Scientists Are Beginning to Figure Out Why Conservatives Are…Conservative

www.sciencedaily.com...

From Red Brain Blue Brain - research on how 'self-identified' reds and blues and how each handles risk -

Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness. Meanwhile Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in the body's fight-or-flight system. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk.

*Yawn* Just another drop in the bucket to try to support their assumptions for the day they come out and tell society that we all must be marched off to re-education camps for "the greater good."

Oh, wait, was that fear-mongering?

I'm sure it was.

Maybe someone will invest in a similar study to tell us why liberals think that "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!!!1!!!11!!!!"

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Not Authorized

Where'd You come up with Cyrus?

I was talking about Jesus was the first Conservative . . . given that He was in the beginning and nothing was made that He didn't make.

Jesus was the first hippy! He hung out with whores and drunks this of course freaked out his disciples.

If Jesus was conservative he would have enforced all the laws of the old testament.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Was that post supposed to be a shining example of

SWEETNESS AND LIGHT?

LOLOLOLOL!

I don't think it got anywhere close to sweetness and light.

Fiercely hostile judgmentalism spewed liberally with abandon comes closer to characterizing that perspective accurately, imho.

Perhaps you could try again . . . unless the hostile venom was REALLY what you WANTED to communicate.

a reply to: BO XIAN

It was neither, "sweetness and light" or "fiercely hostile judgmentalism".

You have quite a black and white perspective at times.

This must be a form of projection.

Relax.

a reply to: LDragonFire

NOPE. NOT AT ALL. NOT IN A TRILLION QUADTRILLION YEARS.

Jesus was not about supporting MAN'S TRADITIONS . . . particularly the HOSTILE-TO-GOD !!!TRADITIONS!!! of the Pharisees.

He was about harkening back to the foundational values and priority actions of HIS HEAVENLY FATHER.

I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about the BEGINNING,

THE FOUNDATION,

CONSERVING AND FURTHERING THAT FOUNDATIONAL SOLID BEGINNING

IN TERMS OF

VALUES,

ACTIONS,

RELATIONSHIPS.

Cyrus was a very Johnny come lately and it's very arguable as to how much of the BEGINNING FOUNDATIONAL VALUES OF GOD Cyrus even understood, much less internalized and put into practice authentically and earnestly.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The main tenet of conservatives is maintaining the status quo.

Christ was against the status quo, this is why he was killed.

Christ came and changed everything

Every study that I see depicting conservative seem to have conservatives act so defensively about it, like their thinking has to stay unidentified by science.

Although I rarely adhere to conservative values I understand why they think that way and why it's all very logic to them...

But why must every time I see a conservative here on ATS trying to understand liberal thinking it seems like they just have to be completely off...Good reference to this on the first page of this thread.

a reply to: LDragonFire

Christ came and changed everything

BACK TO

THE FOUNDATIONAL VALUES AND BEHAVIORS

OF HIS FATHER

IN THE . . . DRUM ROLLL . . .

BEGINNING!

Sigh.

This is not really rocket science.

A little child can get it.

a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

All I can say is...duh
I took the MBTI (meyers briggs temperament indicator) and came out as an ISTJ...I am introverted, I deal with facts with what is around me and is observed and learned through my senses, and judge things based on facts. This is why I hate abstract art, I just cannot make those scribbles an blobs look like anything in my head.
I had one of my friends, who is a strong liberal take the test and I predicted he would come out almost my exact opposite, which he did. He views the world abstractly, uses feelings and emotions, and could care less about facts....to me this describes most progressive liberals perfectly, they tend to get emotional and come up with laws (obamacare, raising minimum wage, amnesty) without thinking through how these laws may affect others, how they're going to be paid for, etc. Nothing wrong with either side, we're just innately different

So in a nutshell, fear leads to anger which leads to hate which leads to the dark side of the Force which leads to conservative voting.

Pleased, Yoda would be.

I used to be a liberal when I was young but life lessons honed my survival instincts and tapered my naivety. Environmental factors probably play the biggest role because I used to be very liberal.

originally posted by: john452
I used to be a liberal when I was young but life lessons honed my survival instincts and tapered my naivety. Environmental factors probably play the biggest role because I used to be very liberal.

Yeah it's hard to stay liberal when you've been screwed and run down by egoistical conservatives so much that you become one to stop the pain.

True story.

a reply to: ATSmediaPRO

I more or less disagree. I think the bulk of the matter is relational, with perhaps an ancillary contribution from genetics.

I just want to point out something very basic but not quite well recognized or understood by others. We do not have a "self" but a multiplicity of self-states. These self states are profiles of inter-relational experiences. Everyone deep down senses this. How people affect not only how we think, but how we feel and even experience ourselves. Sometimes I act and I see "this person" in it.

The idea of a unity self is secondary to the primary fact that we have compartments and modules which specific profiles that become "triggered" into mind and experienced as "me". It's funny. We think it is me. We don't notice the shift when it happens: and how it was brought out via interpersonal signals. Signal precedes the experience of self. And the experience of self is dyadically linked with the signal perceived.

So at our core there is interpersonal relationships.

At one point in my life, I was a HARDCORE conservative. I mean orthodox on many matters. But I was also open. Why? I had other experiences - life struggles - egging me on to find some truth. Some personal meaning. I didn't feel satisfied therefore my self-states did not remain stable. They were in flux. Moving slowly but surely as a product of process and building 'profiles' from old information with new feelings and changes in cognitions.

Eventually, I am liberal on many matters. Things I never saw myself supporting I support today. So what happened?

First thing, genetics has to be scratched as a possibility. Genes do not control these experiences: external events do. External events interact with my body - its own internal structure - and impinge upon it information which my structure than has to respond to. If "self awareness" is a strong organizing force of the integrated self, then I can grow.

But how can someone grow if they lack awareness of their own inner multiplicity? Defensive dissociation is the main reason conservatives believe some of the crazy things they believe. Why such an anti-humanistic view of life? Why are they so boiled in an experience of the world that is short on affect - short on meaning and spiritual connection with others? Part of the reason is the chauvinism built into fundamentalist religious views. They present a formidable blockade to self awareness: because it would force you to view the world in a way that your self state - the one that subscribes and whole heartedly believes and trusts the truth of his religious views - and doing that without a viable replacement would be too traumatizing.
l
That's why growth is slow. The self has to acclimate to knowledge and thus to wisdom. Learning means TAKING in. What I learn from my own initiative becomes a "part of me". And so forms within as a particular self state. It becomes "mine' and therefore, overtime, because I learned it, I will be able to override the dissociation that inhibits truly mindful reflection.

That said, I am pretty positive that most people in the world are moving from east to west, from conservative to 'liberal views'. And if 'liberal' simply means to seek the welfare of all humanity, our planet, and help create a better world with more happiness, justice and awareness - which means acknowledging all the evil which still exists, and acknowledging that the "big events" are causally related to the small things we do, in how we relate to one another - if being having this awareness pushes me to liberal positions, than I guess thats what I am.

It isn't very much a dogmatic position. On some matter matter my view might "align" with the right. But in general I completely disagree that the liberal-conservative dichotomy is something inherent to human nature.

So long as we can become aware of our own awareness, and figure out, or learn, how the self and mind organizes itself, you really can do quite a bit to change.

But alas complex systems are complex! Change will happen slowly and will emerge over-time as a new awareness, basic and essential to the human narrative. When the world' "feels" that way of seeing things, positive feedback will work its magic. And we can really say, for the first time, that we have a very good world with mature and responsible minded people.

That would be nice.

I.e conservatives our fearful and experience threat wherever they look, whereas 'liberals' think, and consider the larger picture.

The larger picture perspective inevitably leads to a more sensible approach to any situation.

I am not surprised by these findings, I am, in fact, relieved somewhat to see that some conclusions I came to long ago are showing to be correct!

It wasn't that long ago, in a thread on this site, which went into the usual conservative vs. liberal dialogue, that I wrote it seemed to me that conservatives are more concerned about defending threat to their self and liberals get more concerned about defending others from threat.

Each can go too far in that focus, but each concern has some measure of validity.

I came to that conclusion watching and listening to people, and in particular my own extended family members.
The most liberal ones are all involved in the care or education of children, handicapped, or elderly (teachers, nurses, physical therapists, psychotherapists, etc.) while the most conservative ones are all in the private sector, making money being the main focus, keeping themselves and their own family safe and comfortable their first concern.

The liberals in this family are very well to do, having a good financial situation - in contrast with the most repeated assumption that those who vote for various state programs and aid being the ones that want it for themselves. -That always seems to me to be a false idea coming from those who assume everyone else is primarily concerned about their own needs first.

On the other side, the false assumption by the more liberal always seemed to be that conservatives are desirous of enforcing their own ways upon others- when they only seemed to desire to protect their own ways from invasion or repression.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
I.e conservatives our fearful and experience threat wherever they look, whereas 'liberals' think, and consider the larger picture.

The larger picture perspective inevitably leads to a more sensible approach to any situation.

I think that your comment here seems very biased!

It is not that the liberals think and are more sensible, in a general way, for they too, can go too far and see repression, and victimization of others wherever they look, which can be exaggerated just as much as the view of a conservative.

originally posted by: theMediator

originally posted by: john452
I used to be a liberal when I was young but life lessons honed my survival instincts and tapered my naivety. Environmental factors probably play the biggest role because I used to be very liberal.

Yeah it's hard to stay liberal when you've been screwed and run down by egoistical conservatives so much that you become one to stop the pain.

True story.

I watch this happen with people who once had a tendancy to be too selfless- letting others walk on them too often.

My own father was very liberal when young, but also has a tendancy to to always say "yes", to bend over for others when he doesn't want to deep down, to be a people pleaser. Out of necessity , he turned into a raging conservative eventually (especially as he became conscious of his elder years approaching, meaning he would be even more fragile and vulnerable).

This is why I mentioned that the concern for protecting self has as much validity as the concern for others, if not taken to extremes. Extremes just lead to extremes.....

a reply to: Bluesma

This is how I see it. Teleologically speaking, Liberals have a more positive and optimistic idea of human nature and the world. Conservatives, conversely, are conservative about what they think about human nature. Their minds are focused on "limits", and with awareness of limits come new and different ways of thinking about morality.

War in general is by nature a dyadic act. Some liberals don't get this. Take Israel and Hamas right now. The canadian media, as usual, is showing a contemptible bias that legitimates Hamas by spending an inordinate focus on the causalities so far suffered by the Palestinians.

Now how should this be understood? Whats needed here is a 'wide-angled' awareness of the situation. Context. Everything and everything is about context. That's how were able to think reasonably.

The Canadian media looks at the basic facts: kids killed. Horrible. Disgusting. And from this very visceral and "open" position they implicitly lambaste Israel for being over-aggressive, nay, at fault, an oppressor.

But where will this go? IF you support Hamas you have to follow the implication. Hamas is an absolutely insane, villainous political body. No other way to understand it. Their view of reality is sad in it's ignorance, unfortunate in its aetiology. But we have to face the reality that our values and morals are antithetical to theirs. So why support them? What possible good can there be in allowing this putrid worldview to grow? To what good?

Israel is constantly putting on the kiddie gloves for them. And understandably. It should be important and necessary to avoid civilian casualties. But there's also the stubborn reality that Hamas is IMPLACABLE. Intrinsically, by nature, opposed - by the fervency of their religious views - to a Jewish state. To anything called Israel. To even a large number of Jews living in Israel.

Can you imagine? Were creating a world that is moving towards tolerance and acceptance of difference. To make a better world, we have to train our biology, allow the magic of neuroplasticity to change our experience of things. But how can we do that with competing metaphysical and metapsychological perspectives in Islamism and Hamas? You can't. You have no choice but to understand that you can't "persuade them". Dyadic, remember? The relationship you have with Hamas is a CO-CREATION between THEM and us. And we have to WORK with them, because their dissociation is unimaginably large. As if they will never budge from their position. Anything they say, based on prior actions alone, is strategic and subordinate to their goals: to eliminate Israel.

---------------

I think in general, people should consider the context - the world at large - and ask themselves what their values are. What do they want? Do they care about others? Do they care enough to wonder whether they could care more? Hard.

Genes simply do not deal with this. No one should believe that anymore. Not with the human genome project and the practical similarity we have with a mouse. Changes EMERGE from a process of effects EFFECTING causes. And the effects themselves - the proteins, in a growing body, or the people were exposed to, for the growing mind - influence the course of subsequent development.

a reply to: Bluesma

Let me correct myself.

A self-aware perspective lends to liberal positions. Whereas a defensive dissociated perspective lends to conservative position.

Liberals and conservatives psychologically can both struggle with the same defensive dissociated thinking. And that crap always devolves into an ugly partisanism and dogmatic allegiance to partisan viewpoints.

Like I said, I look at issues and base EACH issue and connect it in some way to my larger beliefs about life. I want continuity in my thinking. I don't want to have values and have a political philosophy that in no way shape or form conduces to the long term development or growth of those values.

Conservatives are conservative. Like the parasympathetic nervous system, they are limiting by nature.