Contributors

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Science!

I've always thought that conservatives are simply wired differently than liberals. Now we have the proof, courtesy of...

(drum roll please)

Science!

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

I suppose we could simply file this one under NO SHIT but the details of this study are quite fascinating.

Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

Yep.

This would be why conservatives are so hard to understand by other people. Their fight or flight reflexes are at DEFCON 1 more often than not. It must really suck to be in such a state all the time. It's no wonder they are such assholes about everything! This study also shows why they have such a difficult time understanding more complex issues and have trouble with qualitative analysis. They simply don't have the brain matter to handle it.

In many ways, this study is a relief. Now we truly do know that conservative will never change their minds. They physically can't!

21 comments:

The Bubba T said...

M-Del, how many years have I been telling you that there is something happening and it has to with their brain? I came across this report yesterday and I'm glad there is now facts and evidence to what I've been saying for years. I fucking love science!

Anonymous said...

Complexity, huh? Is that why you have such trouble with even simple questions?

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (41 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (3 days and counting)

Anonymous said...

Your self proclaimed "complexity" isn't helping with more complex questions, either.

Given the following…

This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
Markadelphia

and this…

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people [from] betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?

27 days (and counting) since this question was first asked.

Anonymous said...

BTW, did you bother reading any of the comments for that article?

I was beaten, neglected, and humilliated as a child. I experienced the death of 6 year old compatriots, stabbings in HS, being molested by a teacher, a bombing in school, and being raped by a "friend"... I have PTSD, as do all of my 5 siblings. We all have enlarged amygdala's...
So... Why are my two sisters and I Liberals, and one of my 3 brothers is a liberal/conservative...




There are WAY TOO MANY FACTORS involved in political leanings/draggings, to say that a "gene for fear" makes one a conservative voter.
If anything, having a gene for fear might make one good at handling their fear... And knowing who is TRUELY SCAREY!


----------

The whole thing with the amygdala is not so simple. Larger amygdala correlates also with "social" stuff. According to some studies, one could reasonably make the opposite guess, that larger amygdalas are associated with liberalism:

Amygdala volume and social network size in humans

We found that amygdala volume correlates with the size and complexity of social networks in adult humans. An exploratory analysis of subcortical structures did not find strong evidence for similar relationships with any other structure, but there were associations between social network variables and cortical thickness in three cortical areas, two of them with amygdala connectivity. These findings indicate that the amygdala is important in social behavior.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.2724.html

At the same time, the correlation of fearfulness and size (in contrast with activity) is relatively weak, and more strong in girls (presumably also on women, and women don't seem to make the bulk of conservativeness, if I'm not mistaken, women are more likely to be liberal):

Amygdala volume correlates positively with fearfulness in normal healthy girls

Research into the neural underpinnings of fear and fear-related pathology has highlighted the role of the amygdala. For instance, bilateral damage to the amygdaloid complex is associated with decreased appreciation of danger and recognition of fear in humans, whereas enlarged amygdala volume is associated with internalizing syndromes. It is unknown whether amygdala volume and fearfulness are related in the absence of pathology. We examined the correlation between normal fearfulness and amygdala morphology in 116 healthy children and adolescents (60 boys, 56 girls, age 7–17 years). Fearfulness was measured using the parent ratings on the Pediatric Behavior Scale and amygdala volumes were determined by manual tracing. We found a positive correlation between right amygdala volume in girls (r = 0.29). This relationship was more robust and present bilaterally when analyses were limited to girls with a positive nuclear family history of depression (for left r = 0.63; for right r = 0.58). In boys there was no significant relationship which may suggest that biological mechanisms differ between sexes. Given the role of enlarged amygdala volume in pathology, these findings may indicate that variation in amygdala morphology marks susceptibility to internalizing disorders.

http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/02/11/scan.nsq009.abst...

Anonymous said...

Has anyone bothered to go to the study itself? I'm a graduate student in biostatistics, and the conclusions restated here by Dr. Barber are abysmal.

The actual study concluded that liberals have more grey matter in the anterior cingulate cortex and conservatives have more in the right amygdala. This quite likely reflects structural changes from learned opinion, not a cause of opinion.

The predominance of grey matter in the ACC may mean more tolerance for reaching no firm conclusions, the same in the RA may mean more suspicion. In fact, the p values for the RA data (p=.048) were very nearly null in the second analysis of cases, so the predominance of grey matter in the RA for conservatives is questionable at best.

The casual suggestion by the study authors was that liberals may show more tolerance for a lack of a firm conclusion on a subject (conservatives could call this wishy-washy). The other suggestion was that conservatives may show more suspicion of threat (liberals could call this fear). Neither conclusion (wishy-washy or fear) is scientifically supported by this study. In fact, the authors then go on to caution that both possible "emotions" come from multiple centers, not one section so no conclusion could be drawn from the predominance of grey matter in a couple of limited brain sections.

The problem here is that Dr. Barber clearly has a political axe to grind and has abandoned every scientific parameter to draw these conclusions. I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative, so I do not have a commensurate axe. I am, however, appalled that a professional would resort to such absurd over-simplifications and misleading conclusions in order to sway public opinion, and I am further appalled that a generally respected publication would print them.

Anonymous said...

http://www.weerdworld.com/2013/slant-and-spin/

Now the slant comes in with the display of the results “tolerance to uncertainty”, and “sensitivity to fear” are pretty loaded statements, but let’s look at them a little closer.

Maybe its just me, but does high tolerance to uncertainty and low fear sound like somebody you might know? That isn’t a loaded question because the person I’m thinking of is ME!

Now not the me that’s sitting here today, but the “clean shaven”, younger me. I didn’t have much for world experience, so I was less hesitant on novel ideas, and like most teens, I assumed bad stuff just happened to other people, so I was generally less cautious. I can think of dozens of risky behaviors I engaged in that could have physically, financially, or socially harmed me permanently. Strangely enough this risk-taking me was also much more “Progressive”, and I’d say “Stupid”.

Fear isn’t a bad thing, fear can be VERY good.


Or the people who seem to always want to implement national socialism, even tho countless regimes have become the biggest mass-murderers in history. “This time we’ll do it right!” seems to be the call of a person with an unhealthy level of caution, and an unhealthy tolerance of an uncertain end.



Mark Ward said...

My oh my, looks like this study has really got some people worried:)

GD, there aren't very many people that want to implement socialism in this country least of all, the Democrats or me. That's just your amygdala talking:)

Anonymous said...

'Welfare socialism' ring a bell Mark?

That there second word - yup - that's socialism.

Mark Ward said...

It's not socialism in the way you are framing which now we can see is because of the way you are hard wired. This

Or the people who seem to always want to implement national socialism, even tho countless regimes have become the biggest mass-murderers in history

is not the same as social security or a public fucking library for pete's sake. The next Hitler and Stalin aren't waiting and ready to pounce at your municipal water works, Guard Duck. We've had social programs for how many years now with no tyrannical mass murderer taking over?

As Sherman Potter once said about Colonel Flagg (someone with whom you share a great deal, as does NMN), "I think a little loccoweed must have gotten mixed in with you feed."

Or it's just that pesky amygdala!

Anonymous said...

Then amaze us all with your fucking brilliant insights - what exactly is the proper amount of welfare socialism? Is too little damaging? Is too much bad? How does one know if it is too much? If it is too much and NMN says it is so, would you still berate him for calling it the holocaust?

You have your head so far up the socialist bandleaders keister that you would have no fucking idea if it was too much - so you are the last person in the world who would ever warn about 'too much'.

Anonymous said...

Of course it's not really your fault Mark, you're wired to be naive and easily suggestible.

Mark Ward said...

I've answered those questions many times so bookmark this page for future reference.

The balance we have right now in this country and have enjoyed for the last 80 years is the right amount. It's called welfare capitalism. The evidence is obvious. We are the economic powerhouse of the world and have 65 trillion dollars of private wealth despite social programs which you claim will lead to despotism. 80 years and no Hitler/Stalin....hmm....Instead, the greatest country this world has ever seen, wouldn't you agree?

Both too little and too much are damaging. Too little invariably leads to a breakdown of social cohesion and a depressed economy. There's also the lack of regulation that leads to private sector misbehavior. Too much tends to inhibit innovation and incentive. We can't be a Bernie Sanders country in the age of globalization.

The other thing to consider here is the time period in which social programs are used. For example, if the social and government programs of the 1930s were used today, it would be a disaster due to globalization. Back then, however, that's exactly what was needed. It also depends on the sociocultural circumstances of each state. Compare what happened here to what happened in Germany. Why was it different there? Why did our country not produce a Hitler? Obviously, there are many answers to this question.

Because of NMN's heavy bias, I don't take much of what he says (if anything, really) as being accurate. The same goes for you as well, GD, who are clearly too emotional to be a good judge.

Anonymous said...

I don't take much of what he says (if anything, really) as being accurate.

In other words, you reject our arguments not because you examine them and discover a factual or logical error, but because they come from us. That's the Genetic Fallacy.

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.


In looking up the reference on that fallacy, I stumbled across another fallacy that fits Mark's method:

Bulverism

Bulverism is a logical fallacy in which, rather than proving that an argument in favour of an opinion is wrong, a person instead assumes that the opinion is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held it. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument.



Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay of the same name, later included in the anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.


Time to pull out the reminder again:

Fallacy: unsound, erroneous, misleading, deceptive, FALSE.

Based on his claims, Mark does think "false" equals "truth". No wonder he doesn't want to answer the question.

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (42 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (4 days and counting)

Bonus question:

Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? (2 days and counting)

Anonymous said...

These examples from the link on Bulverism were so apropos I thought they needed to be shared:

From "Bulverism" by C.S. Lewis:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.

From A Reply to Professor Haldane by C. S. Lewis:

The Professor has his own explanation … he thinks that I am unconsciously motivated by the fact that I ‘stand to lose by social change’. And indeed it would be hard for me to welcome a change which might well consign me to a concentration camp. I might add that it would likewise be easy for the Professor to welcome a change which might place him in the highest rank of an omnicompetent oligarchy. That is why the motive game is so uninteresting. Each side can go on playing ad nauseam, but when all the mud has been flung every man’s views still remain to be considered on their merits. I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.

Mark Ward said...

you reject our arguments not because you examine them and discover a factual or logical error, but because they come from us

I reject what you say because it isn't real. They are lies. They don't exist. They're fake. They're not true. Pick whatever one you like. Sometimes it's a combination. And that's not even the worst part of it. When I present you with evidence that directly contradicts what you are saying, you go flippin' psycho and get caught in a maniacal feedback loop. I've come to the conclusion that you really aren't well, NMN...based on what you post anyway. Maybe in real life you don't act like this...at least that's my hope, because if you do, I don't know why anyone would want to hang around you.

Anonymous said...

Yep.

assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

Mark, your refusal to back up your claims (uninsured visits to the ER raise insurance rates) or address my actual arguments does not make me wrong. But your constant use of logical fallacies (which are FALSE by definition) does mean that your arguments are NOT true.

My "maniacal feedback loop" is SOLELY the result of your pathological refusal to engage in actual dialog. For example, spending 41 DAYS refusing to acknowledge that the Constitution says "This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land", or even 4 days refusing to acknowledge that "false" and "truth" are opposites, are signs of a personality that is aggressively opposed to reality.

You want to end the "loop"? Then discuss things HONESTLY and RATIONALLY. If you want to keep it going, then by all means, keep your head buried in DENIAL. It's up to you.

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (42 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (4 days and counting)

Bonus question:

Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? (2 days and counting)

Mark Ward said...

Look NMN, I can't control what you say or do (actually, I can on here but, because of my beliefs about internet forums, choose to let you comment unedited) but I can control with whom I interact. Your entire comment above is why I won't be doing much interaction with you unless you change. And, as I said in my previous comment, it bears no semblance to reality.

So, it's really up to you. Start being more rational, cease acting like a psychotic asshat and you'll get responses from me. Behave as you have in this thread (and how you generally do) and you won't.

Anonymous said...

Look, I'm sorry that you're annoyed that someone has the temerity to question your Pronouncements of Dogma From On High, but the simple fact is that reality is what it is. It doesn't care what your fantasies are. After this life you will face God. He certainly won't take fallacies for an answer, and His Word trumps yours—always.

You cannot convince me or anyone like me of anything using illogical and unsupported claims. You may be able to get away with it in school where you can fall back on your authority, but this is the real world out here. If you cannot back up your claims with solid evidence and sound logic, then no one should listen to you. (I would say the same about my own arguments.)

Readers can decide for themselves. But in the end, we will all face a judge who is the Master of evidence and logic and cannot be fooled. If you want to face Him on your own terms, well, that's your problem.

But as long as you continue trying to spread lies and pulling garbage out of your ********, I'm going to be here pointing out the lies.

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (42 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (4 days and counting)

Bonus question:

Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? (2 days and counting)

Mark Ward said...

Ah, the American Taliban...'bout time for that bunker, NMN:) Zealots like you always end up there wondering how thier ideology failed them. Gee, it's a real puzzler...

Anonymous said...

'bout time for that bunker

I really hope you're not projecting like you usually do.

Juris Imprudent said...

Zealots like you always end up there wondering how thier ideology failed them.

You're a vampire, aren't you? You just never see yourself in the mirror.