Permanently Banned
Well, I think that using neurology to analyse political beliefs is a step forward in political psychology, but it can also be abused horrifically. Imagine a set of political views being branded as a symptom of mental illness or otherwise being marginalised on the basis of such research.
edited 7th Sep '11 9:02:45 AM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]
Moar and Moar and Moar
I mean what we're basically talking about here is philosophical first causes, if you think about it. That's what basically stuff like this is going to tell us. The whole idea of change vs. stability is one way to look at it. I happen to think that those first causes are quite wrong to be honest. Political philosophies simply don't really flow from those first causes. (Liberals are looking for stability in some things and change in others, and same with Conservatives).
I personally think a better way to look at the first causes is cooperation vs. competition. While not perfect, I think that modern political philosophies are much neater when the first causes are viewed along this spectrum. "Liberals" value cooperation and "Conservatives" value competition. I use quotes for the two tags, because to be honest I think neither term is accurate for the political worldview that they are labeled with. (I use Progressive and Movement Conservative not so much in terms of political philosophy but in terms of group identification)
The cooperation worldview sees that people are motivated by a desire to have a valued place in their community. The competitive worldview sees that people are motivated by a desire to succeed or to not fail, and in order to foster this you need to make sure that the successful people are rewarded and the not-successful people really are punished for failing.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
Decemberist
I think that there are no hard categories, but a person's brain structure and personality can definitely influence their political beliefs.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
I see the Awesomeness.
The phrase "no shit Sherlock" comes to mind.
Fight smart, not fair.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yet suprise suprise, people still think that they can be absolutley right about something and everyone else is still self-deluded. It's a message that deserves repeating.
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
^ This doesn't rule out either side being right about any given issue. It just makes it harder for whichever side is right to make its case.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
I see the Awesomeness.
You can be absolutely right if you add enough constraints.
Fight smart, not fair.
The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives
Interesting read. TLDR version: multiple studies with different methodologies suggest (not find, suggest) a correlation of liberalism with anterior cingulate cortex development and of conservatism with right amygdala development. And no, they haven't solved the nature vs. nurture question of whether the brain pushes you more to a political affiliation, or if choosing a certain political affiliation shapes your brain.
Highlights:
Please keep in mind from the beginning that this is not an endorsement of any one political party. This is science—we’ll just be discussing the data. Ready?
There was a recent article in the Guardian titled, “What does it mean to be a liberal?” in which liberalism is described as adaptability to a changing environment. If you look at liberalism as adaptability, and conservativism as stability, the party reactions to various events such as gay marriage (liberals want acceptance and change to new ways of thinking, conservatives want stability of previously held values), war (liberals are willing to adapt to shifting world views, while conservatives see war as a means of “preserving the stability of the homeland”), or even the current financial crisis—all make perfect sense.
Now, think back to the neuro data.
Remember, the Kanai study found a correlation between increased volume of the right amygdala and the tendency to identify with the conservative party. A recent unrelated study [PDF] of emotion regulation strategies and brain responses showed that there is specific lateralization of brain activation depending on the type of regulation strategy employed. Translation: Using reappraisal strategies—sometimes thought of as “intellectualizing” or cognitive reevaluation—activated the left side of the amygdala, while emotional suppression of visible behaviors and feelings activated the right side.
NOW, BEFORE YOU ACCUSE THIS PIECE OF STEREOTYPING, READ ITS DISCLAIMERS. Use the find command (Command-F for macs, ctrl-F for windows) to search for "This is wicked important!", the section where the author acknowledges:
So, those objections are already granted.
Tell me tropers, what do you think? Do you think the use of neurology to analyze political behaviour is helpful? Do you think these findings are accurate? Do you think there's a danger in mixing neurological analysis and political orientations?
edited 7th Sep '11 8:12:46 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.