You know what? When I was in school, I should've had more respect for science. All those years ago, I would thumb my nose at science and math geeks with their fancy schmancy numbers and dorkwad experiments. Little did I know at the time that it would be science that would save the day and answer the question that has confounded me from the very first day I started this blog. In fact, as if by some heavenly intervention, my question from last week regarding the giant chasm between conservatives and liberals has, at last been answered.Why DO conservatives think the way the do? Why do liberals think the way they think? Well, now I know. Sadly, I also know that my quest to build bridges may be in vain. I have to say, folks, that it's over. It's all over......
Conservatives think the way they do because their brains are different. It's just that simple.
According to a new study from scientists at New York University and UCLA, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, 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.
The jounral reports that participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter. Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key).
Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M. Researchers got the same results when they repeated the experiment in reverse, asking another set of participants to tap when a W appeared.Now, does all this mean that conservatives have smaller brains? Not enough synaptic connections? Are liberals actually smarter than conservatives?
No. What it shows that is that conservatives brains are wired to be more resistant to new ideas or change. Liberals, on the other hand, are more open to new ideas and the parts of their brain that deal with conflict are more active. This is not necessarily a good thing for liberals as they could be more open to (dunh dum dah!!) conservative ideas. Speaking for myself, I wish that I had the same synaptic connections that conservatives do so I could filter out bullshit as well. :)
This explains sooooo much, doesn't it? I mean, look at President Bush. I have always wanted to know why he is so stubborn and now I do. His brain is made that way. He can't process information that doesn't conform with his existing brain patterns. His mind is set...quite literally.
Think of all the debates we have had here over the years that have ended in frustration. Well, there is no need to be frustrated anymore. We have the proof! We have the evidence! I don't know about all of you but I take a great amount of comfort now in knowing that there is absolutely nothing I can do. It's impossible to physically change someone's brain.
Well, unless your last name is....Frankenstein. (Cue chilling organ music), (maniacal laughter)...Hah Hah Hah Ah Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!
34 comments:
Well, you've done it again. I've pissed myself with laughter.
The study seems to verify another assumption many on the left have made about conservatives: They are easily fooled.
What a bunch of crap.
The "science" is ridiculous. I don't doubt that the numbers came out as indicated. But there are so many flaws with the study that it's really hard to be too enthusiastic about the outcome. The study didn't get much more than a tongue-in-cheek mention from the different candidates and news sources, which is as it should be. Unfortunately, it's just another thing that people who don't want to think are going to cling to. Even now if I hear somebody mention it on tv I might start throwing something because it's so ridiculous.
You talked about cops who apparently have nothing better to do than stake out airport bathrooms. How about scientists who have nothing better to do than generate bogus numbers in lieu of actually doing studies that could help people? Keep up the good work, braniacs.
PL, I wonder if you would feel the same way if the results were reversed.
This actually does explain a lot to me. I guess I've always felt too that when I talk to a conservative andI get the "fingers-in-ears-I'm not listening-to-you-you're-talking-but-I'm-not-listening-to-you" treatment (thanks markadelphia) that they were just being stubborn. Their brains just can't handle new information.
The results are skewed. Recognizing a W? Liberals hate George Bush, so that is high on the Radar Screen. Recognizing an M? Walter Mondale? Does anyone even know who he is anymore? Just got back from Austn City Limits festival in Texas. Both liberals and conservatives should make a point to attend at least once in your lives. (If you like music and lots of it).
Haha! How true! Now that science has shown the link between dumb and conservatism/reactionism they can start working on more important things like the link between dumb and blonde. ;)
"They are easily fooled."
"Their brains just can't handle new information."
Right back to building bridges I see. Keep up the good work.
This study reflects the way conservatives think about themselves.
Conservatives pride themselves on making decisions and never changing their minds. Conservative presidential candidates bicker about who has held their conservative opinions the longest. This "resoluteness" is perceived as a virtue by conservatives.
Even when the underlying truths change completely, conservatives often refuse to modify their thinking.
For example, before the war in Iraq Bush told us that Saddam had vast stores of WMDs, was about to get nukes and was involved in 9/11. If those things were true, it made sense to invade Iraq.
But a lot of people didn't buy it: the Germans, the French, and many liberals and moderates in the US.
Now, it turns out these things were not true. George Bush has admitted repeatedly and publicly that they were not true (essentially claiming that Saddam duped the CIA into thinking Iraq was stronger than it was).
To justify the invasion after the fact, Bush flip-flopped, claiming that he was deposing a dictator, saving the poor Iraqis and spreading democracy. As a candidate Bush derided Clinton for this sort of "nation building."
Yet many conservatives today still think Saddam had WMDs and was involved with 9/11. They "resolutely" refuse to believe the truth that Bush himself has admitted.
The facts on the ground indicate a major change of strategy is needed in Iraq to take advantage of anti-Al Qaeda sentiment in Iraq, to prove that Al Qaeda (who are primarily foreign jihadists) is the evil occupier and the US just wants us all to get along. But Bush, the quintessential conservative, refuses to recognize this and contains to plod down the same disastrous course that will leave our military exhausted and our economy bankrupt.
Al Qaeda broke the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Iraq will do the same to us if we let it.
I think markadelphia was the one who said he was trying to build bridges. I know that's never going to happen as long as we have a collection of people in this country that think it's OK to continue to have a policy in the Middle East that is on the same emotional and mental level as a third grade child.
I think President Bush's policy in Iraq proves that this study is exremly valid.
BLK, question for you. What should our major change in policy in Iraq be?
The tripe that some of you people swallow truly is unbelievable. Like I mentioned before, the most unfortunate part of this whole study is that some of you actually are going to hold it up as "scientific proof" of what you believe.
Vheights, in response to your query, were the results reversed I'd still question the legitimacy of the study, as I have done on numerous occasions on this very blog with respect to polls, etc., when the intent or method of the process is as questionable as it is for this study. I'm wrong so many times a day that I've stopped searching for any sort of external validation of my beliefs. You guys (a gross generalization of liberals) have this transparently bogus study dropped in your laps and your only consideration is how best to wallow in the notion that it supports what you believe.
On the plus side, you can take solace in the fact that you are just another voice in the tidal wave of inanity blaring from both sides of the political spectrum.
Oh geez, what a dork you are!
:)
BTW, thanks for putting that Thomas Dolby song in my head.
"The tripe that some of you people swallow truly is unbelievable"
Yeah, and this coming from the person who told us earlier this year that the surge was a good idea and could work.
Not following you. Even the liberal media is saying the surge is working.
I just can't help laughing at how apropos all of the comments are. From 50,000 ft, this dialogue is great supporting evidence for the study, from both sides of the political arena.
It's kinda reassuring that when arguing for change, sometimes there isn't an argument in the world, no matter how logical or truthful, that would sway some peoples opinions or ideas. It's not that they don't get it like we usually think, just that they don't want to get it.
Half of you seem to be missing my point - likely a failing of mine. The other half of you aren't making coherent points - again, possibly a failing of mine. So I'll try a different approach.
Let's say scientists today reproduce the infamous Cambridge study circa 100 years ago that show the cranial capacity of whites to be larger than that for blacks. (Somewhat of a generalization of what occurred, but the gist is the same.) When they publish their results, I come to this blog and proclaim this study to be scientific proof that whites are smarter than blacks.
Since I'm not interested in besmirching your fine characters, I invite you to correct me if I'm wrong on this next assumption. I suspect that were I to create such a posting you would immediately denounce such a claim. You would call into question the legitimacy of the study, the intent of the researchers, the validity of a presumed link between cranial capacity and intelligence, etc., etc. I further suspect that you would continue on to call me a racist, a hate-monger, and so on. But that's outside the scope of the argument. The point being that you would question the validity of the study....and you would be right to do so.
Yet here you are presented with a study that happens to coincide with your beliefs and not one of you questions its validity. In fact, you openly embrace it as further validation of your beliefs.
Is it simple coincidence that you would (presumably) refute the study that contradicts what you believe yet embrace the study that supports what you believe? Perhaps. Or perhaps us evil conservatives do not have a monopoly on not being able to "process information that doesn't conform with his existing brain patterns" as you would have us believe?
By the way, for the record, all of you people who have assumed that I dispute the validity of the conclusions of the study couldn't be more wrong. I think there is undoubtedly merit to the idea that people on the different sides of the political spectrum think and process information differently. If you needed a scientific study to know that then you're an idiot. And if you think this study "proves" it - well, you're an idiot. No offense.
Looking at the study, I think the authors are inferring quite a lot from a few tests. They're trying to give their anti-conservative bias "authority" by doing so, and having their article printed in a "scientific" journal. Hey, the next step is having conservatism pronounced a mental disorder, that way "we" can ban "them" from voting and there will be no further obstacles on our march towards Utopia! Don't you see, people? It's for the kids!
Well, and that's just what I said over on Kevin B's blog....pretty soon a drug will come out that will make you more conservative or more liberal.
Looking at this from another angle, someone recently told me that I might be too open minded. Given this study, a benefit could be seen from having a brain that ignores conflict. Actually, this study could be shown to prove that the looney liberal tag is appropiate, given their minds are all over the place. Stereotype, to be sure, but I hope...I think I have illustrated PL's point.
That being said, I take an extraordinary amount of comfort in knowing that for all my talk there is nothing-physiologically-that I could do. It's an odd calm, I'll tell you.
What's being reported about the surge is that there is less killing in Iraq. What we are not being told is that, in order to make it look like the surge is working, they stopped counting Sunni-Sunni violence, certain types of deaths like shots from certain angles, and some Al Qaeda violence. They greased the numbers and lied. What a shock.
Can we keep the drug that makes one more liberal out of the hands of those on this blog, please? That's the last thing they need!
How serendipitous.
Anonymous, "liberal" media? What's that? If by liberal you mean "corporate" then YOU are starting to make sense, but I doubt that's what you mean.
And although I am getting off topic, concerning the surge, what amazes me about the corporate media is how far off they are on this. For political reasons many bought and biased pundits are saying that the surge is working and our media is echoing their beliefs/opinions. The stemming of violence in Baghdad and the surge is merely a correlation.
The more thoughtful, international first-hand reporting out of Baghdad is indicating that the reduction of sectarian violence is a result a number of factors, but mostly the recent US military/policy which eases up of restrictions on Sunni arming/participation in policing and the results of years localized sectarian cleansing.
The Iraqis are storing up arms and waiting for us to leave. You can bet those 110,000 AK-47s our guys lost on it.
More thoughtful firsthand reporting? Like Michael Yon, maybe? The thought of a US victory over there is utterly abhorrent to you, isn't it? Even when it is now staring you in the face... Sigh.
From the "you can interpret numbers to mean whatever you want" files, here's a line from an editorial this morning printed in the Mpls Star Trib:
Most Muslims are not terrorist sympathizers. A recent Gallup poll found that only 7 percent of the world's Muslims regard "the 9/11 attacks as completely justifiable and have an unfavorable view of the United States.
Only 7%? Let's assess that number. Assuming that's true, and assuming the estimate of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide is close to accurate, by my math that's 105 million people, or a number equivalent to roughly 1/3 of the US population.
Setting aside whatever you might believe about the war in Iraq, etc., you have to admit that's a pretty glaring and interesting discrepancy in perspective. Some people, like the author of the editorial, cite the 7% as being basically an insignificant portion. I would cite the 105 million number as being an obscenely hefty total of people who, according to the question posed in the poll, were pretty stoked about 9/11.
(Yes, yes, I know that 3/4 of you are just dying to come back with "Well, if we didn't stick our nose into things over there people would have a better opinion of us." That's not the point of this particular exercise, so don't bother.)
Actually, I would say that somewhere between 10 and 15 percent of the world's Muslims are radcialized...that's somewhere in the 150 million to 200 million range.
Th questiong then becomes how we deal with them and I think the current strategy is poor, for a vareity of reasons, the most important of which is that we aren't targeting the chief culprits behind 9-11.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/chi-oped0916chapmansep16,0,4053256.column
This is the link to the column PL is refering to and it has some great stuff in it. I am putting it out front on the main page for discussion.
"we aren't targeting the chief culprits behind 9-11"
How very law enforcement. We caught the bombers from the 1993 WTC incident. It did nothing to stop further attacks.
RLD take a look at this.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/20/alqaeda.pakistan.ap/index.html
These would be the culprits
"Th questiong then becomes how we deal with them"
My strategy for dealing with people who want to kill me would be to kill them first.
Nothing that I've seen from representatives of radical Islam leads me to believe that they are interested in dialogue. Even if they were, I have nothing to say to the adherents of a culture that glorifies in the videotaped beheadings of bound, helpless captives.
They're like black widows in my garage - too dangerous to be permitted to live.
Kevin, check out post above this one titled "America not in WWIV." I would be interested in your thoughts.
"The thought of a US victory over there is utterly abhorrent to you, isn't it?" Yeah, peace would be just AWFUL (eyes rolling to the back of my head). Let me explain.
I would really love to see victory (defined as the US achieving a graceful out with the Iraqi's able to sustain a peace amongst themselves) in Iraq. However, I think it's foolish to think it's possible. There is no way our current strategy will do it and unfortunately I don't think it can be achieved diplomatically either.
Militaristic nation building, general military action in the middle east and trying to solve the problem with being a target of terrorism via military action is fundamentally flawed. Here is a simple metaphor: If you have a problem with dandelions and want a perfectly manicured green grass lawn, getting mad, sending your kids out to kick the dandelion heads off and stomp their remains into the ground will never get rid of your problem. They'll only come back next year in greater numbers.
Despite what Fox "News" or GW says, this war isn't about freedom just like it was never about WMDs and mushrooms clouds. Nobody but GW can say why it started. Now all that matters is how we can get out and how we can make best of an awful situation for us and the Iraqis who have to live with our massive screwup.
The surge isn't doing anything. It isn't a start. A good start would be an apology. I'd like to hear somebody admit to how they're sorry for the thousands of American dead and tens of thousands wounded. "Sorry about losing your son. Sorry about losing your legs." I want to hear somebody apologize to the Iraqis. They've had it much, much worse. Hundreds of thousands of wounded and dead Iraqis. Once all that's been done, I want to hear an apology to the American taxpayers for the billions of dollars spent on these atrocities.
Mind you, I don't ever expect to ever hear that. Not from those who voted for GW (I can forgive those who voted for him the first time around, who knew he'd be such a monster?), not from those who did and still support him and this "war", and certainly not GW himself. People capable of introspection, admitting their mistakes, learning from them and taking a new course of action wouldn't have got us here in the first place or kept us in this quagmire for so long.
Go ahead and make a snide comment. I don't expect you to change course.
Dude, that was awesome.
If I might suggest, spend some time hitting the Next Blog button and, if you can tolerate the junk and porn that comes up, do an informal and random study of your own on the liberal and conservative blogs that you run across. I do a lot of blog surfing and I've observed that liberal blogs tend to discuss the issues, and conservative blogs tend to simply curse the liberals. It's not scientific, but it does support the researchers. Try it. I don't have an ax to grind. I am liberal on a lot of things and conservative on others.
Well, I can't argue with you there. But remember, once you say " I am liberal on a lot of things" that means you are "agin 'em" and thus a terrorist.
Post a Comment