Posted on 08/05/2022 5:49:35 AM PDT by Red Badger
The scientists were able to predict political behavior by simply looking at a scan of the brain.
Research reveals that partisan views have biological roots.
According to the largest study of its type, brain scans of individuals obtained as they engaged in different activities or even did nothing accurately indicated whether they were politically conservative or liberal.
Researchers discovered that the “signatures” in the brain revealed by the scans were just as good at predicting political ideology as the strongest predictor often employed in political science studies, a person’s parents’ ideology.
“Can we understand political behavior by looking solely at the brain? The answer is a fairly resounding ‘yes,’” said study co-author Skyler Cranmer, the Phillips and Henry Professor of Political Science at The Ohio State University.
“The results suggest that the biological and neurological roots of political behavior run much deeper than we previously thought.”
The research, which was recently published in the journal PNAS Nexus, is the largest to date to examine political ideology using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans of the brain.
It is also one of the few to investigate functional connectivity in relation to ideology. Using a whole-brain approach, it looked at which regions of the brain displayed comparable patterns of activity at the same time when performing particular tasks, indicating that they are communicating with one another.
Advanced artificial intelligence methods and the Ohio Supercomputer Center’s resources were used by the researchers to analyze the scans. They discovered correlations between the scan results and the individuals’ reported ideology on a six-point scale ranging from “very liberal” to “very conservative.”
The Ohio State University Wellbeing study, which featured 174 healthy individuals who carried out common tasks used in scientific investigations while within an fMRI scanner, provided the data for the research.
“None of the eight tasks was designed to elicit partisan responses,” said study co-author Seo Eun Yang, now an assistant professor of political science at Northeastern University, who did the work as a doctoral student at Ohio State.
“But we found the scans from all eight tasks were related to whether they identified as liberals or conservatives.”
In fact, even when participants were asked to sit quietly and think of nothing in particular, the resulting scans showed a relationship to political ideology, said co-author James Wilson, assistant professor of psychiatry and biostatistics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
“Even without any stimulus at all, functional connectivity in the brain can help us predict a person’s political orientation,” Wilson said.
While the scans from all eight tasks were predictive of the participants’ ideology, three tasks had particularly strong links.
One was an empathy task, where participants are shown photos of emotional people with neutral, happy, sad, and fearful faces. The second task examined episodic memory, and the third was a reward task where participants could win or lose money based on how quickly they pushed a button.
Only the scans of the reward task could predict political extremism – those who said they were very conservative or very liberal. And only the empathy (emotional faces) task was significantly associated with moderate ideology.
“More work needs to be done to understand the relationship of reward decision-making with extreme political views,” Wilson said.
“The results with the empathy task suggest that political thought may be closely tied to emotion and emotional response.”
While this study did find a link between brain signatures and political ideology, it can’t explain what causes what, Cranmer said.
“What we don’t know is whether that brain signature is there because of the ideology that people choose or whether people’s ideology is caused by the signatures we found,” he said.
“It also could be a combination of both, but our study does not have the data to address this question.”
The fact that the brain scans did as well at predicting ideology as the standard of parental ideology was impressive in itself, the researchers said. But when the brain results were combined with demographic and socioeconomic indicators, such as age, gender, income, and education, the resulting model did even better at predicting ideology than parental ideology.
“Functional connectivity and all survey-based responses provided the strongest predictive capabilities of any model we considered,” Yang said.
Cranmer noted how this study was different from others that have also used brain scans to examine ideology.
“We looked at the brain as a complex system of regions interacting with each other to produce these behaviors. Most other studies have looked at one region of the brain in isolation to see how it was activated or not activated when they were subjected to political stimuli,” he said.
This study showed that activations of specific regions of the brain – the amygdala, inferior frontal gyrus, and the hippocampus – were most strongly associated with political affiliation.
Reference: “Functional connectivity signatures of political ideology” by Seo Eun Yang, James D Wilson, Zhong-Lin Lu and Skyler Cranmer, 23 May 2022, PNAS Nexus. DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac066
Study co-author Zhong-Lin Lu, now at New York University, ran the Ohio State Wellbeing project while director of the university’s Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Brain Imaging.
The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
I have always felt there was truth to the maxim:
"Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brains."
I feel the same way you do: I try not be be as harsh as I feel that I often should be, and am, on young people who are Liberal/Leftist. I truly believe that many of them can (and do) transition out of that poisonous mindset as they gain life experience, and I want to give them the room to do that.
Part of the problem we face, though, is that many of them can do great damage to our country and our society in that time interval it takes them to gain life experience, and Leftists understand this fully and completely. They seek to intentionally exploit it even by extending that vulnerable interval by lowering the age of sufferage.
So we, as Conservatives, are sometimes caught on the horns of a dilemma-we need to give young people time to reach that understanding of the realities of life on their own, but are in a running battle against Leftists who wish to exploit their inexperience in that time.
For my part, I was never a "liberal", even from the age of 10 when I had very decided views on Humphrey versus Nixon, and my views on hippies and the anti-war movement.
But that doesn't mean I didn't hold liberal views on things. I am sure I must have held some, though I don't recall them. (Probably things like "Why can't the government just give poor people money, then they won't be poor?" or stupid things like that)
But as one gets life experience, you realize that there are truths in life, such everyone is not equal in all respects, poverty is, and has always been a reality, not everyone is hard working or conscientious, some people simply aren't intelligent, some people are just mean and evil, people are often selfish, people can be untrustworthy, and so on.
Those things aren't evident to a young person, but you have to learn them to be self-sufficient and survive outside the cocoon of your parents, otherwise...you simply become prey to others in the real world.
That, and learning about the value of money. You learn, as you get life experience, that if something seems to good to be true, it usually isn't true. There is no free lunch. All debts get paid by someone.
You learn that toilet paper is not free when you have to buy it. You learn that cars take money to maintain when you have to pay repair bills. You realize that car insurance not paid for by your parents has to be paid for by someone, and that someone is you. You discover that food you need to have to live on costs real money. And rent you have to pay for when not living for free under your parent's roof is probably the most expensive thing you will shell out money for.
And then you begin to look closely at those things. You see rent is expensive or unavailable because of building codes, and government intrusion such as rent control. You see that gasoline for your car is expensive because of state and federal taxes, and because of government intrusion into the exploration and distribution. You find that electricity bills are high because of needless environmental restrictions and government intrusion.
Many people go through this metamorphosis as they exit the chrysalis of their parent's existence and move out into the real world.
But as we see, it doesn't happen at the same speed or degree of development for everyone.
Some people never grow up, and I find the vast majority of these are "Liberals", people who are intellectually lazy, to busy to think things through, or defiantly resistant to reality.
They hold to infantile notions, such as "There are no inherently bad or evil people, society made them bad or evil" or "Violence never solves anything" or "Giving poor people money will keep them from being poor" or the many views on Communism such as "It isn't a bad idea, nobody has done it the right way yet". And so on.
It is true-some of these people never grow up. They live their whole lives in a "cocoon" of some type, at first in the one one created by their parents, then they move into one created in a college environment, and finally, into a "cocoon" they think is created and provided by the government. And there they stay for the rest of their lives, thinking a government provided "cocoon" is the answer to everything.
They fail to understand that a government provided "cocoon" is not the nurturing cocoon provided by their parents.
It is a PRISON.
And some of these "Liberals" who never grow up, morph into "Leftists". (Note that I make the distinction between "Liberals" and "Leftists"). These people view that government "Cocoon" (prison) as their right and responsibility to create and provide, whether people want it or not, because they don't think people are smart enough to decide for themselves and provide their own "cocoon", even though they feel that THEY are "smart" enough to make those choices for others.
In other words, they rationalize tyranny.
But, there are people who live in that "cocoon" first created by their parents, then provided by a college environment, who come out of that cocoon with their eyes open, and realize the fact that they have to create their own cocoon, and that they are the ones best positioned and equipped to decide how that cocoon is to be built for themselves and those they are responsible for, and those people become Conservatives. The conservatives, in fact, have allowed (and been fortunate enough via environment or inherent characteristics) to be protected in a "Chrysalis" instead of a "Cocoon".
You might notice that I use the word "Cocoon" quite often, but not "Chrysalis". There is a difference in the biological world which translates well.
In biology, a cocoon is a protective covering, and protective measures are more prevalent in cocoons than in chrysalides. So we all start out in highly protective cocoons. As we should be.
The difference is, that at some point, for Conservatives, that Cocoon becomes a Chrysalis, and in biology, the Chrysalis enables the entity inside to harden and widen its wings and become a real Butterfly, but a protective Cocoon does not do the same thing.
Liberals believe in that protective Cocoon created by government, and are content to live inside that cocoon and think everyone else should. As time passes, many realize that cocoon is a prison, and realize they need a Chrysalis. Leftists believe they are the ones who should build and provide that cocoon and fiercely combat anyone who disagrees.
Conservatives may live in a Cocoon as they begin their life journey, but at some point, it becomes instead of a Cocoon, a Chrysalis, allowing us to harden, develop our wings, leave that protective structure as a butterfly and fly away to set our own path.
The human race survives only because we learn not to repeat our near disasters. Those who can't learn get taken out of the gene pool.
This is very true!
I was drifting thru life until I turned 27 and then realized I needed to make a change.
Went into engineering and never turned back.
My only regret is I didn’t realize it at 20.
PS Countries, civilizations and empires get taken out of the gene pool
The Tea Party was largely a leaderless, admirable movement, but it suffered the fate that most leaderless movements meet: defeat and oblivion. (Note: it wasn't a fraud-I know that for a fact, but...it was leaderless)
I believe MAGA is the more current, iteration of that, and there are leaders existing (Trump) and many developing.
I thought it was pretty simple. Conservatives have all their original body parts...especially the men.
NEOCON: A Liberal that has been mugged.........................
I don’ t much care for that term “neocon” probably due to its acquired baggage and my inability to grasp it in the way it seems to be used.
I admit, when looking at the word “Neocon” I originally just broke it down to mean “New Conservative” and I thought “What is wrong with that? Someone who was not a conservative and becoming one through life experiences or events has to be a good thing, right?”
But it apparently isn’t.
“Neocon” seems to be a pejorative term, mean something else, a stratification of conservatism similar to what is seen but largely unstated in the black community regarding melanin content in the skin within the black community and how some of the racist types there view other blacks (lighter skinned blacks are less trustworthy, etc.)
As if someone who made the change to Conservatism from Liberalism is somehow less of a conservative than someone who was “mugged” or just came to their own conclusions.
I fully admit it escapes me. I think people who came to Conservatism rather than somehow being formed from clay have as much or more to offer to Conservatism simply because they may understand the mindset of Liberalism better from having been part of it, and may understand it better.
Here, on FR, it seems to be used to denote someone who claims to be a conservative, yet wants to use US military force around the world in situations that do not warrant it, almost as either a first resort, or just to flex military muscle to gain political advantage.
I have never understood the pejorative use of the term. If you want to use military force for political advantage, that doesn’t make a person a Conservative or a Liberal, it just makes them political, which is neither, and neither is good in that respect.
“it seems to be used to denote someone who claims to be a conservative, yet wants to use US military force around the world in situations that do not warrant it, almost as either a first resort, or just to flex military muscle to gain political advantage.”
That is a good try to describe a NeoCon, but it misses a few key elements.
A true NeoCon is ruthless and fanatical and has a full blown case of xenophobia.
They believe that the map is the territory—even when facts on the ground say otherwise.
They want virtually unlimited military spending. (Many of them are wholly owned subsidiaries of the military industrial complex—so where they sit has determined where they stand.)
They believe in an American Empire—even if the values of the empire are hated by most people all over the world.
The kicker—they consider anyone who disagrees with to be “Putin puffers” or “Islam lovers” or “China lovers”-lots of name calling and finger pointing.
Well stated!
Same here.
My stepson was a “ne’redowell” until he turned about 25. He even spent a year in prison, mainly because it was a small town and the judge hated him. The kid is also very smart. That was in 1997 and he was 18.
But something clicked and he became a journeyman ironworker at around 25. He just got tired of being a goof off. He’s now a HIGHLY respected and sought after Journeyman in the Seattle area construction scene, making a good six figures.
He just needed to get into that last phase of brain development.
Like I said, the term seemed to me to be an open bucket in which to pour tar to be used to smear onto anyone.
I guess the term frustrates me because I have done searches to try to really figure it out, but it seems to be amorphous, but quite bad. It seems like a lazy term.
But I genuinely do appreciate your take on it-I haven’t been able to fully figure it out by asking people, and it seems to be one of those things you just have to infer its use on your own. That is something I have always been good at when I see a word I don’t understand, but I have been stymied trying to figure that term out except to understand fully that it is an insult when used.
Thank you-I have given a lot of thought to this because the Liberal mind set is a puzzle of sorts to me, given that it by necessity has to ignore or be directly at odds with observed realty.
And I know a lot of Liberals. They aren’t “Stupid”, many are highly accomplished and capable in what they do, but...in matters outside that...I don’t get it.
So I have dwelt a lot on this subject. What makes a seemingly intelligent person be a Liberal?
I know that for many people, the hardest thing to do is admit you are and have been wrong on a subject of any great importance, and Conservatives who have made that transition from Liberal to Conservative have a good number of things they have to admit they were wrong on.
I generally have respect for people who have done that, because I know how hard it is for me to admit being wrong on something important to me. I am quite stubborn.
The brain is like a muscle. If you don’t use it, it gets smaller! :-D
• Liberals are driven by emotion.
• Conservative are driven by logic.
This is so consistent I’ve been able to predict people’s political positions multiple times.
Is there a something about the brain that makes some people more emotional or logical?
Probably something that happens during pregnancy.....................
I recognize this - It is the latest misunderstanding of cause and effect, of disease and symptoms, if you will. Overall, poverty doesn’t cause crime, it’s the other way around. Free people with guns don’t cause shootings, gun control makes it worse.
And here, the condition of the brain doesn’t cause liberalism or conservatism. The attitudes and thoughts affect the brain to reflect the beliefs and thought patterns.
This is a BIG problem in many areas - wrong causes assumed.
My euphemism for the mystery when referencing such people is "normally intelligent."
Thus, I must object.
Intelligence does not quantify lack of stupidity. IMHO, stupidity is the inability to logically understand subject matter, be it science or social matters et al, i.e., NOT the lack of intelligence which, frankly, is best defined as utter ignorance since MOST peole (barring a minority of bush people, etc.) has access to information on the world around them.
Thus, IMHO, stupidity is the inability to separate emotion/bias from logic, projected as irrationality (despite outward intelligence, regardless of success).
An intelligent lawyer, for example, can argue in a court of law from an irrational position and trump a logical person harboring an ineffective defense.
Likewise, an intelligent scientist - as has been demonstrated time & again the past number of years - can argue their own irrational position with their establishment of tabled data & facts, but the inability to quantify differences between their own positions and counter arguments - again, IMHO - dictate a singular label outcome:
Stupid.
What we have before us in 'climate matters' is 'mob rule': The 'stupid' as a group have collectively aligned against the rational and their only defense is ad hominem & emotional when faced with facts.
Ironically, it's analogous to the other thread & my comment re 'the big bang':
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4083303/posts?page=15#15
I don't believe 'liberal' is an apt label any longer, because it is NOT the converse of Conservative. I view it, too, as a euphemism (i.e., for 'stupid').
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.