PDA

View Full Version : Your Brain on Politics



JackRuby
02-17-2013, 08:31 AM
This could be a handy tool here for those with the insatiable need to place everyone in a category.

Dr.Jack

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33968.htm#.USDTKwfdsI0.facebook

Chris
02-17-2013, 09:48 AM
Major difference between calling people names, jack, and categorizing people, something people do to make sense of the world around them from science to math to politics.

The work of John Haidt is much more interesting than studies about fear.

Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

Born This Way? (http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/10/born-this-way)

Science Asks: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/science-asks-why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/254644/)

Liberals or Conservatives: Who’s Really Close-Minded? (http://www.american.com/archive/2012/april/liberals-or-conservatives-who2019s-really-close-minded)

Conley
02-17-2013, 11:43 AM
Dr. Hatemi in the linked article must have some serious self-esteem problems.

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 11:47 AM
Major difference between calling people names, jack, and categorizing people, something people do to make sense of the world around them from science to math to politics.

The work of John Haidt is much more interesting than studies about fear.

Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

Born This Way? (http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/10/born-this-way)

Science Asks: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/science-asks-why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/254644/)

Liberals or Conservatives: Who’s Really Close-Minded? (http://www.american.com/archive/2012/april/liberals-or-conservatives-who2019s-really-close-minded)

Good defenses of your entrenched so called conservative views which really are not conservative but go ahead and cling to them anyway, like the Titanic. And yell "it's all the liberals fault" as you Leonardo DeCraprio your way down to the bottom.

Captain Jack

Chris
02-17-2013, 02:19 PM
Good defenses of your entrenched so called conservative views which really are not conservative but go ahead and cling to them anyway, like the Titanic. And yell "it's all the liberals fault" as you Leonardo DeCraprio your way down to the bottom.

Captain Jack

Can't even stick to your own topics, Jack? Must everything be a personal insult?

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 04:15 PM
Can't even stick to your own topics, Jack? Must everything be a personal insult?

Speaking the language you understand. You're right Chris nobody likes a fuckin' bum!

Jack

Chris
02-17-2013, 04:24 PM
Speaking the language you understand. You're right Chris nobody likes a fuckin' bum!

Jack

Making things up like that seems to be your strong suit.

Chris
02-17-2013, 04:27 PM
Back to topic:

http://i.snag.gy/zoXwY.jpg

Private Pickle
02-17-2013, 04:31 PM
Good defenses of your entrenched so called conservative views which really are not conservative but go ahead and cling to them anyway, like the Titanic. And yell "it's all the liberals fault" as you Leonardo DeCraprio your way down to the bottom.

Captain Jack

For a guy arguing against putting people in categories you sure do put people in categories a lot...

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 05:21 PM
For a guy arguing against putting people in categories you sure do put people in categories a lot...

Pat yourselves on the back then. It's what you bait people to do. Yea, a master baiter of sorts.

Jack

Adelaide
02-17-2013, 05:58 PM
This area of neuroscience is in it's infancy; I wouldn't take too much of the research seriously. There is still a lot of unchartered territory. The article also vastly simplifies the functions of the mentioned areas of the brain; for example, the amygdala is also responsible (at least partially) for memory, among other things. The insular cortex also has other known functions. There are assumptions being made.

Now, I would agree with the article that environmental/behaviour factors that shape our political views also change our brain, (neuroplasticity). That's a given, and could explain some of the findings in research papers.

Mister D
02-17-2013, 06:07 PM
I can certainly believe that human beings have a general political predisposition but this is one area where I would think that environment and life experience count as much if not more.

Chris
02-17-2013, 06:10 PM
This area of neuroscience is in it's infancy; I wouldn't take too much of the research seriously. There is still a lot of unchartered territory. The article also vastly simplifies the functions of the mentioned areas of the brain; for example, the amygdala is also responsible (at least partially) for memory, among other things. The insular cortex also has other known functions. There are assumptions being made.

Now, I would agree with the article that environmental/behaviour factors that shape our political views also change our brain, (neuroplasticity). That's a given, and could explain some of the findings in research papers.

I don't know but some studies link DRD4 to liberal opinions, hinting a liberal is born and not bred.

Mister D
02-17-2013, 06:19 PM
Also, while I think it's important to avoid an absurd reductionism (likely to form the way this sort of thing is popularized) or any kind of genetic determinism (which, incidentally, no one actually argues) I have often come down on the side of nature as opposed to nurture. We are not blank slates. In this case, however, I don't.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 06:20 PM
Major difference between calling people names, jack, and categorizing people, something people do to make sense of the world around them from science to math to politics.

The work of John Haidt is much more interesting than studies about fear.

Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html)

Born This Way? (http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/10/born-this-way)

Science Asks: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/science-asks-why-cant-we-all-just-get-along/254644/)

Liberals or Conservatives: Who’s Really Close-Minded? (http://www.american.com/archive/2012/april/liberals-or-conservatives-who2019s-really-close-minded)

Very interesting. The bottom line is that we need balance in society - everyone has something to offer.

Chris
02-17-2013, 06:20 PM
On the other hand that DRD4 research links the gene to open-mindedness, a willingness to try new things, and that runs counter to John Haidt's work that find liberals more closed-minded.

Chris
02-17-2013, 06:25 PM
Very interesting. The bottom line is that we need balance in society - everyone has something to offer.

That's not Haidt's bottom line, who.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 06:59 PM
That's not Haidt's bottom line, who.

Haidt indicates that we should appreciate moral diversity in politics. He argues that moral diversity—which is closely connected to political diversity—is essential to create positive change in society. That is precisely what he was saying in his reference to Yin and Yang working together, not being enemies, as well as his general reference to Eastern philosophies supporting that notion. The Conservatives maintain stability, the Liberals bring necessary change.Overbalance of either side is ultimately not good for society.

Mister D
02-17-2013, 07:07 PM
Do you appreciate moral diversity?

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 07:08 PM
Haidt indicates that we should appreciate moral diversity in politics. He argues that moral diversity—which is closely connected to political diversity—is essential to create positive change in society. That is precisely what he was saying in his reference to Yin and Yang working together, not being enemies, as well as his general reference to Eastern philosophies supporting that notion. The Conservatives maintain stability, the Liberals bring necessary change.Overbalance of either side is ultimately not good for society.

These numbnuts can't even agree on anything good for the country. It's all about winning in DC and it has driven droves of people away from the process and those of their followers left cling to their squeeky, pitiful partisan bullshit like it means something. You are talking way over people's heads, Doctor.

Mister D
02-17-2013, 07:12 PM
These numbnuts can't even agree on anything good for the country. It's all about winning in DC and it has driven droves of people away from the process and those of their followers left cling to their squeeky, pitiful partisan bullshit like it means something. You are talking way over people's heads, Doctor.

If it means nothing to you why do you engage in it so often?

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 07:13 PM
If it means nothing to you why do you engage in it so often?

Who the hell was talking to you?

Mister D
02-17-2013, 07:15 PM
Who the hell was talking to you?

Ohhh Partisan Jack is mad! :shocked:

So you don't know. Understood. I'll clue you in: you masquerade as a non-partisan man but in reality you're a fraud. Your comments give you away.

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 07:17 PM
Ohhh Partisan Jack is mad! :shocked:

So you don't know. Understood. I'll clue you in: you masquerade as a non-partisan man but in reality you're a fraud. Your comments give you away.

The master baiter strikes again. I was talking to Dr. Who until YOU butted in. You're the only goddamned moderator-protected fraud so keep sucking up and speaking their partisan baiting language. They must love you.

Chris
02-17-2013, 07:22 PM
Haidt indicates that we should appreciate moral diversity in politics. He argues that moral diversity—which is closely connected to political diversity—is essential to create positive change in society. That is precisely what he was saying in his reference to Yin and Yang working together, not being enemies, as well as his general reference to Eastern philosophies supporting that notion. The Conservatives maintain stability, the Liberals bring necessary change.Overbalance of either side is ultimately not good for society.

Right, but he also lays out 6 moral areas of which cons judge by 6 and libs by only 3, not being able to conceive of things in the other 3, and thus closed minded misrepresent cons.

Chris
02-17-2013, 07:24 PM
These numbnuts can't even agree on anything good for the country. It's all about winning in DC and it has driven droves of people away from the process and those of their followers left cling to their squeeky, pitiful partisan bullshit like it means something. You are talking way over people's heads, Doctor.

Here's a perfect example of a lib who cannot conceive con moral thinking. What he can't conceive, the cognitive dissonance, explodes in name calling and well poisoning and made up insults.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 07:27 PM
Do you appreciate moral diversity?
To the extent that Haidt is discussing, yes. Whether I argue with one or another over an issue, does not mean that I don't believe that they are human beings with their own moral compass and own ideologies and entitled to them. Provided that someone is not advocating or encouraging harm to others, it takes all kinds to make a world both by nature and by nurture.

Mister D
02-17-2013, 07:27 PM
The master baiter strikes again. I was talking to Dr. Who until YOU butted in. You're the only goddamned moderator-protected fraud so keep sucking up and speaking their partisan baiting language. They must love you.

Maybe you two should get a room? You're on a public forum, Jacky. Anyway, your comments give you away. If you don't want that to happen put some more thought into your posts.

Mister D
02-17-2013, 07:30 PM
To the extent that Haidt is discussing, yes. Whether I argue with one or another over an issue, does not mean that I don't believe that they are human beings with their own moral compass and own ideologies and entitled to them. Provided that someone is not advocating or encouraging harm to others, it takes all kinds to make a world both by nature and by nurture.

You seem to take a moralistic approach to politics. It seems to me that you don't find those you disagree with to be particularly moral.

Chris
02-17-2013, 07:31 PM
To the extent that Haidt is discussing, yes. Whether I argue with one or another over an issue, does not mean that I don't believe that they are human beings with their own moral compass and own ideologies and entitled to them. Provided that someone is not advocating or encouraging harm to others, it takes all kinds to make a world both by nature and by nurture.

Agree, it takes all kinds, talking, even disagreeing, for insights, answers, possibly even solutions to emerge. If some of us didn't disagree, and verbalize it rationally, it'd get pretty damned boring.

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 07:39 PM
Maybe you two should get a room? You're on a public forum, Jacky. Anyway, your comments give you away. If you don't want that to happen put some more thought into your posts.

Maybe you should kiss my ass and quit trying to hijack conversations.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 07:39 PM
Right, but he also lays out 6 moral areas of which cons judge by 6 and libs by only 3, not being able to conceive of things in the other 3, and thus closed minded misrepresent cons.
I believe the extreme liberals who have the biggest issues with loyalty, respect for authority and purity, however most simply don't value them as highly as care, fairness and liberty.

Mister D
02-17-2013, 07:42 PM
Maybe you should kiss my ass and quit trying to hijack conversations.

Hijack a conversation? lol Get a room.

Chris
02-17-2013, 07:43 PM
I believe the extreme liberals who have the biggest issues with loyalty, respect for authority and purity, however most simply don't value them as highly as care, fairness and liberty.

Right, that seems to be Haidt's point. It is a matter of degree with a moderate centrist valuing both, I think. A con could be just as blinded by overconcern for loyalty, respect for authority and purity.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 07:49 PM
You seem to take a moralistic approach to politics. It seems to me that you don't find those you disagree with to be particularly moral.
What is moral for me, may not be moral for you or someone else. What you call a moralistic approach for me is a philosphical approach. Because I am of the Liberal persuasion, I see things differently than you and some others might. The fact that I may disagree with anyone does not denote disrespect, unless they are rude and obnoxious in their interactions, and even then I try to refrain from reacting in kind. The point of a forum is discussion. It may not always be comfortable, but it is enlightening.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 07:51 PM
Right, that seems to be Haidt's point. It is a matter of degree with a moderate centrist valuing both, I think. A con could be just as blinded by overconcern for loyalty, respect for authority and purity. Yes, but he also said it takes both to make a functioning society.

Chris
02-17-2013, 07:55 PM
Yes, but he also said it takes both to make a functioning society.

According to Haidt the con has all 6. It's the lib missing 3. How balance what's not there?

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 08:01 PM
These numbnuts can't even agree on anything good for the country. It's all about winning in DC and it has driven droves of people away from the process and those of their followers left cling to their squeeky, pitiful partisan bullshit like it means something. You are talking way over people's heads, Doctor.
Sadly politics has devolved from representation of either the moral or ideological points of view of the electorate and into a competetive race for power for its own sake or for the sake of what sort of remuneration can be gained along the way. It is unfortunately a representation of the direction of society as a whole. If smaller groups interacting make for a more caring society, what sort of society comes of increasingly depersonalized relationships through social media?

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 08:11 PM
Sadly politics has devolved from representation of either the moral or ideological points of view of the electorate and into a competetive race for power for its own sake or for the sake of what sort of remuneration can be gained along the way. It is unfortunately a representation of the direction of society as a whole. If smaller groups interacting make for a more caring society, what sort of society comes of increasingly depersonalized relationships through social media?

Salient point about remuneration being the prime mover of all things in American politics. Both sides play the government by bribery game. Campaign finance is something neither side is really interested in addressing. What do you see as the cure?

Chris
02-17-2013, 08:18 PM
Because campaign finance regulation means governing campaigns and restricting free speech by means of political power, and that sought largely by liberals.

As George Will points out in A 'reform' wisely rejected (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-28/opinions/36784479_1_political-speech-corporations-partisan-politics):


Extending the logic of a 1976 decision, the court has now held that the dissemination of political speech requires money, so restricting money restricts speech. Bringing law into conformity with this 1976 precedent, the court has struck down only federal and state laws that forbid independent expenditures (those not made directly to, or coordinated with, candidates' campaigns) by corporations and labor unions. Under the censorship regime the court has overturned, corporations were even forbidden to send political communications to all of their employees.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 08:20 PM
According to Haidt the con has all 6. It's the lib missing 3. How balance what's not there?
Since most people do not fall at either end of the political or moral spectrum, the average lib is not completely missing 3, only weighting the other three more highly. At the end of the day, while conservatives are more equal in all 6, they are more resistant to change. Societal stagnation can also lead to decay and death, so nature has a built in solution - liberals now, but in the past they were simply the creative element in society - perhaps some of the inventors, the artists, the poets. They may be a thorn in the side of conservatives, but it really does take all kinds. On the side of the conservatives, a completely liberal society might lead to absolute anarchy, which would be ultimately destructive to human kind.

JackRuby
02-17-2013, 08:34 PM
Because campaign finance regulation means governing campaigns and restricting free speech by means of political power, and that sought largely by liberals.

As George Will points out in A 'reform' wisely rejected (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2010-01-28/opinions/36784479_1_political-speech-corporations-partisan-politics):

Liberals like John McCain and Alan Simpson?

Chris
02-17-2013, 08:44 PM
I believe I said largely, but yes, any who advocate bigger government and less liberty.

Dr. Who
02-17-2013, 08:51 PM
Salient point about remuneration being the prime mover of all things in American politics. Both sides play the government by bribery game. Campaign finance is something neither side is really interested in addressing. What do you see as the cure?
How to accomplish this without restricting freedom of speech and without a "big government" solution would be difficult. I think that public access television in the political sphere would help to defer the cost of expensive private channel coverage. This would allow local live debate without paying high commercial prices and at the same time you could outlaw the practice of negative ad campaigns, which must cost millions of dollars. A certain amount of funding would have to go to advertising the public access debates on commercial media. You could limit campaign contributions to the amounts that average citizens could afford and require complete transparency in the review of those donations. When it comes down to ultimate debates between the final Gubernatorial, Congressional, Senatorial and Presidential candidates, I think the commercial media would likely cover it for free, because the number of people watching would attract advertisers. Beyond that, oversight of lobbiests and their influence on elected representative could face greater scrutiny, though I don't believe I have enough knowledge of the inner workings of government to advocate what mechanism would work best.

Adelaide
02-17-2013, 08:55 PM
On the other hand that DRD4 research links the gene to open-mindedness, a willingness to try new things, and that runs counter to John Haidt's work that find liberals more closed-minded.

I read that research study front to back and it was flimsy. Environment matters more than the actual gene that causes the willingness to try new things. It required that the person have had many friends as a child/young adult, for example.

Chris
02-17-2013, 09:08 PM
I read that research study front to back and it was flimsy. Environment matters more than the actual gene that causes the willingness to try new things. It required that the person have had many friends as a child/young adult, for example.

I'd agree, genes only dispose you one way or another, environment brings it out or represses it.

Carygrant
02-18-2013, 04:08 AM
I believe the extreme liberals who have the biggest issues with loyalty, respect for authority and purity, however most simply don't value them as highly as care, fairness and liberty.


Would you classify that as pretentious garbage or just random words flying through the ether ?

Chris
02-18-2013, 06:49 AM
Would you classify that as pretentious garbage or just random words flying through the ether ?

The source is John Haidt, see post #2 for some references.

Dr. Who
02-18-2013, 07:35 PM
Would you classify that as pretentious garbage or just random words flying through the ether ?
Haidt's definitions and classifications based on surveys.