# Differences between Liberal and Conservative brain structure



## RDD_1210 (Apr 11, 2011)

_Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._

Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> 
> Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News



More idiocy in the name of science. How stupid are you to even post this?


----------



## Si modo (Apr 11, 2011)

This?  Again?

Can't..............

stop..............

laughing!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 11, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...



You obviously wouldn't understand the complexity of what I posted. I don't blame you though.


----------



## xsited1 (Apr 11, 2011)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> 
> Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News



You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Really?

Did you know that every single study that purported to prove something like this has been debunked by scientists? I particularly love this part of your link.



> Observers will notice a familiar name on the report: Oscar-winning actor Colin Firth, who commissioned the report  while serving as a guest host of the BBC Radio 4's Today program in  London last year. (Neurological sources of stammering don't come into  play.)                 The study, which was conducted with the help of 90  young adult volunteers, comes on the heels of other research that linked  political beliefs to genetic differences between liberals and  conservatives. Last year, a joint study by the Harvard and the  University of California, San Diego, found there might actually be a so-called "liberal gene" that influences political leanings.
> While the London study does find distinct differences  between Democrats and Republicans, its authors caution that more  research needs to be done on the subject. One unknown is whether people  are simply born with their political beliefs or if our brains adjust to  life experiences--which is a possibility, Kanai writes.
> "It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions," he said in a statement accompanying the study. "More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude."



Who do you think has more problems understanding the complexity of the links you post?

Me, who actually reads them, or you, who stops at the headlines?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 11, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



LOL, I love that you're getting so worked up over this. 

What exactly is your issue with the quoted portion? That Colin Firth commissioned it?


----------



## del (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



i think it's the part where the lead researcher said, and i'm paraphrasing here, that the study doesn't mean shit. 

at least, i found it mildly amusing


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 11, 2011)

Does this mean that right wingers are victims and entitled to disability or something?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I always have an issue with junk science. I have an issue with people that say that vaccinations cause autism, or people that say that transmission lines cause cancer. 

This study was based on a joke, and made claims without presenting any numbers. What do they mean by strong correlation? Where are the peer reviews?


----------



## code1211 (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Was your grandfather a proponent of genetic superiority of whites over blacks?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 11, 2011)

code1211 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



He very well might have been.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 11, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So if you know this study is a joke why get so worked up over it? Time to lighten up perhaps.


----------



## Ragnar (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> So if you know this study is a joke why get so worked up over it? Time to lighten up perhaps.



Better question: why didn't you know this study was a joke?

You could have posted it in "Humor" rather than "Science and Technology" and saved some of us the trouble of reading this junk science crap.


----------



## American Horse (Apr 11, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> 
> Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News



Conservative philosophy is an appeal to rational reasoning; Liberal dogma (can't really call it a philosophy) is an appeal to base emotions like hatred, jealousy, demonization, suspicion, fearmongering, etc., and therefore it is a dysfunctional operating system.  As such it needs "enablement" and finds that in a corrupt media which feeds it's dysfunction, while feeding on it.  Publishing pseudo-scientific findings to increase the level of disrespect through ridicule toward fellow citizens too, is a case in point.  Consider how juvenile that is.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 12, 2011)

President Obama and House Republicans may have narrowly averted a government shutdown last weekend, but as the two sides prepare to engage in another round of intra-party feuding over budget proposals, a new study suggests that basic brain science might stand in the way of bipartisanship.

Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety

See:  Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News

threads merged-del


----------



## Sallow (Apr 12, 2011)

Erm..

Sounds fishy.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 12, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > So if you know this study is a joke why get so worked up over it? Time to lighten up perhaps.
> ...



Holy crap you loons get worked up at the slightest things. Simply awesome.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 12, 2011)

Even ASSUMING, which we know where that leads, that this were a REAL and functional study, it would be MEANINGLESS to us in the States.

The participants were from London. England and Europe do not have the same beliefs when it comes to " Conservative" and "Liberal" as the States.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 12, 2011)

As I pointed out in the OTHER thread on this..... European "Conservative" and "Liberal" are not the same as American. Further the study only used London youths. Did not specify age or life correlations. And was sponsored by Colin Firth. Ohh and only 90 people were "studied".


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 12, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Even ASSUMING, which we know where that leads, that this were a REAL and functional study, it would be MEANINGLESS to us in the States.
> 
> The participants were from London. England and Europe do not have the same beliefs when it comes to " Conservative" and "Liberal" as the States.



LMAO.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Apr 12, 2011)

American Horse said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...



I mean yeah that all goes without saying.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> President Obama and House Republicans may have narrowly averted a government shutdown last weekend, but as the two sides prepare to engage in another round of intra-party feuding over budget proposals, a new study suggests that basic brain science might stand in the way of bipartisanship.
> 
> Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety
> 
> See:  Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News



There needs to be a study that demonstrates that Wry has a cerebrial cortex.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> 
> Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News



Yahoo apparently thinks that Obama is the example of the ultimate liberal, and that the House GOP are all conservatives.

Not sure if this is exactly true.

Nor am I convinced that "understanding complexity" or "fear" or "anxiety" means the same as _reacting appropriately _to complex (or even simple) situations.  

Only the stupid or insane have no fear.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 12, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> 
> Will President Obama and the House GOP ever agree? Science suggests no - Yahoo! News



I find anything that associates organic architecture with behavior dubious at best. The Human Brain is infinitely complex and from what little we know..it doesn't even seem that Brain "size" may matter all that much (as there are instances of people that lost a good amount of their brain matter making full or near full recoveries).

I very much think that nurture has a greater effect on one's personality then nature.


----------



## editec (Apr 12, 2011)

It is fairly clear that certain personality types tend to gravitate toward different political POVs.

And of course it is very interesting that science is beginning to identify the differences in brain structure associated with these different personality types.

I'm of the opinion that society needs different types of personalities to function, so it doesn't surprise me to learn that these differences are actually encoded in the human genome resulting in differences in people's brains.

Society needs authoritarian personalities  and it needs anti-authoritarian personalities, too, as but one example of a kinds of difference that manifests in our brains.


----------



## editec (Apr 12, 2011)

Like it is a revelation that there are significantly different personality types?

We all know that.

What is interesting is that we're now discovering differences in the structures of the these various personality types.

I doubt we really understand it well enough, yet but this does look like an interesting start to this science.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...



So you are saying that conservatives are created by brainwashing as opposed to being born that way?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 12, 2011)

Would not this brain difference also explain how that cons are more religious leaning towards an authoritarian leader?


----------



## editec (Apr 12, 2011)

I suspect what this is describing isn't so obvious as some of you are implying.

But certainly we know that some people LIKE authority and others don't.

How that plays out depends mostly on who has the AUTHORITY.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...



Uh because it has to do with Science? Which is where the thread was placed? Ironically, your comment reflects "fear" that it's true, thereby making the scientific conclusion credible.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

Si modo said:


> This?  Again?
> 
> Can't..............
> 
> ...



You're right, there are many studies on the differences between the thought processes of liberals and conservatives. The first one I read is several years old, and I was surprised I found it again so easily online having forgotten the title (got to start tossing out all my hard copies of this sort of thing). I'm quoting the most amusing part, but this is a good example of those differences:

The Ideological Animal | Psychology Today


> Most people are surprised to learn that there are real, stable differences in personality between conservatives and liberalsnot just different views or values, but underlying differences in temperament. Psychologists John Jost of New York University, Dana Carney of Harvard, and Sam Gosling of the University of Texas have demonstrated that conservatives and liberals boast markedly different home and office decor. Liberals are messier than conservatives, their rooms have more clutter and more color, and they tend to have more travel documents, maps of other countries, and flags from around the world. Conservatives are neater, and their rooms are cleaner, better organized, more brightly lit, and more conventional. Liberals have more books, and their books cover a greater variety of topics. And that's just a start. Multiple studies find that liberals are more optimistic. Conservatives are more likely to be religious. Liberals are more likely to like classical music and jazz, conservatives, country music. Liberals are more likely to enjoy abstract art. Conservative men are more likely than liberal men to prefer conventional forms of entertainment like TV and talk radio. Liberal men like romantic comedies more than conservative men. Liberal women are more likely than conservative women to enjoy books, poetry, writing in a diary, acting, and playing musical instruments.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Why don't you post your "debunked" links.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > So if you know this study is a joke why get so worked up over it? Time to lighten up perhaps.
> ...



Because then it would get a lot of reads, but no funny responses.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

American Horse said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...



Hmmm, talk about "junk science..." 

So how about all those pseudo-scientific "findings" that supposedly "prove" that conservatives have a higher intellect, are more charitable, are less corrupt, blah blah blah, which members of YOUR political group have been all too eager to post on this message boards in the past, whenever one of _those_ "studies" becomes a popular read? You see it's the same ol' story: If the results of this particular "study" had been reversed, you all would be high-fiving each other and posting we-told-you-so comments.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...



I agree. There's a veil of ignorance when we're first born. Unfortunately, it doesn't take long to adapt to Mom & Dad's lifestyle. Climbing out of the mold and into independent thought is a long journey, however.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> I agree. There's a veil of ignorance when we're first born. Unfortunately, it doesn't take long to adapt to Mom & Dad's lifestyle. Climbing out of the mold and into independent thought is a long journey, however.



And _Nobody_ should know that like you.

You're Still Climbing, and have a long way to go.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama and House Republicans may have narrowly averted a government shutdown last weekend, but as the two sides prepare to engage in another round of intra-party feuding over budget proposals, a new study suggests that basic brain science might stand in the way of bipartisanship.
> ...



Is that the best you got, sammie boy?


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No.

Why are you confused already?


----------



## ToonTheNEws (Apr 12, 2011)

There IS evidence that different activities stimulate physical growth in various areas of the brain.  Accomplished musicians for instance have more developed areas of the brain pertaining to the task of music then a non-musician. Do a Google search on musicians brain.  It stands to reason that if a person spends their entire life focusing on conservative values then an appropriate area of the brain would also be developed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. There's a veil of ignorance when we're first born. Unfortunately, it doesn't take long to adapt to Mom & Dad's lifestyle. Climbing out of the mold and into independent thought is a long journey, however.
> ...



You're never too old to learn, child. Something you stopped doing at around 12 I'm guessing.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

ToonTheNEws said:


> There IS evidence that different activities stimulate physical growth in various areas of the brain.  Accomplished musicians for instance have more developed areas of the brain pertaining to the task of music then a non-musician. Do a Google search on musicians brain.  It stands to reason that if a person spends their entire life focusing on conservative values then an appropriate area of the brain would also be developed.



I've posed the question for a long time whether continuous exposure to a lifestyle can add another genetic compound to the brain, but usually get royally shot down because it can't be conclusively proven, so I don't bring it up anymore. My particular point in the past has been that the _cycle_ of poverty is now almost irreversible in some communities because it's been a way of life for so many generations that some genetic code has been altered.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Nope.

The empirical evidence suggests the study is spot on.

Conservatives supported the Republican Party which offered fear as its theme during the 2008 campaign; and the Democrats offered hope and change.

Look at the fear generated on the right by healthcare reform. Rather than debate the merits of change, conservative's emotions were stirred into a frenzy by fear mongerers and demagogues.  

Look at how the Bush Administration used the attack of Sept. 11th to increase the authority of the White House, notice how hate and fear and the threat of mushroom clouds and Islamo Fascists stirred emotions and created a climate where the United States attacked and
occupied another soverign nation without first being attacked.  Something our nation had never done before.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ToonTheNEws said:
> 
> 
> > There IS evidence that different activities stimulate physical growth in various areas of the brain.  Accomplished musicians for instance have more developed areas of the brain pertaining to the task of music then a non-musician. Do a Google search on musicians brain.  It stands to reason that if a person spends their entire life focusing on conservative values then an appropriate area of the brain would also be developed.
> ...



This is one of those rare opportunities I have to agree with you, and, to support your point.

"... a lifestyle can add another genetic compound to the brain,..."

With a slight modification...our DNA, rather than being mutated, seems to be ready to accomodate changes beneficial to the species.

"a. [T]he frontal cortex gives humans, unlike animals, the potential to control urges from the limbic system, whether for the second piece of red velvet cake or for the brunette behind the Starbucks counter. Next time you go to the zoo, look at the chimps low, recessed brow. Then check out your own bulging pate. That, clever reader, is your frontal cortex.

b. While biology may suggest that the human male cant be expected to remain around for long, scientists are apt to describe the brain as chemically and neurologically predisposed to certain behaviors, and, in humans, it is a mistake to underestimate the environmental pressure of social norms. The human record suggests that social norms, especially the universal one of marriage, can reinforce fathers ties to their children, which in turn might even become part of the male neural architecture. *Recently, neuroscientists have even discovered evidence that married mens testosterone levels fall at the birth of their baby."*
KAY S. HYMOWITZ
Femina Sapiens in the Nursery
The conflict between parenting and career is hardwired in the female brain.
Femina Sapiens in the Nursery by Kay S. Hymowitz, City Journal Autumn 2009


----------



## ToonTheNEws (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> ToonTheNEws said:
> 
> 
> > There IS evidence that different activities stimulate physical growth in various areas of the brain.  Accomplished musicians for instance have more developed areas of the brain pertaining to the task of music then a non-musician. Do a Google search on musicians brain.  It stands to reason that if a person spends their entire life focusing on conservative values then an appropriate area of the brain would also be developed.
> ...



I might tend to lean towards that conclusion as well.  It would be foolish to believe that we have stopped adapting to our environment.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > ToonTheNEws said:
> ...



I wish you'd been around for the debate (a year or so ago), and I appreciate your rare agreement with me! As I recall, I was arguing that you can't just _tell_ people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they have _become_ unable to do it, even with educational and environmental opportunities galore thrown at them. I wasn't offering any solutions, just a theory as to why the cycle of poverty (especially among minorities in urban  ghettos) can't be broken.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



"As I recall, I was arguing that you can't just tell people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they have become unable to do it,..."

Nothing I like better than placing the discussion in the political realm!

But I would have quibbled with the quote, first the 'tell' part.  I always assume that folks are able to decide what is best for them...assume they are adults.

"..if they have become unable...'. Begging the question. You've presupposed the answer.

Generally, don't we frame this argument around whether or not the 'help' of government isn't often a hinderance?

See, now we're back on our usual footing!


----------



## rdean (Apr 12, 2011)

Hilarious.  A measly 6% of scientists are Republican.  Red state colleges and universities are mostly the worst in the nation.  Red states are funded by Blue states.  Republicans slash eduction.  The majority of Republicans believe evolution and science are "faiths".

There are no Republican government policies that work.  Republicans fail at every single thing they do except "trick" the American people.

And yet, right wingers on this site are calling Democrats names.  Good.  The "ever shrinking" Republican party needs to remind Americans where racism, ignorance and intolerance comes from.  I remember.  

Republican Party, 90% white, most Christian.  6%, pathetic.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I agree it's been a hindrance (surprise surprise). But no one seems to offer a solution for what to do NOW. You can't just herd people into some segregated society and put walls around them because there's no other solution. And no, I don't have the answer either.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



You're much too mellow today.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Hilarious.  A measly 6% of scientists are Republican.  Red state colleges and universities are mostly the worst in the nation.  Red states are funded by Blue states.  Republicans slash eduction.  The majority of Republicans believe evolution and science are "faiths".
> 
> There are no Republican government policies that work.  Republicans fail at every single thing they do except "trick" the American people.
> 
> ...



Oh give it a rest.

I don't mind an ad-hoc swipe at Conservatives now and then..I do it all the time.

But heck..least come up with something new.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 12, 2011)

"Anterior Cingulate" Is that another word for asshole? It fits.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious.  A measly 6% of scientists are Republican.  Red state colleges and universities are mostly the worst in the nation.  Red states are funded by Blue states.  Republicans slash eduction.  The majority of Republicans believe evolution and science are "faiths".
> ...



Deanie merely validates the following:

Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom.
      - Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## rdean (Apr 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious.  A measly 6% of scientists are Republican.  Red state colleges and universities are mostly the worst in the nation.  Red states are funded by Blue states.  Republicans slash eduction.  The majority of Republicans believe evolution and science are "faiths".
> ...



OK, how about Paul Ryan's budget?  Slashes education and medicaid and medicare.  Saves the country 5 trillion.  Gives a 4 trillion tax cut to the top 5%.  Costs at least a million jobs right off the bat.  Doesn't really save 5 trillion because it's "given away" to the wealthy.  And he thinks jobs are "magically created" by tax cuts.  Only we all know jobs are created, in a capitalist society through "supply and demand".  Republicans have swallowed so much "swill", they don't understand that if no one has any money except rich people, there is no demand, hence "no jobs".

The problem is this goes all they way back to "stupid".

Hey, just curious.  After attacking gays, Hispanics, women's rights and Muslims during the last year, who's next?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



What does this have to do with science? Is it because they used the word science in the article?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Hilarious.  A measly 6% of scientists are Republican.  Red state colleges and universities are mostly the worst in the nation.  Red states are funded by Blue states.  Republicans slash eduction.  The majority of Republicans believe evolution and science are "faiths".
> 
> There are no Republican government policies that work.  Republicans fail at every single thing they do except "trick" the American people.
> 
> ...



Sad and pathetic.

Why don't you oppose the liberals who censor science?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious.  A measly 6% of scientists are Republican.  Red state colleges and universities are mostly the worst in the nation.  Red states are funded by Blue states.  Republicans slash eduction.  The majority of Republicans believe evolution and science are "faiths".
> ...



Damn, I already pos repped you today.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That's because I lost it yesterday. I hate it when I'm brought down to street level. So back to low id today after a good night's sleep. I'll be back to normal by tomorrow.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I look at Paul Ryan's blueprint (which is what he calls it) as doing the same thing the Democrats did with the first draft of a health care bill. *Put fat in at the beginning* (knowing you won't get it all, or even half of it, but eventually you'll settle on what counts most). That's actually a business model used for years and years whenever a costly new product, process, or policy was about to be pitched to owners and/or managers. I used the concept myself when I proposed establishing a word processing pool and moving away from one-on-one secretaries to only two per department, with WP doing all the document production for the whole firm. Nobody got laid off because the secretaries were offered a chance to train on the new computer setup. The first anticipated repercussion came from the people who would lose their personal secretaries; the second from the ones who paid the bills and the up-front costs necessary at the outset. But since I "put fat in at the beginning," the computer/word processing system I presented was the most expensive, so once they were convinced the new arrangement would be a time-saver and cost less in the long run, it was easy to get them to approve the system I really wanted in the first place!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Accepting that would require rdean to admit that Republicans are smart enough to think ahead.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



This isn't a thread about that. Not in the least. It's a thread about nature vs. nurture. And it's been used to justify some very racist theories. I don't care if it's knocking conservatives, it's a load of hooey. I've seen people over the course of my life change their political leanings as well. Heck..I've seen people take viscious dogs..and socialize them. The brain is a very, very, very complex organ. And it's amazing too. You process enormous amounts of information and make decisions about it in milliseconds. Your brain can make sense of 3 dimensional environments very quickly. The act of walking is completely mind boggling if you think about it. You are in a constant state of flux..making decisions about balance and the world around you.

My sig says "It really is that simple". It doesn't mean "It's really that simplistic."


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



What you say is undoubtably true, the brain is a very complex organ and most people evolve over time.  The operative word is most, there are the willfully ignorant who adopt an ideology, a dogma, as an immutable truth and no amount of evidence will ever diabuse them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The brain is capable of solving complex equations faster than most people believe. Sit down sometime and try to predict where a ball thrown at over 90 mph will land after it hits a bat swung at around 60 mph. It will take you longer to figure out the variables that it does to run to where it is going to land. That actually makes walking look simple.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



You shouldn't give up on yourself like that.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Si modo said:


> This?  Again?
> 
> Can't..............
> 
> ...



While that might be an over-simplification of the functions of the cingulate cortex and amygdala, why is it a radical notion that neurophysiology drives behavior?  

I suspect the original study was more cut and dry and the press inserted their own OPED into the findings.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It could be that it was published in "Current Biology".

Oh, and your earlier question about "peer review"?



> Received 11 January 2011;
> revised 10 February 2011;
> accepted 4 March 2011.
> Published online: April 7, 2011.
> Available online 7 April 2011.



ScienceDirect - Current Biology : Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults

I keep seeing people claim this was some sort of hoax or joke.  I can't find any information to support that.  When you look at the article, it seems pretty cut and dry.  Self identified conservatives and liberals had differences in brain structure as quantified by MRI.  

As I said before, the larger implications, to include pejoratives, seem to have been inserted by the press.


----------



## Ragnar (Apr 12, 2011)

Leery About Liberal, Conservative Research Findings | Therapy Soup



> PsychCentrals founder, Dr. John Grohol, suggests that research studies be put to the test themselves. He discusses how and why flawed research happens.
> 
> And what is the overarching cause? *Bias.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Ragnar (Apr 12, 2011)

What Research Can You Believe? | World of Psychology



> John Ioannidis, a professor at the University of Ioannina, became interested in this question in medical research. So he put together an expert team of researchers and statisticians to dig deeper and see how bad the problem was. What he found didnt surprise researchers, but will come as a surprise to most laypeople 
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Ioannadis put together a complex mathematical model that would predict how much research may be flawed, based upon all of these variables. His model predicted that 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type [-- especially in psychological research]) [will] turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials.
> 
> Then he put that model to the test on 49 studies that held the most highly regarded research findings in medical research in the past 13 years. These were in the most cited medical journals, and were themselves the most cited articles.
> 
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> Leery About Liberal, Conservative Research Findings | Therapy Soup
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I found it interesting that your article was written in response to the study, yet didn't really directly question the study itself.

The best it could do was some vague language about bias in the peer review system.  It did not even attempt to address the methods, data, or conclusions of the study.

Even with that, it didn't say how and why bias directly assisted this article.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Poor Maggie.

Always has been a poor guesser in every fucking post she pulls out of her ass.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This?  Again?
> ...





Ya Think?

Hey, How about that sun rising in the East thingy? Think it might happen again tomorrow morning?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Cute.  What ideology or dogma can you offer that I accept as immutable?  Don't be shy, you said i have so you must know.  If you don't I must assume you lied.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



sammie boy, a profane ad hominem attack makes your appear bitter and stupid.  You wouldn't want everyone to see you as I do, now would you?


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Yeah, that's a big worry of mine: How Idiots Might See Me.

I'll try not to lose any sleep.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Is that the best you've got?


----------



## Zander (Apr 12, 2011)

This whole thread scares me!!


----------



## Ragnar (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > Leery About Liberal, Conservative Research Findings | Therapy Soup
> ...





> Thinking critically about the issues when youve been raised to believe/think there is only one right way _(and taught to believe that those who believe/think differently are inferior)_, is no mean feat. I guess thats why studies about about the psychological/physiological differences between Liberals and Conservatives leave me leery and dare I say it? Suspicious. Sure, the brain differences might very well be real. But *Id love to know more about the sample of individuals tested as well as the political persuasion of the researcher!
> 
> We should note that the study was done with student subjects. I would find it more convincing if the test subjects were from a variety of age and professional backgrounds*.



You would have had to read the whole thing to catch the above.

The articles I brought links for only note the very limited methods used in the study and/or ask questions not addressed or broadly show how common bias can corrupt even good and well meaning scientific endeavors. Something that is not common knowledge among laypeople. (such as myself)


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, but it's the reply I thought you'd be able to understand.

Sorry if it went over your head.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Um...its might be because THE PRESS INSERTED THEIR OWN OpED??

Christ, catch the fuck up with yourself....


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Ragnar said:
> ...



Why would it make a difference if the subjects were adults and/or students?  How would that change the outcome?  Was there a good reason, neuro-developmentally speaking, why younger subjects were used?  Why does using younger subjects make the findings less acceptable to the blogger?

Again, they don't really address any of the meat of the study.  They just toss out some generalizations.

Scientists pass the time by picking apart scientific papers, methodology, statistical number crunching, and conclusions.  You can word a study to say what you want it to say, but you can't fake the data.  That's why graduate scientific fields have "journal clubs" to pour over studies and the findings (if that kind of thing turns you on).  

Outside of fraud, bias will only get you so far in scientific studies.  The holes are usually easily found.  That being said, the overwhelming majority of scientific papers are not political in nature and I have yet to see a substantive point being made to show that this study was biased.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



I am not interested in the OPED.  I am interested in the actual scientific study.  The one that was published in a scientific journal.

Are you caught up now?


----------



## Ragnar (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Does "bitch fit" mean calling into question a dubious scientific study which even if largely correct proves nothing about any randomly chosen liberal or conservative individual?


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I was caught up after I read the OP (that means "Original Post")

You should try it some time.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Yes, Watson, I believe you have grasped the essential point.


----------



## Ragnar (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



It would say more about the general population were it not such a small subset of society. We know that brain growth occurs over decades and that growth could be charted over time and changed over time.

Maybe people are leery about it just because Colin Firth (a fine actor) thinks there is something biologically wrong with people who don't agree with him, lol.



> "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," said Firth.



Colin Firth explores politics of the brain | MNN - Mother Nature Network


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



You know what, all that proves is that somebody published something. That article is behind a pay wall, and I cannot access it. For all I know all the comments about it are pointing out exactly the same thing I am, and the peer reviews are calling out the methodology and the sample group.

Want to try again?


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



What exactly was dubious about it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > Leery About Liberal, Conservative Research Findings | Therapy Soup
> ...




Try this.

The Neurocritic: Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience

http://www.edvul.com/voodoocorr.php

It seems that people tend to see correlations even when there aren't any. That simple facts always makes me skeptical when people start seeing correlations that make them look more intelligent than the people they disagree with.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



You are a partisan hack. You constantly call out Republicans for doing what Democrats do, then insist we should start cleaning house at the top with Republican governors, ignoring the fact that the Democratic president is doing the same thing.

Figure it out for yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Better question.

Why aren't the people who claim to love science pointing out the flaws? Does it make you feel superior to believe that your brain prevents you from thinking for yourself?


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> It would say more about the general population were it not such a small subset of society.



That concept is known as the "power" of a study.  In essence, you are correct; the more people or data points you study, the higher the "power" of the study and the more statistically sound it is.  That doesn't mean that studies with a low power are useless or should be automatically discounted.  If you read peer reviewed publications, you'll notice a lot of studies with just a handful of individuals studied.  



> We know that brain growth occurs over decades and that growth could be charted over time and changed over time.



The brain essentially stops developing at around the mid-twenties.  Obviously, that is not when people stop learning or using their brains, but developmentally, the structure of the brain stops at that  point (by and large, the concept of neuroplasticity is being studied now, but that still is not a regular developmental phase).   



> Maybe people are leery about it just because Colin Firth (a fine actor) thinks there is something biologically wrong with people who don't agree with him, lol.



That's still not a good reason to simply discount the study.  Was it flawed in it's methodology, application of statistics, or conclusions?



> "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," said Firth.



Colin Firth explores politics of the brain | MNN - Mother Nature Network[/QUOTE]

Firth just "commissioned" the study.  Unless you can show he unduly influenced the results, it really just becomes a pointless deflection.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Other than histrionics, I can't really find any flaws in the study.  It's pretty straight forward; self identified conservatives had larger amygdalas and self identified liberals had larger cingulate cortex regions as determined by MRI. 

All the other noise is just that; noise.  

Perhaps you could show me the flaws if I have missed them.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





Wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.....

Wry's not the sharpest tool in the shead.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You know what, all that proves is that somebody published something. That article is behind a pay wall, and I cannot access it. For all I know all the comments about it are pointing out exactly the same thing I am, and the peer reviews are calling out the methodology and the sample group.
> 
> Want to try again?



The fact that it was submitted, revised, and resubmitted prior to publication *is* the peer-review process.

You asked about peer review and why this was considered a scientific study earlier in the thread, and I answered your question.

It was deemed sufficiently scientific to be peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Try this.
> 
> The Neurocritic: Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience
> 
> ...



Again, I am not interested in OPED about a relatively straightforward scientific study nor am I interested in the larger projections about the results that both sides are running with.

The study simply found a difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives.  It did not claim one was superior to the another.  Other's have done that.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> The study simply found a difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives.  It did not claim one was superior to the another.  Other's have done that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I am just supposed to take your word for it?

I don't take anyone's word for anything.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Ragnar said:
> ...





But....I'm from the Government, and I wanna HELP YOU!!


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > The study simply found a difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives.  It did not claim one was superior to the another.  Other's have done that.



So are you with me now?  

Because, this has been my basic point all along.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I am just supposed to take your word for it?
> 
> I don't take anyone's word for anything.



You are the one that made the claim.  I am simply asking you to point out the flaws that you saw and claim I missed.  

I never claimed the study didn't have flaws, I just claimed I didn't personally see any.  

However, research isn't really my cup of tea; so other than being able to comprehend methodology and basic statistics like p-values, I am certainly not an expert.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I am just supposed to take your word for it?
> ...



What claim did I make? I just think that people see correlations that do not always exist. I even posted a study that talks about how it happens, and why.


----------



## Samson (Apr 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Well, at least since post # 66.

Discussing the veracity of the study seems a little pointless: Different Brain Structures Cause People to Behave Differently. Different behaviours (and values) cause people to belong to different political parties.

THe point of the OP was to politicise the issue: That one is better than the other, which is as much nonsense as saying there is only one effective method of problem solving.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> What claim did I make? I just think that people see correlations that do not always exist. I even posted a study that talks about how it happens, and why.



Let's not run away from what we said:



> Better question.
> 
> Why aren't the people who claim to love science pointing out the flaws? Does it make you feel superior to believe that your brain prevents you from thinking for yourself?



I agree with the dubious correlations comment.  That has been my basic point.  That's not the researchers fault.

If you want to talk about the limbic system , you are also dealing with sexual arousal and function.  So, and equally dubious conclusion would be:  "conservatives are better lovers".

As I said in my first post on here; "oversimplification of the function of these two items of the brian".

However, I don't find it surprising that we are starting to be able to detect subtle differences in brain structure tied to personality.

That being said, we can detect major differences in brain structure in schizophrenics, and even still, there is no consensus that that difference is the cause, or related to the disease.


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 12, 2011)

Samson said:


> Well, at least since post # 66.



That was my first post on this thread/topic.



> Discussing the veracity of the study seems a little pointless: Different Brain Structures Cause People to Behave Differently. Different behaviours (and values) cause people to belong to different political parties.
> 
> THe point of the OP was to politicise the issue: That one is better than the other, which is as much nonsense as saying there is only one effective method of problem solving.



I agree.  I never subscribed to the OP.  In fact, I have been pretty consistent in my views.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 13, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > What claim did I make? I just think that people see correlations that do not always exist. I even posted a study that talks about how it happens, and why.
> ...



I know what I said.

From the beginning I rejected the conclusions of the study, and the hyperbole of both the OP and the news. 

The study supposedly found that liberals analytical centers where more developed, and conservatives fear centers more developed. My personal experience tells me that liberals are just as emotional, and more prone to hyperbolic extremism, than conservatives. Have you ever met a conservative that threatened anyone over scientific research on fruit flies? 

Animal rights terrorists target students as the "soft underbelly of the vivisection movement" : Respectful Insolence

The study is either completely bogus, or everyone is lying about what it found. Either way, I have serious problems with it.


----------



## rdean (Apr 13, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Hilarious.  A measly 6% of scientists are Republican.  Red state colleges and universities are mostly the worst in the nation.  Red states are funded by Blue states.  Republicans slash eduction.  The majority of Republicans believe evolution and science are "faiths".
> ...



Are you talking about "magical creation" and "irreducible complexity"?  Because Behe said those are "science" on par with "astrology" and I'm assuming "alchemy".


----------



## rdean (Apr 13, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



How about this:  Democrats believe in exercising their brain by educating it.  Republicans believe it's fine just the way Gawd made it.


----------



## Samson (Apr 13, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I wondered whe rdean would show up in a thread about brain structure.

Hell, I bet there will be several universities fighting over your corpse to unscrew the cork atop your head and find out exactly how your pea has allowed you to post anything, much less your customary drival.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 13, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



But ironically, the brain (at least as far as ours has evolved thus far) isn't capable of multi-tasking so that each task is done well. One or some will always suffer.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 13, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



Pay no attention to "Samson" lol. The girly man has had the rag on for me, personally, for a long time.


----------



## Samson (Apr 13, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Poor, pitiful Maggie....but,

its good that you have an imagination to keep you entertained.


----------



## rikules (Apr 13, 2011)

American Horse said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...




Conservative philosophy is an appeal to rational reasoning; Liberal dogma (can't really call it a philosophy) is an appeal to base emotions like hatred, jealousy, demonization, suspicion, fearmongering, etc., and therefore it is a dysfunctional operating system. As such it needs "enablement" and finds that in a corrupt media which feeds it's dysfunction, while feeding on it. Publishing pseudo-scientific findings to increase the level of disrespect through ridicule toward fellow citizens too, is a case in point. Consider how juvenile that is. 


liberal philosophy is an appeal to rational reasoning and logic. WHere-as, onthe other hand, conservative dogma (can't really call it a "philosophy) is an appeal to baser emotions like hatred, jealousy, demonization, suspicion, fearmongering, etc. That is why so many cons HATE liberals.
As such it needs "enablement" and finds that in a corrupt conservative media and hate radio which feeds it's dysfunction, while feeding on it. 

The reason cons listen to coulter and limbaugh and savage is because they justify these extreme hatreds;


being the deranged morons that they are conservative eat up crap like this;

it's ok to hate liberals
liberals hate christians
liberals are the enemy
liberals love satan
liberals hate god
liberals hate freedom
liberals hate Americ


probably the more insane of the right wing are those who accuse their enemies of their own crimes

one need only read some coulter or malkin, listen to some limbaugh or savage or just read the posts of many cons on this board to see just how much they HATE liberals


----------



## American Horse (Apr 13, 2011)

rikules said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Nonsense;  There are good decent liberals who are not guilty of any of those things, and the average liberal who is only guided by compassion and human kindness  is none of those things either. 

What someone like Limbaugh etal, or likewise insignificant posters here say is irrelevant.  
Much more relevant are the top dogs of liberalism who say just those things about conservatives, daily on the media and on the floor of the house and senate; you only have to watch and listen to hear and then evaluate their state of mind, and it's not a healthy one.

It is emotionally and intellectually dysfunctional, and appeals to dysfunctional people.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 13, 2011)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



No, I am talking about this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/161970-political-attack-on-science.html

And this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/162076-science-and-politics.html


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 13, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The study found that the amygdalas and cingulate cortexes were different.  The OPED projected that finding to fit certain personality traits.

As I said, that's an over simplification.  The brain is far more complex than to have discrete little packages of tissue that solely handle certain facets of personality.

You can read more on the limbic system if you are interested.  It's actually an interesting notion that the brain evolved out from the limbic system.

So, you reject that the brains, were in fact, no different between the two groups (editoralizations aside)?

How do you justify that?  Did they crook the MRI readings?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 13, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



The initial study claimed to find a correlation between brain structure and self identified political parties.

I have some serious questions.


What type of correlation.
Did the self identified people in each group all have the same structure.
Was it simply a majority of each group.
Was it actually only a few people in each group.
Did the researchers actually just notice that a couple of people in each group had the differences they saw and then ignore the fact that the other group actually had the same number of people with that difference.
Is the correlation actually statistically significant.
How can you accept the study as valid without knowing the answers to these questions, examining all the MRI scans for yourself, and eliminating all the possible ways the researchers could have allowed their personal bias to taint a study in a field no one has anything beyond a rudimentary understand of?


----------



## geauxtohell (Apr 13, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The initial study claimed to find a correlation between brain structure and self identified political parties.
> 
> I have some serious questions.
> 
> ...





Conservatives have larger amygdalas.  Liberals have larger cingulate cortexes.  

You know, the basic findings that were listed in the conclusion. 



> [*]Did the self identified people in each group all have the same structure.
> [*]Was it simply a majority of each group.
> [*]Was it actually only a few people in each group.



If it were only a few people, then the conclusions would be different.  



> [*]Did the researchers actually just notice that a couple of people in each group had the differences they saw and then ignore the fact that the other group actually had the same number of people with that difference.
> [*]Is the correlation actually statistically significant.



Again, if the correlation wasn't statistically significant, they couldn't very well conclude there was a difference.  



> How can you accept the study as valid without knowing the answers to these questions, examining all the MRI scans for yourself,



Give me a break.  Can you read an MRI?  Neither can I.  Don't hold me to a standard that you yourself can't meet.   



> and eliminating all the possible ways the researchers could have allowed their personal bias to taint a study in a field no one has anything beyond a rudimentary understand of?



You see, if you are going to reject the findings, it is up to you to provide the answers to your questions.  

Until it stands, simply rejecting something you don't want to believe doesn't exactly come across as proof of much of anything.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 13, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > The initial study claimed to find a correlation between brain structure and self identified political parties.
> ...





I reject the findings because, as I have said before, I cannot read the study. I do not believe anything just because someone says it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2011)

Si modo said:


> This?  Again?
> 
> Can't..............
> 
> ...



Really? I thought you were one of the subjects of the study


----------



## Samson (Apr 14, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > This?  Again?
> ...



When I read "brain structure" in the title, I knew you were disqualified.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 14, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > _Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior cingulate cortex--a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger amygdala, an almond-shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety._
> ...



^conservative


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 14, 2011)

Samson said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Sammie boy's OCD seems to be on fire do to this thread.  Likely the results of the study are causing him to experience more anxiety and fear than usual.


----------

