By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The brain structure and political leaning of a person is counter intuitive

MrT-Tar on 10 February 2011

I'm somewhere between a social democrats and a neo-revisionist socialist, I wonder what my brain structure is like




Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 10 February 2011
sapphi_snake said:

Got a link? Is it legal to scan the article?


I'll just transcribe it, that's probably easier, it's only short.

"Your political leanings are visible in your brain and can be read by a scanner, new research shows. It appears that liberal and conservativeviews reside in two distinct areas of the brain. Proffesor Geriant Rees, of University college London, and Dr Ryota Kanai placed 90 yound adults in an magnetic resonance imaging scanner to measure blood flow in different parts of their brains. The subjects had previously rated their political leanings on a scalebetween 'very conservative' and 'very liberal'.

The volunteers with more liberal views tended to have more brain matter in ther anterior cinglate cortex - a region strongly linked with decision making and judgment of conflicting information. The conservative-leaning subjects tended to have a larger amygdala, the area connected with emotional processing.

Professor Rees went on to scan the brains of two poliicians as part of teh research commisioned for BBC radio four's today programme. The results for conservative MP Alan duncan and Labour MP Stephen Pound corresponded precisely with the study group"



highwaystar101 on 10 February 2011
chocoloco said:
highwaystar101 said:
chocoloco said:

This research is a myth until it is replicated many times. Also 90 patients is hardly enough to show anything . Also did the article even mention what method was used to detect brain volume or mass or whatever else was measued? Plus, it always brings up the question was that portion of the brain bigger because people were born that way or did the neurons create more synapsis creating greater brain density due to use of that particular region.

Neuroscience is such a new science I would not trust any article shown in that magazine. Call me a skeptic, but that is the job of a scientist.


I know the research still has to be replicated, and I'm sceptical too (that was the point of this thread really).

I'm not a neuroscientist though, so I would probably struggle to understand much more if I read the research itself. Also, neuroscience little more than the curiosity of a layman to me, I'm interested, but I've never read deep into the subject.

And the way they detected brain mass was by measuring blood flows to certain areas using an MRI scanner.

Well I'm no neuroscientist either, I just get annoyed when none scientific journals write about research because it is often overblown and manipulated just to make a good story for the mass audience. Still I cannot deny it can be interesting.

Yeah, I often cringe when I see something that I've studied or researched at University. Mostly because our research department does research into virtual reality, and whenever you read about VR in magazines they always massively overblow what the technology can achieve, promising technology that is many years away as though it's going to be here tomorrow. So I know where you're coming from.

It's even worse for my girlfriends father, he does research into global warming and ultimately its effects on crop yields. Just think how much the media overblows what he does research into. 

But still, I do find reading about other fields interesting, and science magazines are an accesible way to do that.



Armads on 10 February 2011

Not surprising, also I have a theory that the type of person likely to identify as liberal or conservative changes vastly with different time periods/generations because of the different topics at the focus of public attention.



highwaystar101 on 10 February 2011
Kasz216 said:

One thing to consider is that most conservatives don't want people to die in the streets.

For example, research tends to show conservatives donate more money and time to charity then liberals.

On average, how much you think the government should take care of other people is inversly related to how much you personally do for those people.

Considering nobody wants people to die in the street, it's actually pretty logical why people against social welfare would actually be the more emotional of the two.  They're more likely to help themselves and see how effective it can be vs government if everyone is willing to pitch in.

 

Also, keep in mind, Conservatives are the ones against stuff like gay marriage.  That's an emotional arguement against for sure.

I suppose that is true, conservatives tend to give more to charity whilst supporting a position that would cut government spending. That certainly has an element of emotional response to it.

As for conseratives and homosexuality, I think that in the UK that is a slightly different situation. Most conservatives I know here either support gay marriage or don't really have an opinion on it. I think it's generally associated with conservatives because the Republican party has a large number of Christian members and supporters, and the anti gay marriage position comes from the christian definition of marriage which is percieved to be between a man and a woman only.

I guess there's a lot of factors at play to be honest when you think it like that. Many of the emotive responses from US conservatives can come from a certain key area of their life, religion. Outside of that, they could still be quite cold and clinical decision makers.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 10 February 2011
Armads said:

Not surprising, also I have a theory that the type of person likely to identify as liberal or conservative changes vastly with different time periods/generations because of the different topics at the focus of public attention.

Well, I assume this study was reffering to the basic definition of conservative (a person who wants to follow tradition and conserve) and liberal (a person who wants change and wants to innovate), and did not take into consideration attitudes towards specific issues. I think "conservative" and "liberal" are in a way pesonality traits.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Kasz216 on 10 February 2011
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

One thing to consider is that most conservatives don't want people to die in the streets.

For example, research tends to show conservatives donate more money and time to charity then liberals.

On average, how much you think the government should take care of other people is inversly related to how much you personally do for those people.

Considering nobody wants people to die in the street, it's actually pretty logical why people against social welfare would actually be the more emotional of the two.  They're more likely to help themselves and see how effective it can be vs government if everyone is willing to pitch in.

 

Also, keep in mind, Conservatives are the ones against stuff like gay marriage.  That's an emotional arguement against for sure.

I suppose that is true, conservatives tend to give more to charity whilst supporting a position that would cut government spending. That certainly has an element of emotional response to it.

As for conseratives and homosexuality, I think that in the UK that is a slightly different situation. Most conservatives I know here either support gay marriage or don't really have an opinion on it. I think it's generally associated with conservatives because the Republican party has a large number of Christian members and supporters, and the anti gay marriage position comes from the christian definition of marriage which is percieved to be between a man and a woman only.

I guess there's a lot of factors at play to be honest when you think it like that. Many of the emotive responses from US conservatives can come from a certain key area of their life, religion. Outside of that, they could still be quite cold and clinical decision makers.

So who is against Same Sex Marriage in the UK then, since it's not legal?



highwaystar101 on 11 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

One thing to consider is that most conservatives don't want people to die in the streets.

For example, research tends to show conservatives donate more money and time to charity then liberals.

On average, how much you think the government should take care of other people is inversly related to how much you personally do for those people.

Considering nobody wants people to die in the street, it's actually pretty logical why people against social welfare would actually be the more emotional of the two.  They're more likely to help themselves and see how effective it can be vs government if everyone is willing to pitch in.

 

Also, keep in mind, Conservatives are the ones against stuff like gay marriage.  That's an emotional arguement against for sure.

I suppose that is true, conservatives tend to give more to charity whilst supporting a position that would cut government spending. That certainly has an element of emotional response to it.

As for conseratives and homosexuality, I think that in the UK that is a slightly different situation. Most conservatives I know here either support gay marriage or don't really have an opinion on it. I think it's generally associated with conservatives because the Republican party has a large number of Christian members and supporters, and the anti gay marriage position comes from the christian definition of marriage which is percieved to be between a man and a woman only.

I guess there's a lot of factors at play to be honest when you think it like that. Many of the emotive responses from US conservatives can come from a certain key area of their life, religion. Outside of that, they could still be quite cold and clinical decision makers.

So who is against Same Sex Marriage in the UK then, since it's not legal?

It was made legal in 2004, sort of. Partners of the same sex can have a civil partnership, which gives that couple the exact same rights and responsibilities as those who have had a civil marriage.

It's not the same name, but legally there is little or no distinction between the two.



Kasz216 on 11 February 2011
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:

One thing to consider is that most conservatives don't want people to die in the streets.

For example, research tends to show conservatives donate more money and time to charity then liberals.

On average, how much you think the government should take care of other people is inversly related to how much you personally do for those people.

Considering nobody wants people to die in the street, it's actually pretty logical why people against social welfare would actually be the more emotional of the two.  They're more likely to help themselves and see how effective it can be vs government if everyone is willing to pitch in.

 

Also, keep in mind, Conservatives are the ones against stuff like gay marriage.  That's an emotional arguement against for sure.

I suppose that is true, conservatives tend to give more to charity whilst supporting a position that would cut government spending. That certainly has an element of emotional response to it.

As for conseratives and homosexuality, I think that in the UK that is a slightly different situation. Most conservatives I know here either support gay marriage or don't really have an opinion on it. I think it's generally associated with conservatives because the Republican party has a large number of Christian members and supporters, and the anti gay marriage position comes from the christian definition of marriage which is percieved to be between a man and a woman only.

I guess there's a lot of factors at play to be honest when you think it like that. Many of the emotive responses from US conservatives can come from a certain key area of their life, religion. Outside of that, they could still be quite cold and clinical decision makers.

So who is against Same Sex Marriage in the UK then, since it's not legal?

It was made legal in 2004, sort of. Partners of the same sex can have a civil partnership, which gives that couple the exact same rights and responsibilities as those who have had a civil marriage.

It's not the same name, but legally there is little or no distinction between the two.

Yeah, but that's still not really marriage.



highwaystar101 on 11 February 2011
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:

It was made legal in 2004, sort of. Partners of the same sex can have a civil partnership, which gives that couple the exact same rights and responsibilities as those who have had a civil marriage.

It's not the same name, but legally there is little or no distinction between the two.

Yeah, but that's still not really marriage.

I don't know, it's indistinguishable from marriage in a legal sense.