Red Brain, Blue Brain: Republicans and Democrats Process Risk Differently, Research Finds

Originally posted by Schrecken Licht
Interesting study. It would also be interesting to know what sorts of results they would get with people who have libertarian viewpoints.
As for conservatives and fear, for some reason some people here seem to be implying that fear is a bad thing. If you can imagine these same people that were referenced in the study having been born 15,000 years ago and living in, say, prehistoric Africa, fear would not only would not necessarily be a bad thing, but it may just keep you alive long enough to reproduce and rear the next generation. For a stone-age conservative, the snap of a twig in a thicket up ahead might mean a prey animal that he could kill and eat, or it could just as easily mean a predator that would kill and eat him. But, based on what the study says, the stone age liberal wouldn't be as fearful, but would take the same risk of approaching the thicket, probably assuming the sound was a small animal that he could kill and help feed his tribe. In this scenario, the conservative would obviously be better prepared if what was in the thicket was a sabertoothed cat rather than a harmless lizard.
Self-preservation is an extremely useful trait for any creature that has predators (as humans once did and still do if we go into certain wild places), as is the assumption that a noise or shadow is a predator even if it is not. The thing is, in a very Darwinian sense, as would have certainly been the case in the stone age, if the man runs or prepares to fight he is more likely to live to see another day if the sound in the bush did turn out to be a predator.
This sort of thing could also imply that liberals might be easier to take advantage of, if indeed it is true that they are less inclined to be wary of other people and things on an individual level. In a nutshell, fear isn't always a bad thing, and can definitely be a useful trait when it comes to survival, even in today's day and age.

You are comparing immediate fears and long-term fears. And I agree that self-preservation is important - conservates tend to a narrow self-centered immediate type of fear (i.e. the type of fear a gun could protect against) whereas the liberal mind tends towards more long-term fear (i.e. global warming) that requires cognition beyond today and self.

Originally posted by mahatche
I'm really interested in this liberals hate individualism and want conformity line. Where is this coming from?

Where have you come up with the idea that liberals hate individualism? IDIC "Infinite Diversity, in Infinite Combination" from the very liberal original Star Trek is more the credo in my experience.

My experience is that conservates are more likely to want everything and everyone nicely the same - not liberals.

Off to work- have fun kiddies.....

When it comes to life and Politics....Trust no one and even have your Mom cut the cards. To me, it doesn't matter if your conservative or liberal.....if your in DC, you are there to better yourself and your family and really only have a minor interest in the people that elected you.

Is there a study that shows how stupid liberal and conservative people in America are? Congress has an approval rating of 9%, yet us dumb Americans re-elected 94% of them back in November. To me, it looks like both parties live in fear. Too scared to re-elect new people I guess??

When the crash hits later this year, we can thank BOTH the liberal and conservative policies over the last 50 years. 90 trillion in UNFUNDED liabilities....Really, like that will work??????? tick...tick...tick...

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

You could infer from this that the cognitive styles of conversatives diifer from liberals in that self-centered fear motivates the conservative (red) folk

Which would explain why they love guns so much...they live life in a state of fear.

I was raised by a family of gun toting democrats.

Your argument is invalid.

Op source,
While some perceptions may stand, "both sides" exhibit fear driven by political implications. It's not as cut and dry as it sounds...

Does such a study sound kinda familiar? Last year similar research pointed out that;

"USC neuro-science reveals brain differences between Republicans and Democrats"

That’s because the brains of self-identified Democrats and Republicans are hard-wired differently and may be naturally inclined to hold varying, if not opposing, perceptions and values.

continued...

“The (brain) differences could be a result of genetics, experiences, or a combination of both,” he said. “It takes a lot of effort to see the other side and we’re not going to wake up one day and all start getting along.”

Understanding the differences and their origins, however, is a step in the right direction, he said.
Source

Without understanding, ignorance prevails in a contributing factor of divide and conquer.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace

Originally posted by BobbyTarass
82 people, Seriously ? When even under 1000 it'd be considered as a non-representative sample

Prove it.

2nd

This is a more technical statistical point.

If one wanted to estimate, using e.g. brain data, "What is the fraction of liberal-reacting brains vs conservative-reacting brains in the overall population to within a certain percent sampling error", then perhaps one might need 1000.

However, if somebody wanted to see if there could be a correlation---conditional dependence, of brain-imaging results with political outlook, then it is not necessary that 1000 samples be taken to validate a significant effect.

To think about it statistically it's like the difference between density estimation (requires more points) and estimating existence/nonexistence of conditional dependence (regression/chi-squared).

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

You could infer from this that the cognitive styles of conversatives diifer from liberals in that self-centered fear motivates the conservative (red) folk

Which would explain why they love guns so much...they live life in a state of fear.

I was raised by a family of gun toting democrats.

Your argument is invalid.

edit on 15-2-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

No it's not.

If impulse X, correlated with political belief A, leads to outcome Y, it does not mean that all occurrences of outcome Y are caused by impulse X/A in combination.

reply to post by mbkennel


so then they are not exclusive to each other so it is invalid

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by MidnightTide

I question your intent entirely when you throw in the......

Evolutionarily speaking, all this research would support the idea that liberals are at the forefront and conservatives are hold overs from an evolutionary stage that no longer serves humanity as we go into the future.

edit on 14-2-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

Why question it, when it is obvious. My analysis of the facts may differ then yours.

Zero analysis, you are just using this "research" as a means to insult people with conservative beliefs. Just another liberal "we are better then you" troll thread.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by tallcool1

 

So, if I own guns that means I'm a republican who is afraid of everything? Interesting, but idiotic assesment. I own guns. I am a libertarian (if I have to choose one).

Libertarians are just as much right wing as Republicans.

The point is that you are "conservative"...correct...and I personally believe that what drives a lot of gun owners to buy guns is fear and paranoia.

And this study seems to back that up.

And I'm not afraid of anything.

Then you have your guns for just hunting or recreational shooting?

If not...then yes, you were scared enough of something to go out and buy a gun in response to it.

I apologize for taking so long to respond. I really don't have a lot of time during the day to be on ATS...too much work - then on weekends there's too much at home to get caught up with. I really wish I had more time. Anyway, to answer your statements:
In my opinion, I just call myself a libertarian because I'm in the middle. I think as a country (and personally) we should never spend more than we have - so fiscally conservative I guess. I have many gay friends and I think it's way past time that they should have the same rights as anyone else to get married and have all of the benefits that come with that - so socially liberal. And really the same for other socially liberal issues. I don't believe it's my place or anyone elses place to tell others how to live. So your comment that I, as a libertarian, am "just as much right wing as republicans" doesn't seem to apply. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal I guess.

And for your information, I have my guns because I inherited them from my quite liberal/democrat father. Nothing more, nothing less. And if keeping those guns in the house "just in case" means that I'm "afraid" - I respectfully disagree. I try to keep my cupboards stocked with at least enough food to get by for a couple of months too - "just in case". That doesn't make me "afraid", just prepared for an emergency. I'm not afraid that bad guys with guns are going to break into my house, but it's nice to know I have them "just in case".

Do you have band-aids and other medical supplies in your house? If so - why? What are you afraid of? It's the same thing. Being prepared for whatever may come "just in case" doesn't automatically make one "afraid" - just prepared.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Although I agree we need to stop picking sides, this is spot on. At least for what is presented in the public eye but you know people don't like to be told their faults or that their 'fearful'. 'Self-Centered' was also a great word since clearly that is the case with a large percentage of America, try to have a conversation with someone about politics and see how many times I and me are used. Read about 10 posts from the top and this is the case with over half, and they also claim 'not' to be as advertised... interesting.

I am certain that gun free zones and a disarmed population are perfectly sensible in your mind, but in reality we have but a single life to live and we are surrounded by those who would steal our lives for a few dollars. We are also surrounded by those who will target defenseless persons in mass and there is no law in the world which will keep these people from wielding destructives devices. Be it guns, poison gas, bombs or whatever they build or acquire. What if Lanza had gone in with gasoline bombs friend? Or maybe one of those homemade flame throwers you see on youtube.

There is only one way to stop a nut job, and that by direct confrontation. Gun free zones are a maniacs play ground!

Also in the 20th century alone more than 150 million souls were laid to waste due to tyrannical government. Had the Jews in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany been armed like America we would never have seen the genocides! Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!

Go back to fairy world little man! Those of us who live in reality will always retain the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones!

Tell you what Fryerbird. I will disarm when you go and jump off the golden gate bridge. Trust me I really will I promise!

Till then stay out of my business! My guns dont hurt anyone!

I could really give a rats ass how elegantly Obama lays out the reasons for all this, but the Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it. You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state.

That's not representation friend!

Take this to heart!
Disarming America is an impossible task, and will see the country in flames!

2006 gun homicides 10,225. NICS background checks 10,036,824
2011 gun homicides 8,583. NICS background checks 16,454,951
16.1% decrease in homicides with a 64% increase in firearms.

Fact 323 Homicides with a rifle in 2011 of those 33 were ruled justifiable (FBI UCR). So a rifle, "assault or other" was involved in just 2.28% of all homicides. So why do you really want my guns! OLiarbo says it will make you safer perhaps?

The real threat the weapons pose are not against you but rather the Government.

The last time they put a ban in place saw a massive influx of parts kits. The same guys who had been making a living importing guns now cut them up and shipped in 20 times the amount. The result is that we have 100's of millions of parts kits in country and almost all come with full auto fire control components.

Take this UZI for example. A little welding or even some JB weld and a dremal tool will see a person armed with a Full Auto Sub Machine gun. No checks, no nothing! Shipped straight to your door. So for about a half days pay slingin rock anyone can have a Full Auto Machine gun.

www.gunbroker.com...

If you are so smart you should know that prohibition does not work, and that making criminals out of your law abiding neighbors is BS. Where there is a market there will always be a supply. Maybe if you could go back in time and keep the gun from being invented, but in reality the cat is out of the bag! Don't let the my gun rapes white women mentality take you for a ride man!

I think maybe your liberal brains method of processing information is just stupidity in action.

Originally posted by FyreByrd
I'm just sharing my analysis of the data I read for this thread. My working definition of how a liberal mind operates is one that (like in the article) tends to self-awareness and self as part of larger whole thinking. How can that be a fabrication when the sources I've cited in the OP define it similarly?

Working definition;
en.wiktionary.org...

Noun

working definition

A definition that is chosen for an occasion and may not fully conform with established or authoritative definitions. Not knowing of established definitions would be grounds for selecting or devising a working definition.

A definition being developed; a tentative definition that can be tailored to create an authoritative definition.

Translations
[show ▼]a definition being chosen for convenience
[show ▼]a definition in development

Especially note; "a definition being chosen for convenience"

Your working definition is devised out of pure convenience to support your own views and not based on any statistical or research based data.

You read into the basics of what the study claims and extrapolate a definition which suits your agenda.

The study indicates 'social' awareness and does not indicate whether that means identifying one's place in it, or even attempting to improve the group. It is merely a region of the brain active when processing activity as a group.

Left Insula

The insulae are believed to be involved in consciousness and play a role in diverse functions usually linked to emotion or the regulation of the body's homeostasis. These functions include perception, motor control, self-awareness, cognitive functioning, and interpersonal experience. In relation to these it is involved in psychopathology.

Notice emotions are strongly tied to this region of the brain, which if I use some lame method of working definition I can extrapolate that liberal brains are emotional thinkers lacking logic.

I can even find an article which would show that you lacking individuality in thought with emotional thought patterns;

Synchronized Brains: Feeling Strong Emotions Makes People's Brains 'Tick Together'
www.sciencedaily.com...

Researchers at Aalto University and Turku PET Centre have now found that feeling strong emotions makes different individuals' brain activity literally synchronous.

The results revealed that especially feeling strong unpleasant emotions synchronized brain's emotion processing networks in the frontal and midline regions. On the contrary, experiencing highly arousing events synchronized activity in the networks supporting vision, attention and sense of touch.

"Sharing others' emotional states provides the observers a somatosensory and neural framework that facilitates understanding others' intentions and actions and allows to 'tune in' or 'sync' with them. Such automatic tuning facilitates social interaction and group processes," says Adjunct Professor Lauri Nummenmaa from the Aalto University, Finland.

That means that whether for better or worse strongly emotional folks tend to merely sync and begin to act like a wilderbeast in the herd.

Here is an article showing that high levels of emotion actually shut down higher level mental processes. Using a working definition of shutting down higher level mental processes I could use the term retardation.

Emotion Can Shut Down High-Level Mental Processes Without Our Knowledge, in Our Native Language
www.sciencedaily.com...

For the last quarter of a century, psychologists have been aware of, and fascinated by the fact that our brain can process high-level information such as meaning outside consciousness. What the psychologists at Bangor University have discovered is the reverse- that our brain can unconsciously 'decide' to withhold information by preventing access to certain forms of knowledge.

They believe that this provides the first proven insight to a hither-to unproven process in which our unconscious mind blocks information from our conscious mind or higher mental processes.

This finding breaks new ground in our understanding of the interaction between emotion and thought in the brain. Previous work on emotion and cognition has already shown that emotion affects basic brain functions such as attention, memory, vision and motor control, but never at such a high processing level as language and understanding.

These studies would then indicate that liberal brains are actually more easily manipulated due to their lack of high mental processing functions based upon increased emotional responses.


This is why your working definition is complete BS, because a working definition can be used to support anything.

In this case I used a working definition to "prove" liberal brains suffer retardation.

That is why I call it complete BS!

reply to post by FyreByrd


The last time they put a ban in place saw a massive influx of parts kits. The same guys who had been making a living importing guns now cut them up and shipped in 20 times the amount. The result is that we have 100's of millions of parts kits in country and almost all come with full auto fire control components.

Take this UZI for example. A little welding or even some JB weld and a dremal tool will see a person armed with a Full Auto Sub Machine gun. No checks, no nothing! Shipped straight to your door. So for about a half days pay slingin rock anyone can have a Full Auto Machine gun.

www.gunbroker.com...

If you are so smart you should know that prohibition does not work, and that making criminals out of your law abiding neighbors is BS. Where there is a market there will always be a supply. Maybe if you could go back in time and keep the gun from being invented, but in reality the cat is out of the bag! Don't let the my gun rapes white women mentality take you for a ride man!

I think maybe your liberal brains method of processing information is just stupidity in action. I dont say that to be mean I really believe that! You are surrounded by those who would steal you life for a few dollars. I have personally lost a family member to persons who when caught said they just wanted see what it was like to kill.

In the real world prohibition does not work, and every little gang banger in the country is armed to the the teeth! You seek to limit peoples ability to defend themselves.

What the hell is wrong with you?

I have personally lost a family member to persons who when caught said they just wanted see what it was like to kill. You and I are surrounded by those who would take you life for a few dollars. A false sense of security is what permeates your mind nothing more!

I will guard my babies whether you like it or not! No law will cause me to lay down my arms!

My Uncle had a flat on the sie of the road in Houston Texas. Three young black men killed him for the 15 dollars in his pocket, and when caught the said he wanted to see what it was like to kill. They killed him just to see him die! The same happens everyday all over the USA!

I also had a personal experience and am I am certain a gun saved my entire family. We lived way out in the country our closest neighbor was about half a mile away. My three kids were 6, 7 and around 1 year old. At about 3 in the morning we got a knock on the door and I grabbed my AK. The only gun I had at the time. My wife answered the door and I stood back behind the door looking out of the crack at the guy. The guy asked for gas and explained they were about to run out. My Wife told him we didn't have any and he just stood there and stood there not saying anything. My youngest ran out in-between the man and my wife, and she just let him stand there. She said something to the guy and started to shut the door. The guy put his hand out and stopped the door and when he did I started screaming and ripped the door all the way open. I had my unchambered gun pointed right at his face. He ran back to towards his car and whoever was driving took off without him.

For a long time I felt bad and figured I had over reacted. It was my baby he making moves towards though. A few months ago a 6 year old was killed in Bentonville Arkansas by a guy named Holly. My wife and I are certain this was the same guy! I have even read that the guy lived in our area.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

The last time they put a ban in place saw a massive influx of parts kits. The same guys who had been making a living importing guns now cut them up and shipped in 20 times the amount. The result is that we have 100's of millions of parts kits in country and almost all come with full auto fire control components.

Take this UZI for example. A little welding or even some JB weld and a dremal tool will see a person armed with a Full Auto Sub Machine gun. No checks, no nothing! Shipped straight to your door. So for about a half days pay slingin rock anyone can have a Full Auto Machine gun.

www.gunbroker.com...

If you are so smart you should know that prohibition does not work, and that making criminals out of your law abiding neighbors is BS. Where there is a market there will always be a supply. Maybe if you could go back in time and keep the gun from being invented, but in reality the cat is out of the bag! Don't let the my gun rapes white women mentality take you for a ride man!

I think maybe your liberal brains method of processing information is just stupidity in action. I dont say that to be mean I really believe that! You are surrounded by those who would steal you life for a few dollars. I have personally lost a family member to persons who when caught said they just wanted see what it was like to kill.

In the real world prohibition does not work, and every little gang banger in the country is armed to the the teeth! You seek to limit peoples ability to defend themselves.

What the hell is wrong with you?

edit on 15-2-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

Sir,

I don't know what I've done to irratate you so. I grew up with guns too and really have very little issue with them. If I had my way all weapons would go poof. I am a pragmatist and understand that is not going to happen. I was sharing my experience that Red trending minds seems to LOVE their guns (which I think is a little weird). Guns, gun owners, gun reform folk have nothing to do with the post.

Please contribute to the discussion or don't waste our time.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
I am certain that gun free zones and a disarmed population are perfectly sensible in your mind, but in reality we have but a single life to live and we are surrounded by those who would steal our lives for a few dollars. We are also surrounded by those who will target defenseless persons in mass and there is no law in the world which will keep these people from wielding destructives devices.

This exactly the fear. You aren't surrounded by those who would steal your life for a few dollars. There are a small number of them, very much fewer than most believe. Most stranger homicides are gang warfare---and guess what, gangs are shooting at ARMED MEN.

The law in the world doesn't change the motives of the incorrigible, but it does change easy access to technology.

Lanza's mother had all these weapons because she bought into this fear.

Be it guns, poison gas, bombs or whatever they build or acquire. What if Lanza had gone in with gasoline bombs friend? Or maybe one of those homemade flame throwers you see on youtube.

Probably they wouldn't work, and he would have burnt himself. Technologically well-engineered weapons are much more reliable than home-made hacked together junk, like any other technology. The cult in Japan had years of PhD chemical engineers making their poison gas weapons and yet they were quite ineffective in any military sense. If Lanza could have driven in a car with a military-grade 1000kg high explosive weapon, manufactured in a quality-controlled engineering plant with a very reliable remote control detonator he would have. But since you can't (yet) buy them at Wal-Mart, he didn't. If you could, what would mass murder look like?

Why not make land mines legal?

People, including mentally ill, and criminals, are not infinitely patient or capable. Everybody goes for what's easy. If what's easy happens to be marvelously effective at mass murder, then they can mass murder.

Also in the 20th century alone more than 150 million souls were laid to waste due to tyrannical government. Had the Jews in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany been armed like America we would never have seen the genocides!

You've got to be kidding me. A Jew in 1938 Berlin shoots a Gestapo officer taking him away. How is that going to work out for the rest of the Jews? It just proves to the rest of the people and especially the government that they are dangerous subversives who deserve to be taken to the camps to protect law-abiding good Germans.

The gangs in LA were pretty well armed---does that protect them from LAPD brutality? How did that work out?

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!

Right, and when, historically, has a tyrannical dictatorship been deterred by people's personal ownership of firearms?

Really, it is changes in attitudes and less fear which changes society for the better.

reply to post by mbkennel


I have personally lost a family member to persons who when caught said they just wanted see what it was like to kill. A false sense of security is what permeates your mind nothing more!

I have also had a personal experience! You have just been lucky nothing more! Go talk with an honest police officer even in a small town.

Hell, when I was a kid 10 or so a guy right accross the highway came home from the Marines and killed his whole family and then burnt the house. Happened in Ashdown Arkansas.

P.S. Land mines are legal! Form4 with a tax stamp is all it takes. I think maybe your brains method of processing information is just stupidity in action. I dont say that to be mean I really believe that!

I will keep my guns, thanks for your deluded concern! I bet you are one of those guys who reads books while they drive. Am I right? I mean after all Car crashes are so rare and would never effect you, right? CCW is not very different than wearing a seat belt!

Originally posted by FyreByrd

You could infer from this that the cognitive styles of conversatives diifer from liberals in that self-centered fear motivates the conservative (red) folk while liberals (blue) folk tend to a more society centered approach to decisionmaking.

Dr. Darren Schreiber, a trained lawyer before he turned neuroscientist, holds a theory of mankind not as a toolmaker per se, but that he evolved for political and social ends.

I reference an interview with him in the Additional News Links of the interview - fascinating. Here is a short clip

"A big part of my argument is that, rather than the rational choice model that sees people as individualists calculating their own utility functions, we are all fundamentally social creatures, meaning that I also consider your utility as well as my own and I’d like to increase both if I can because I benefit from the well-being of all of us. This brain that thinks in coalitions also allows us to think in terms of what moral sentiments we’d like to have towards whom, so if I’m trying to figure out if you’re an us or a them I use different neural mechanisms to think about moral calculations. Do I use a sort of what’s described as a deontological Kantian framework that implies I should never ever push you off a bridge if you’re a friend of mine, versus a kind of utilitarian calculation that says I’d sacrifice one person to save twenty five? Depending on whether you’re judged as an us or a them we make different calculations, and use different neural mechanisms in each of these instances. Knowing this helps to unwrap some of the puzzles we’ve seen in human behavior, and gets us a more fundamental understanding of human politics."

Evolutionarily speaking, all this research would support the idea that liberals are at the forefront and conservatives are hold overs from an evolutionary stage that no longer serves humanity as we go into the future.

My experience tends to validate these findings and discussion here on ATS seems to go that way as well. Not in all cases, of course, but on average.





www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on Thu Feb 14 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: TAGS

Come on! Really? Only for the sake of not having a one line reply; I find this thread, shall we say, entertaining? Answer me this... Why is it that we must ultra analyze every single aspect of our existence? You can spend your entire lifetime seeking the answers to questions no one asks and by the time you realize it, your life is gone.

Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican... Big deal! We ARE human. Most of us anyway

Live a little!