news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/2011041...
Interesting explaination why opinions differ from person to person. I am guessing this will carry forth beyond political affliation.
news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/2011041...
Oh... this is going to be a good thread. I'm sitting this one out and just enjoing the show ;)
Now: people who think a particular way have brains that are structurally well adapted to thinking in the way in which that person thinks. Shockings. It's almost as if form and function are linked in some way. Who would have guessed?
What we really need is a brain scan to expose those damn hidden commies!
Whats all the fuss about? "Scientists conduct study, discover the obvious". Not seeing the controversy.
Not to mention the typical caveat, "The studies are not complete so our initial findings should not be trusted." (paraphrased)
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.
Is anyone really surprised?
But this might be a chicken and the egg thing. Brains are still being shaped when we are adults and are shaped by what we are exposed to when growing up. So maybe identifying with liberal ideas stimulates the area of your brain that demands to understand complexe reasonning cause liberal ae exposed to far more complexe ideas then just the simple fear mongering "the g'berment is after your moneys" conservatives are. So political affiliation might not be genetic.
Also, we have the case of he twins Oskar and Jack. They were seperated not long after birth. One grew up in Nazi germany and became a nazi and later a communist. The other moved to the states and was raised has a Jew, went to Israel and joined the army. Now they both have the same genetic make up but did not share the same beliefs. The similarity is that both were engaged in political activities. This might be genetic, but ideals, I would be surprised.
Well my work here is done.
Sigh...
Warning: Image spoilered for naughty word!
That study has already been debunked in a How the World Works critique by Lee Doran.
I wonder if Colin Firth's political opinions have anything to do with the "results" of the study? This is probably just another example of junk science.
This is probably just another example of junk science.
The way the article is written (these aren't science writers, afterall), it seems their total sample size was 90 individuals. That is too small a sample to give results that meet statistical rigor. The study could be spot on, but with such a sample size you really can't put too much stock in it.
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.
Is anyone really surprised?
But this might be a chicken and the egg thing. Brains are still being shaped when we are adults and are shaped by what we are exposed to when growing up. So maybe identifying with liberal ideas stimulates the area of your brain that demands to understand complexe reasonning cause liberal ae exposed to far more complexe ideas then just the simple fear mongering "the g'berment is after your moneys" conservatives are. So political affiliation might not be genetic.
Also, we have the case of he twins Oskar and Jack. They were seperated not long after birth. One grew up in Nazi germany and became a nazi and later a communist. The other moved to the states and was raised has a Jew, went to Israel and joined the army. Now they both have the same genetic make up but did not share the same beliefs. The similarity is that both were engaged in political activities. This might be genetic, but ideals, I would be surprised.
Well my work here is done.
twins (even identical twins) do not have the exact same DNA so thier brains while similar would likely be different.
Also you may want to look into Epigenetics for further clues as to why this girls would have chosen different mindsets.
I think I deserve an award for this. Not only did I make sense, but I baited and someone took the bait (thank you Jharii).
My powers are vast. HS, I dare you to surpass me.
As surmised by previous posters, the bait was laid by the OP. One could argue that you took it. One could win that argument.
I also think it is quite funny how you can't have a discussion without trying to make it look like some "gotcha" moment of trolling and baiting. Seriously, that says way more about you than it ever could about me.
Better? I think this is beside the point in this situation. We are talking about understand reality. Reality is complexe. Far more compexe then conservatives often (but not always, of course) present it. Understanding the complexity of human life is important when your job is to manage human lifes (politics). People who understand this complexity have a certain advantage, like in any other field. No?
Sure, they have certain advantages. They also have certain disadvantages, such as making things more complex than they really need to be. While the entirety of human life is indeed complex, the individual components that make up that human life are not necessarily so.
I am also going to side with Escef on this. A study of 90 people is hardly something to really get behind. Like I said initially, they really made sure to put the caveats in their initial findings of this "study." I am not categorically opposed to conceding the point. I simply don't see any worthwhile evidence at this point in time.
Also, we have the case of he twins Oskar and Jack. They were seperated not long after birth. One grew up in Nazi germany and became a nazi and later a communist. The other moved to the states and was raised has a Jew, went to Israel and joined the army. Now they both have the same genetic make up but did not share the same beliefs. The similarity is that both were engaged in political activities. This might be genetic, but ideals, I would be surprised.
Well my work here is done.
Actually, they sound very alike. It reminds me of something my professor in personality psychology said about our base personality "I once read an article about this guy who supposedly changed his whole personality. He used to be a hardcore communist, but then he found God and became a fundamentalist Christian instead. The journalist kept stretching how amazing this transformation was, him going from believing religion is opium for the people to become deeply religious himself, but as a psychologist, all I could think was "But he hasn't changed at all!"".
The point being that the guy was still looking for easy and absolutist solutions. Believing all answers can be found in Mao's Little Red Book or believing the only truth lies in the Bible, you're still a fanatic. Those twins sound rebellious, militant, and drawn to extreme ideologies. It would have been a lot more interesting if one of them had become politically apathetic, or extremely moderate.
I think I deserve an award for this. Not only did I make sense, but I baited and someone took the bait (thank you Jharii).
My powers are vast. HS, I dare you to surpass me.
I could, but there is no need. Ther are plenty of others who will start the flaming and baiting. If I did it, it would just be overkill. Besides, I'm having fun just reading this thread.
This is probably just another example of junk science.
The way the article is written (these aren't science writers, afterall), it seems their total sample size was 90 individuals. That is too small a sample to give results that meet statistical rigor. The study could be spot on, but with such a sample size you really can't put too much stock in it.
Our understanding of the brain is also extraordinarily limited. We're finding that when portions of the brain are damaged, other portions can compensate for the damaged portions to allow for normal activity. That means that THE section that controls one thing does not preclude other sections from helping, influencing or even adding to a persons ability to do X. Also, there is brain activity that we have no ability to detect. Several times over the last few years, people who were brain dead (no brain activity) actually were not brain dead and woke up from their comas with knowledge of things that they heard while they were "brain dead". A
ll in all, a study like this cannot be be trusted to be accurate with our current state of brain knowledge.
This is probably just another example of junk science.
The way the article is written (these aren't science writers, afterall), it seems their total sample size was 90 individuals. That is too small a sample to give results that meet statistical rigor. The study could be spot on, but with such a sample size you really can't put too much stock in it.
Our understanding of the brain is also extraordinarily limited. We're finding that when portions of the brain are damaged, other portions can compensate for the damaged portions to allow for normal activity. That means that THE section that controls one thing does not preclude other sections from helping, influencing or even adding to a persons ability to do X. Also, there is brain activity that we have no ability to detect. Several times over the last few years, people who were brain dead (no brain activity) actually were not brain dead and woke up from their comas with knowledge of things that they heard while they were "brain dead". A
ll in all, a study like this cannot be be trusted to be accurate with our current state of brain knowledge.
Are you suggesting conservatives have brain damage? Jerk
This is probably just another example of junk science.
The way the article is written (these aren't science writers, afterall), it seems their total sample size was 90 individuals. That is too small a sample to give results that meet statistical rigor. The study could be spot on, but with such a sample size you really can't put too much stock in it.
Our understanding of the brain is also extraordinarily limited. We're finding that when portions of the brain are damaged, other portions can compensate for the damaged portions to allow for normal activity. That means that THE section that controls one thing does not preclude other sections from helping, influencing or even adding to a persons ability to do X. Also, there is brain activity that we have no ability to detect. Several times over the last few years, people who were brain dead (no brain activity) actually were not brain dead and woke up from their comas with knowledge of things that they heard while they were "brain dead". A
ll in all, a study like this cannot be be trusted to be accurate with our current state of brain knowledge.
Are you suggesting conservatives have brain damage?
Heh. No. I'm suggesting that their study really doesn't prove anything and wouldn't, even if there HAD been enough people to make up a statistically sound sample.
This is probably just another example of junk science.
The way the article is written (these aren't science writers, afterall), it seems their total sample size was 90 individuals. That is too small a sample to give results that meet statistical rigor. The study could be spot on, but with such a sample size you really can't put too much stock in it.
Our understanding of the brain is also extraordinarily limited. We're finding that when portions of the brain are damaged, other portions can compensate for the damaged portions to allow for normal activity. That means that THE section that controls one thing does not preclude other sections from helping, influencing or even adding to a persons ability to do X. Also, there is brain activity that we have no ability to detect. Several times over the last few years, people who were brain dead (no brain activity) actually were not brain dead and woke up from their comas with knowledge of things that they heard while they were "brain dead". A
ll in all, a study like this cannot be be trusted to be accurate with our current state of brain knowledge.
Are you suggesting conservatives have brain damage?
Heh. No. I'm suggesting that their study really doesn't prove anything and wouldn't, even if there HAD been enough people to make up a statistically sound sample.
One might find enough liberals in the OTT section alone to refute that "study."
One might find enough liberals in the OTT section alone to refute that "study."
Why must you make fun of conservatives? Their brains are perfectly fine and they should be allowed to participate in studies as well. ;)
One might find enough liberals in the OTT section alone to refute that "study."
Why must you make fun of conservatives? Their brains are perfectly fine and they should be allowed to participate in studies as well. ;)
I would surmise that they are already under the microscope here on quite the regular basis.
I think yo uare reading to much into this. Also, the "My work here is done" might of been a indicator.
And I think you read too much into my response to you. If you are trolling, great, you are trolling. Kudos. We're all pretty much used to that, anyhow, so it's not some revolutionary achievement that you "got" someone. I am interested in the topic and a discussion. You can participate or not.
I would surmise that they are already under the microscope here on quite the regular basis.
So what you are saying is that conservatives don't know how to use a microscope? Hmmm... that explains a lot
I would surmise that they are already under the microscope here on quite the regular basis.
So what you are saying is that conservatives don't know how to use a microscope? Hmmm... that explains a lot
More like liberals use it too much.
I would surmise that they are already under the microscope here on quite the regular basis.
So what you are saying is that conservatives don't know how to use a microscope? Hmmm... that explains a lot
More like liberals use it too much.
Only cause the conservative brains aren't visible to the naked eye
Anyhoo, they've been doing studies like this for quite some time. They've been able to tell there's differences in the brain between sociopathic folk and your more 'normal' variety. They took some people that had been convicted of nasty things and diagnosed and ran 'em through some tests while in a CAT scan or that other brain scan thing or whatever and compared them to others with the same diagnosis and some that were 'normies'. Overall, the sociopaths had very different lookin' brains on scan. This information was conveyed to the viewer (it was on a show), though, with one important caveat: it's not solid. See, the person conducting the study ended the segment with an image of one final scan. Looking at it after what was shown before made you identify it as sociopathic. It was, in fact, a scan of the presenter's brain. He was not sociopathic. So, this stuff has some use and is pretty cute but we just don't know enough to reliably make some sort of determination. Especially considering what Max already mentioned - that parts of the brain we don't classify as being 'for X function' can change and take over some of that function after the primary zone has been damaged. The brain is damned complex. You'd think Liberals would understant that and not be so quick to jump on the results as some sort of vindication. ;)
You'd think Liberals would understant that and not be so quick to jump on the results as some sort of vindication. ;)
Pffft. It isn't just liberals. It's people in general, regardless of political affiliations or beliefs. Anything that gives your side the upper hand is touted as the word of God. It doesn’t matter if it is science, religion, or cookie recipes.
Everyone loves to be right. The true question is if one does not mind being wrong...
Alternatively, the true question might not be whether someone minds being wrong, but whether someone will ever accept that they are. Or even, that they might be.
I wanna know what else the study found. I mean, is this the only difference between the brains or are they leaving stuff out cuz this difference made for a better, more provocative story?
I didn't take the news story as revealing anything new and exciting.
It makes sense to me that a person's general temperament would incline that person to either liberal or conservative political beliefs, and that a personality characteristic as basic as that would be visible to a study of the brain. This doesn't invalidate all political viewpoints, any more than the fact that self-interest influences one's political views means that political arguments are always about self-interest and never about justice.
Maybe the presenter is just waiting for the opportune moment to strike.
For all I know he's been arrested for some heinous crime himself.
Pffft. It isn't just liberals. It's people in general, regardless of political affiliations or beliefs. Anything that gives your side the upper hand is touted as the word of God. It doesn’t matter if it is science, religion, or cookie recipes.
Of course. I just said it that way cuz everyone was jokin' the other way. And the Conservative part of me was scared I'd never be able to do it again so I, like, totally had to.
Say the study is 100% correct, so what? "Among young adults, thoes who are warry of negative reprocutions and dangers are more likely to have conservative political views". NO ****! Cool story bro!
It doesn't even matter. It's a lame study of 90 people by a bunch of undergrads or trainees. Heck, the scores could have been 46-44 for all we know.
"Fear Prone" is simply a negatively connotated synonym for "cautious". When the consequences of your actions span decades, affect billions of people and the saftey of the planet and your entire country, likely even your entire race, no, I do not feel a tendancy towards caution is a bad thing.
But the degree of fear is important. Paranoid is not the same thing as cautious. Next thing you'll say is their is no difference between good, great and awesome.
...
Do you have a point in there? I ask this because, historically, you have demonstrated a lack of ability to descern when your posts do or do not ,in fact, have anything to do with the conversation at hand.
Solicitated?
Solicitated?
If something is being solicited, we're talking about the wrong head...
I am mostly having fun with ya.
Attempting to use your biased opinion as evidence that a study supports the same biased opinion, demonstrating the falability of the study by way of exemplifying your own lack of ability to grasp fairly basic ideas counts as fun? Well, I know its fun for me.
I wanna know what else the study found. I mean, is this the only difference between the brains or are they leaving stuff out cuz this difference made for a better, more provocative story?
I didn't take the news story as revealing anything new and exciting.
It makes sense to me that a person's general temperament would incline that person to either liberal or conservative political beliefs, and that a personality characteristic as basic as that would be visible to a study of the brain. This doesn't invalidate all political viewpoints, any more than the fact that self-interest influences one's political views means that political arguments are always about self-interest and never about justice.
The interesting portion of the story to me is that fact that a person is born with a predetermined personality to some degree. Thus the whole we are a product of our environment is not nearly as provoking an argument that some would have it be and that sociology as a whole become a little less valid. This is not to say that we are not effect by our environment whatsoever but it is not the complete factor of our personality.
Are you suggesting that portions of the brain could grow inconsistently of each other dependant of our chooses or our environment?
Is it even proven that you're born with predetermined personality? The brains were only studied after these people made a choice. To show that the brain already determined whether you lean left or right before you did, would require you to study the brain before you became politically aware like that.
This is not am absolute, but I am really good at reading people and so I notice these things. Over the years, I have noticed that people with similar facial features and body types also tend to have similar personalities. I see them wear similar clothing styles, choose similar styles of glasses and to be similarly introverted or extroverted. They also tend to smile in similar ways and have similar laughs and even styles of speech. It's uncanny. Every time I see it I think, "Wow. Genetics plays a huge role in personality. I wonder how it has affected me."
Now, they are not clones and I don't know if the portion of them that is different from the others is ALSO genetic, or if the genetics just lays a sort of foundation or whether it simply has a strong influence on personality. That's way beyond my simple observations.
Is it even proven that you're born with predetermined personality? The brains were only studied after these people made a choice. To show that the brain already determined whether you lean left or right before you did, would require you to study the brain before you became politically aware like that.
This is not am absolute, but I am really good at reading people and so I notice these things. Over the years, I have noticed that people with similar facial features and body types also tend to have similar personalities.
yes, but obviously, that's not all directly genetics.
For examples (a simplified example of course), people who absorb more energy from food (which is generaticly determined) or are big boned, will be more fat. people who are fat will be bullied more, and thus have personalities that fit bullied people.
So there is a correlation between genetics that make you fat and the profile of a bullied person.
- but it's created socially, not biologically.
Show me the studies on tolerance and empathy. Because with more of that, all of the other stuff doesn't matter.
Yep. Cuz with more of that we'll be too wimpy to do anything but knit socks over tea.
Hmmmmm. Funny, that. I believe that it takes more strength to be tolerant and empathetic than it does not to be.
Yep. Cuz with more of that we'll be too wimpy to do anything but knit socks over tea.
Hmmmmm. Funny, that. I believe that it takes more strength to be tolerant and empathetic than it does not to be.
Yes, but like all things, tolerance is only good in moderation. Too much of it and you'll get used and abused by every intolerant ass who finds you.
This thread is intolerable.
I can accept that.
Is it even proven that you're born with predetermined personality? The brains were only studied after these people made a choice. To show that the brain already determined whether you lean left or right before you did, would require you to study the brain before you became politically aware like that.
This is not am absolute, but I am really good at reading people and so I notice these things. Over the years, I have noticed that people with similar facial features and body types also tend to have similar personalities. I see them wear similar clothing styles, choose similar styles of glasses and to be similarly introverted or extroverted. They also tend to smile in similar ways and have similar laughs and even styles of speech. It's uncanny. Every time I see it I think, "Wow. Genetics plays a huge role in personality. I wonder how it has affected me."
Now, they are not clones and I don't know if the portion of them that is different from the others is ALSO genetic, or if the genetics just lays a sort of foundation or whether it simply has a strong influence on personality. That's way beyond my simple observations.
I'm so tempted to respond to this, but I think I'll leave it to Boraxe. I'm sure he'll get a kick out of this one.