arguments that only serve to make people feel better about their own opinions.


Don't confuse people with the facts. The whole purpose of this is to effectively label people with differing political views as being mentally ill. It wouldn't be the first time a person or a government has tried to label differing political views as being a sign of mental illness -- all you have to do is read about "Sluggishly Progressing Schizophrenia".


R.C.
_Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean..._


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Occam's Razor Cut:

Conservatives freak out in terror over everything and Liberals are the only ones with decision making skills.

Joke post (don't take this seriously)
_____________
Now take this part seriously.

I remember this being a bit of oldish knowledge, having been out for a few years now; definitely since I think, 2010 was the first I heard of it. It certainly explains why Conservatives want to keep things the same , and want powerful armies and strong limits set on everything. it also explains why Liberals tend to prefer more adaptable solutions and promote change.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Mutatio NOmenis



> Conservatives freak out in terror over everything and Liberals are the only ones with decision making skills.


There's applying Occam's razor, and there's oversimplification. You've done the latter

R.C.
_Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean..._


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> Occam's Razor Cut:
> 
> Conservatives freak out in terror over everything and Liberals are the only ones with decision making skills.


I agree with @RobynC on this one. Such oversimplifications reduce a concept which is quite complex (proper governance) into something that's little more than sports team factionalism. This is why political discussions tend to be so low-brow.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

timeless said:


> I agree with @RobynC on this one. Such oversimplifications reduce a concept which is quite complex (proper governance) into something that's little more than sports team factionalism. This is why political discussions tend to be so low-brow.


And the difference between comedic oversimplification and Occam's Razor is?


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> And the difference between comedic oversimplification and Occam's Razor is?


Parroting an opinion that others parrot in complete seriousness is not "comedic", it's just sad. (If you were really joking.)


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

timeless said:


> Parroting an opinion that others parrot in complete seriousness is not "comedic", it's just sad. (If you were really joking.)


Post fixed. I also added a serious part.


----------



## JayDubs (Sep 1, 2009)

Intelligence, Personality, Politics, and Happiness « Politics & Prosperity

Ha! Libertarians are smarter than everyone else! As your intellectual superior, I leave you with two choices: 

1) Obey me! 
2) Scoff at attempts by anyone, including myself, to oversimplify political disagreement with self-affirming statistics. 

On a more serious note, I actually find these types of studies quite interesting. It's the tendency to use such things as ad hominem attacks against political philosophies that I find irritating. Not everyone is doing that, but if you read between the lines there is definitely some of it going on. 

I also stumbled upon this. Libertarian Psychology | A Politics & Moral Psychology Blog

It links to an under-review paper on what types of values lead people toward libertarian thought. I haven't read it yet (it's rather late), but the abstract suggests there is more material on "why do people pick this particular philosophy type" and less "why conservatives/liberals/libertarians/authoritarians are better than everyone else." The abstract:

"Libertarians are an increasingly prominent ideological group in U.S. politics, yet they are largely unstudied. Across 16 measures in a large web-based sample (N = 157,804) including 11,994 self-identified libertarians, we sought to understand the moral intutions and psychological characteristics of self-described libertarians. Based on an intuitionist view of moral judgment, we focused on the underlying affective and cognitive dispositions that accompany this unique worldview. Compared to liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As would be predicted by theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences. Our findings add to a growing recognition of the role of personality differences in the organization of political attitudes."

Again - haven't read it yet, so I have no idea if it's any good.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

@Mutatio NOmenis and @RobynC You're both pretty. Now stop it or take it outside.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> Post fixed. I also added a serious part.


I don't think that conservatives want things to stay the same. That's actually not what conservatism is about. This is a problem of alternate causation; conservatism is about individuality, and the government certainly protected individuality more in past eras, so therefore people think that conservatives want to return to that time. It's not like we have to re-wind the clock to 1800 to get that.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

I don't trust any study that posits that two different groups of people have fundamentally different brains, whether it's "liberals" and "conservatives" (how is this defined anyway?), men and women, certain races, certain professions, etc. Always has a disturbing whiff of race science to me.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

timeless said:


> I don't think that conservatives want things to stay the same. That's actually not what conservatism is about. This is a problem of alternate causation; conservatism is about individuality, and the government certainly protected individuality more in past eras, so therefore people think that conservatives want to return to that time. It's not like we have to re-wind the clock to 1800 to get that.


I can argue with that. What about "Conservatives" such as Santorum and Bush, who have a conformist visions. Ideas for an ethnic American, religious conformity, legislation on morality, and heavy pressure to fill a mold?

I think you are confusing Conservative with Libertarian.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Mutatio NOmenis said:


> I can argue with that. What about "Conservatives" such as Santorum and Bush, who have a conformist visions. Ideas for an ethnic American, religious conformity, legislation on morality, and heavy pressure to fill a mold?
> 
> I think you are confusing Conservative with Libertarian.


Individualism isn't being used in the colloquial sense here, it's referring to the duties established between individuals. Compare and contrast with collectivism.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Mutatio NOmenis



> And the difference between comedic oversimplification and Occam's Razor is?


Occam's razor basically states that one should pick the simplest explanation that covers all the facts. You simply overgeneralized.


R.C.
_Remember to seriously read my signature down below and be sure you understand what I mean by it...._


----------



## Niccolo Machiavelli (Aug 7, 2011)

I myself am very wary of applying science (or even social science) to politics. You always see things like this, and most of it is based on nonsense. You see things like psychiatrists claiming that liberalism is a mental illness :laughing:, or these silly studies designed to "prove" that liberals are smarter than conservatives, etc. There could be some fundamental difference between the two sides, but I have yet to see any shred of serious evidence.


----------

