Sounds about right. Those who easily handle and even embrace change vs those who want things to never change. And with the rate of change in everything around us increasing daily, sounds like for the US to continue, conservatives must decline in power and numbers while those who can easily adapt to change (liberals) must take over and increase. If not, we are in for a downward slide into oblivion since the changes that are happening in the world won’t stop for the conservatives.
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.
In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a “flip-flopper” for changing his mind about the conflict.
Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.
In other words, being a ‘flip-flopper’ is a good thing. Means flexibility in dealing with complex issues as situations change requiring new thinking and action. Rather than ‘stay the course.’ Sounds like an interesting way to examine Presidential candidates.
BUT, both want our money to waste and squander..
Im not paying $6000 for a toilet seat, just cause its heated.
MOST of these folks couldnt tell you the price of a box of wheaties…NOR do they care.
Another perspective here — look at the electroencephalogram link!
http://tinyurl.com/29w9dd
The Conservative mind-set is depressing sometimes…shout over anyone who disagrees with you and never listen to logic/facts. I know a few who said they would never shake Bill Clinton’s hand because he is “gross, and a horrible president”, yet they would gladly shake Bush’s hand, even now. So I ask them how lying about a personal marital issue is worse than starting a war based on lies…and the conversation quickly goes nowhere.
The only way I can describe them is that they bury their head in the sand…deeply.
I am, according to an old internet quiz that I can no longer find, both significantly more liberal and significantly more progressive than either Ghandi or Mandela.
And, I take issue with that definition of conservative. First, the opposite of liberal is, as stated, stingy. However, conservative is not the antonym of liberal. Imagine a time with liberals in control. I know it’s difficult, but try. Liberals in that case, would still be liberal, and they wouldn’t want change, and so too be conservative.
Just a thought.
Besides, the real problem I have is not with conservatives, it’s with the neocons that are anything but conservative. They are reactionary, in terms of wanting to go back to the financial regulations (or complete lack thereof) of the 1890s and the education of around the 11th century or so.
Liberal and conservative are outdated labels today. Today is all about Liberty Lovers Vs Authoritarians.
To describe Conservatives as “those who want things to never change” is basically correct…but remember, they want things to stay exactly the way they became, the last time the Liberals changed them for the better…
Check out this video! Great stuff
http://www.mail.funnieststuff.net/xzbbar_qmrpra.html
The problem with ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ all boils down do the fact they don’t actually mean anything anymore, they are just like sports teams: you pick one, and stick to it just because that is what all your friends do.
We’re in a world of binary choices. You’re either for us or against us. Pick a side, and start shooting.
After seeing all of the narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and fanaticism of some of the left-leaning regulars here, I have to laugh.
“And with the rate of change in everything around us increasing daily, sounds like for the US to continue, conservatives must decline in power and numbers while those who can easily adapt to change (liberals) must take over and increase. If not, we are in for a downward slide into oblivion since the changes that are happening in the world won’t stop for the conservatives.”
WHAT PURELY DELUSIONAL GARBAGE & MIND ROT. Liberalism embraces their style of change as ALWAYS being better…dead wrong. But, will that nimble and “enlightened” mindset ever adjust to that simple bit of truth? No, as in, never..
Like “Teachers Change Lives” Huh? How? For the worse or, better?
“Progress!” Depend on who measures it.
Different is Better! Sure it is, Bill Gates’ Micro-can’t-get-it-up.
Peace, Love and Understanding is only an easy surrender away….go ask the French.
I don’t see “liberals” wanting change. They’ve been exactly the same for 100 years – “we need to raise taxes”. It’s their first response to everything. They’re also gloomy people. All they see is how bad everything is.
#5 actually has it pretty close. There are those who want to see a nation of self-reliant, free individuals and those who want a nation of controlled sheep and elitist overlords. Neither current party quite fits the bill for either group so we all prioritize and hold our noses when voting for the lesser of evils.
(If wanting change is the mark of a liberal, I’m one of the most liberal people here, but somehow I doubt the other’s who call themselves liberal would agree with that… 😉 )
The most radical revolutionary becomes a conservative the day after the revolution.
Well, lets see here. Who more likely accepts this scientific study for what it reports, and who rejects it==all without reading it?
I’ll bet that info is implied if not directly addressed in the report?
And it is too kind to think conservatives want things to stay the same as the last liberals created==they want to go BACK to our founding fathers with no taxes and unbridled predatory capitalism. etc.
In the end though, makes little sense to apply the “labels” as defined in a psychological tesing environment with those same labels as used in political discourse – – -irrelevant?? When it comes to congress, those labels of whatever sort only account for 2% of the difference with 98% going to there all self centered coniving crooks.
It is important to note that conservative brain wiring is also like Microsoft code – spaghetti-like. Lots of reboots, patches and blue screens.
Note the Bush administration having to reboot several times already on the reasons for war, the management of Iraq, the handling of North Korea. It all makes sense now.
#13 – iGW,
Actually, you’re missing some important points about liberalism. And, no, I would not call you liberal, but libertarian.
Liberal and Libertarian overlap on a lot more than just the first 5 letters. We overlap on social freedom and liberty. Libertarian differs in wanting small government and laissez faire economy. Liberals want to help those less fortunate. Liberals do not believe in the “freedom to starve” mentality that is common among many libertarians.
It is true that neither group is represented in government at present. Democraps like to raise taxes and give them to deregulated corporations. Repugnicans like to raise debt and give the money to even more heavily deregulated corporations.
Neither group gives even one rat buttock, let alone an entire rat’s ass about social issues.
Democraps pay some lip service to wanting some civil liberties and wanting some programs for the poor. It’s mostly ignored though when it comes to actually implementing anything. Repugnicans pay some lip service toward increased enforced religiosity in the form of anti-choice legislation, school prayer, school vouchers to pay for religious education, and blocking stem cell research. Unfortunately, they actually implement a bit of this. Mostly though, they do it just to keep everyone focused away from economic issues. The Democraps let them get away with it because they don’t want attention to financial issues either since they are also giving huge corporate welfare checks and doing nothing to give us health care, for example.
Probably the vast majority of we-the-idiots are either liberal or libertarian at heart. Many of us just don’t realize that no one in government fits either bill. Those of us who do must still vote for whomever we feel is the lesser evil.
Remember, we must vote for a lizard. Otherwise, the wrong lizard might get in.
#10 – Gary Marks
I don’t know to tell you this delicately but we’re all supposed to be on the same side. No shooting at all.
Maybe the perception is the problem, not the reality.
#18 – Cinaedh,
Here here!! We’ve got differences of opinion, we’re supposed to get them all represented in government and let our represented officials argue and come to a decent compromise.
Unfortunately, our officials are all representing corporate america.
Here’s a good book I’m about a quarter of the way through at the moment. It should appeal to individuals on both sides of this debate and not to the powers that be.
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/9781560256359
#13 – “we need to raise taxes”. It’s their first response to everything.
Are you my dad? Seriously, is that are the conservatives can say about liberals? Thats fine since all conservative males in office are closet queers until they get outed.
21–Son, its just not right you should out your old man like that!
There are only two kinds of people in the world; us and them.
Uncle Dave swings and misses again. This is about a practical as saying black people have smaller brains.
All these arguments only address the social, cultural, political aspects of a more fundamental and significant difference between people than simply an “R” or a “D” on a voters’ registration card.
There’s been a suggestion (to which I subscribe) that the difference actually lies in a single bit flag in the unconscious mind which long predates Homo sap. That bit determines whether or not you are apprehensive about risk. All the intellectualizations and rationalizations we’ve managed to layer onto it count are just that, because underneath it all is the difference between “I like things just the way they are, even if they could be better. The risk isn’t worth it” and “Let’s dare to take a chance and try something different. Things can always be improved.”
Other factors, of course, both genetic and cultural, are brought to bear on each individual’s choice of direction. Neurochemistry, social pressures, education…
Some would say it’s a three-state flag, progress / stay / regress. Like so many issues involving low-level mental constructs, it’ll take a shitload of psych research we don’t even know how to conduct yet to even begin resolve the issue satisfactorily.
…or at least so sayeth one Amateur Behavioral Anthropologist. YMMV. Or on the other hand, you could be wrong. Who knows?
Whaddaya think, BR, M Scott, bobbo?
#24 – Lauren,
I doubt it’s as simple as a binary or ternary bit. However, I have heard a few things about risk taking being a genetic tendency before. I’ve also heard about differences of being conservative (not politically, but literally) versus being progressive (again, not politically) being somewhat correlated to being a first or second child. I don’t recall what happens to Nth children where N > 2.
However, it made an interesting point about first children wanting things to stay the same, i.e. not dividing the parents’ love with the newbie versus second children wanting change, i.e. wanting their fair share of their parents’ love, or some such.
I’m sure I’m wording this badly. I read it a long time ago and it didn’t stick that well in my mind.
That’s an example of trademark pseudo-Freudian analysis of a primitive mechanism that has far more to do with whether your genes tell you “don’t stray far from the mouth of the cave” or “I wonder what interesting things I’ll see if I go over that hill.”
Way down deep, there’s a connectiion to intellectual curiosity versus the lack thereof, the latter of which provides a rationalization for acting (or rather, NOT acting) out of vague, generalized timidity.
Reminds me of a “study” that came out in 2003 (a year before the election of 2004) that said that conservatism was a mental illness. I am starting to believe these studies are politically motivated to get people to vote for liberals so they would not be lumped with the results of the studies.
You mean liberals are made that way, and there’s no hope for change? They are doomed to a life of surrender through diplomacy? I guess we should plan now for an Islamic Europe, with 2 nuclear countries. Don’t know if Russia can survive either.
#19 – Misanthropic Scott
Thanks for the tip on the book. Following is the Wikipedia entry for a 2003 documentary called ‘The Corporation’ you might also find interesting: http://tinyurl.com/n2aso
So far, I haven’t found it on the ‘Net but if you haven’t seen it yet, one of these days it might come to a PBS station near you and it’s worth watching.
Yea Liberals are so tolerant and open-minded that they can’t help themselves from either running slanderous ads in the NYT about General Petraeus, or disrupting and interrupting Congressional hearings. The moonbats are currently getting kicked out one by one, and being cursed at by the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Laughable. Thank god for the ultra-left, for without them being ejected the House Committees would not be the same.
I have to agree with Lauren #24 on this one. It seems some people are naturally risk takers and some are not. Like most traits risk taking is probably somewhat hereditary, so perhaps the study has some merit.
#9 Ben is onto something as well. The names of political parties seldom reflect their politics. They are just names designed to convey the desired image.
I believe the very concept of political parties undermines a democracy. A Senator or MPP should vote based on principle not affiliation. When your representative is compelled by loyalty to the party her constituents lack fair representation.