Quite an interesting article there 2WL..
I admit I actually took the time to read the whole thing.
As such, I would like to point out that "compromised brain function" as you put it 2WL, and "not thinking" as orathaic described it, are found nowhere in that article. Nor is the word "prove" or "proof." Instead the authors use "suggest", "claim", and "indicate".
Additionally, the article presents correlations and the researchers' explanations for the correlations (which they admit are not the only explanations). (I'd be very interested to see the actual surveys, and terms presented to the participants, along with the actual scores and raw data).
Most telling, I would like to point out the conclusion of that article:
"Low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism. This
claim provides a counterweight to early psychological perspectives
on political ideology that tended to see conservatism
in somewhat pathological terms (Adorno et al., 1950).
Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are
basic, normal, and perhaps natural. Motivational factors are
crucial determinants of ideology, aiding or correcting initial
responses depending on one’s goals, beliefs, and values. Our
perspective suggests that these initial and uncorrected
responses lean conservative."
Something seems odd there. If conservative ways of thinking are "basic, normal, and perhaps natural", and motivational factors ("bias" anyone?) are used to "aid" or "correct" a natural response based on goals beliefs and values, then it seems logically that "correcting" a response based on a bias or ulterior motive would be unnatural.
Does this article then really indicate that "liberal" thinking is an unnatural artificial construct that takes extra effort to try to logically and consistently hold, because it isn't a basic, natural and normal way of thinking?