there is a large possibility that the development of these brain areas is dependent on environmental factors. (where environment is everything experienced, including things like levels of blood sugars available from your mother before birth)

If this is the case, it simply results in the conclusion that different experiences lead to different judgements.

I'd like to see a comparison across nations, and also an estimate of how large this variation is within any given sub-sample of the population...

"...greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information..." i.e. Greater ability of liberals to maintain a belief systems despite all evidence to the contrary.

"...greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat..." i.e. realize what a danger to society Liberals are.

*roll eyes* or liberals have a greater ability to notice paradoxes and conflicts in society and conservatives are paranoid wing nuts.

As usual, issues of cause and effect probably make it hard to draw a lot of conclusions from this. We already knew liberals and conservatives saw things really differently.
Interesting, though, thanks for posting.

Annnnd...Largeham demonstrates my hypothesis. The unwitting victim/fool...

See, the difference between a Liberal "coping" with conflicting information and a Conservative, is that a Conservative analyzes the data and comes to a logical conclusion. We don't need to "cope"...we just solve the equation. Liberals, as I stated, "cope" with conflicting information by ignoring, holding fast to their incorrect belief, but they still feel good about themselves even though they are wrong.

Largeham can not deal with this reality because...as a Liberal...he is seeing my truth, my conflicting data, and ignoring in favor of his Liberal psychosis...thus enabling his to happily go through life WRONG....it's sad, really. They need a pill for you...

Someone has to do a research about age and political beliefs.
I find it completely unacceptable for anyone under 50 to be a conservative...

lol Another fine example of a Liberal just not coping with reality...You guys crack me up with your self-incrimination examples of the topic, because I honestly don't even think you realize what you are doing. lol Keep it up, you silly Libs!

This is a pretty silly story, mostly because I think political labels are silly to begin with.

Well i am 17 and don't care much about politics but what I do know is when i see a troll. (krellin)

Why are political labels silly? If I, generally speaking, think we should have higher taxes, reduce the size of the military, have strong social-welfare programs and think the government is the primary party responsible for an individual's well-being (as opposed to the individual himself...) WHAT LABEL WOULD YOU APPLY TO ME?

The concept of a label is not to 100% define a person, but to give a general overview of a person's beliefs. What is so wrong about that?

Not applying "political labels" would be the same as saying you don't like Job Titles. After all, calling me an Electrical Engineer just isn't fair. Maybe it should just be "Engineer"....no....how about simply Scientist....no....to you...you don't want me labeled anything at all? I'm just "Job Applicant" with no defining category? THAT is the political argument you are making. Frankly, it's stupid.

People that fear political labels I have found are generally liberals that are afraid/ashamed to admit their leanings. Not saying this is you....I'm just saying this is my experience. "Oh...I don't believe in labels," they say, and then through conversations, you find one issue after another in which they are clearly liberal. It's a very strange phenomenon. Then again...it probably *does* coincide with this study in some way or another.

@leozlm2 --- Fuck off, moron. Actually, I was attempting to put an idea to the study, and then using humor and irony to demonstrate it. Grow up, you little shit.

And leo -- if you don't care about politics, why the fuck are you in a political forum thread, moron?

@ Tolstoy

Well, this story serves to make political labels (perhaps) a little less silly. With some physical association to back them up, these labels may actually mean something.

" If I, generally speaking, think we should have higher taxes, reduce the size of the military, have strong social-welfare programs and think the government is the primary party responsible for an individual's well-being (as opposed to the individual himself...) WHAT LABEL WOULD YOU APPLY TO ME?"

Well, 150-200 years ago, you would've been called a conservative (except for the "reduce the military" part). Liberalism used to be the ideology of freedom, and conservatism the ideology of state privilege. While they haven't done a 180, they've certainly done a 150 or so in the last century or two.

Even on more compressed timelines, the meanings of 'liberal' and 'conservative' are constantly changing. "Conservatives" just 30 years ago or so used to be against free trade. Now you can fit all the anti free trade conservative politicians in the country (plus Pat Buchanan) in the meeting room at your local Denny's, while the progressives have become the only big ideological bloc consistently against free trade. "Liberals" used to be strongly opposed to police brutality, but the Orange County (California) liberal establishment sat back and did nothing while conservative activists constantly beat the drums of protest over the fatal beating of a mentally ill homeless man over the last few months (google "Kelly Thomas" for the full story - some 'liberals' even accused the protesters of being motivated solely by anti-Unionism, since the police thugs who committed the murder are unionized). There are dozens of other examples. In my travels over the years, I've found common causes with communists, socialists, hippies, potheads, the homeless, evangelical Christians, Tea Partiers, anarchists (of various stripes), National Greatness conservatives, and even a fascist or two. The conventional one-dimensional political spectrum designed to dump us all in one political camp or another is just a fabrication of the Power Elite to divide and conquer. I challenge anyone on this forum to pin me down as a 'conservative' or 'liberal'. This is all so flipping stupid, designed to make us all see enemies everywhere and leave us clamoring for protection and guidance from the 'leaders' of our 'faction'. I'm sick of this crap, and the sooner people see through it, the better.

"Well, this story serves to make political labels (perhaps) a little less silly. With some physical association to back them up, these labels may actually mean something."

Even the author of the study essentially admits that there is no real evidence to support the conclusion offered in the article, leaving me to believe that the press release which likely created the story was just aimed at making headlines (and consequently increasing funding for future research):

"It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions," he said. "More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude."

Our understanding of the brain is so primitive it is foolish to try and draw any conclusions from such a ridiculously simplistic study. Truth be told, this reminds me of studies a few decades ago which tied intelligence (or lack thereof) to forehead sloping and other physical characteristics.

"Liberalism used to be the ideology of freedom, and conservatism the ideology of state privilege"
still is
"Our understanding of the brain is so primitive it is foolish to try and draw any conclusions from such a ridiculously simplistic study. "
it's even more primitive than that. most conservatives cannot even understand what liberalism means and vice versa.

" I challenge anyone on this forum to pin me down as a 'conservative' or 'liberal'.
+1 Tolstoy
I feel the same way. I am too pragmatic to be neatly categorized.
One way of looking at it is that the terms are relative. Thus in the Soviet Union our own Putin33 perhaps might have been a conservative, but in the US he is a radical. (Putin33 is conservative in his own way about certain issues - drugs and pornography come to mind).

Putin differs from Soviet elites in his staunch support of prohibition. Well, not so much with Gorbachev but he has only the deepest contempt for that guy anyway. Hard line on drugs and porn in general is nothing unusual in authoritarian countries though, unless we use counterexample like hypocrisy of socially conservative Saudi establishment that loosened the grip on internet even though it was obvious that Saudis would use that mostly for watching porn anyway, not exactly the proper wahhabite behaviour.

But yes, using one-dimensional political spectrum is clearly outdated. Not that various two-dimensional alternatives work much better (to mention those available OTI, Moral Politics, Political Compass, Nolan Chart).

Ah, science.. sometimes I think you ask the wrong questions..

I can understand someone coming from a methedological naturalism viewpoint asking how the brain's structure shapes ones thoughts and views, but they may be missing something.

If the mind transcends the body and the physical (call it consciousness, a soul, whatever you want; a postulate that the methodological naturalist would categorically deny from the outset, but that most religions readily accept) then might it be more profitable to ask the question, "How do one's poltical, moral, social values and views ultimately shape one's physical being?"

The physical matter has been apriori assumed to be the agent of causation here, but what if it is not? Wouldn't that be like asking the question of a variety of art samples, which category of art would be responsible for manifesting which type of artist?

Just a thought.

Since we can see in animals that certain "personality traits" can be bred through selection -- for example animals which are more sociable / less sociable, aggressive / passive it -- stands to reason that there would be genetic factors helping to determine our personalities. We are after all animals. Of course the interplay of these genetic factors with our environment would extremely complex so I think it would be naive to think that there is a "liberal gene". And as has been pointed out the liberal/conservative dichotomy is simplistic. That said, it would not surprise to be if there was some kind of identifiable genetic predisposition towards being naturally "with the group" versus naturally "rebellious". For some people it would seem that to go against the grain is hard-wired, while for others it is the opposite, preferring to stay with the mainstream. Thus in this sense the naturally rebellious would be the radicals. But applying to this to real-life politics would be silly, because even amongst both the left and the right there are those who are radical or controversial, while others who are more team players.
Sometimes I wonder amongst people who are radical in America - communist for example, what would their political persuasion be if they had grown up in a communist country? Would they actually be subversives there? Would they be the secret pro-democracy advocates? While those who are conservative capitalists in America would be hardline communists if they had grown up under such a regime, because that would be the status quo?

This strikes me as a group of scientists drawing a loosely supported but shocking conclusion for the sake of creating buzz and getting funding.

And, if that is the case, it truly is almost criminal.

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110407121337.htm

The "buzz" is usually added by journalists who are trying to make something that might be quite dry interesting.

It's what I dub "journalistic science", which is too often a huge disservice to the scientific community when it twists valid science and uses it for entertainment value or sociopolitical gain rather than for informing the general public about science.

the Liberal/Conservative divide as a case in point in this article

I must credit the article with appropriately mentioning that the left/right idea is simplistic and cautionsagainst taking the findings too far.

However, the article does seem to paint the 'liberal' state of mind in a better light than the 'conservative':

"conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences"

Again environment probably plays a huge role here as someone who has been hurt many times before is likely to be more capable of recognizing a threat than someone who has lived a sheltered life, regardless of any supposed "brain structure predisposition". Recognizing a threat isn't a bad thing, (though when talked about in the political arena, it is not an "endearing" trait of conservatives, while the "Open mind" trait of liberals is viewed as a "good thing") An open mind willing to try new experiences could be a serious hinderance in a leader entrusted with a complex foreign policy incident.

Thus I'm super critical of 'journalistic science' which may have a sociopolitical or entertainment agenda and not a scientific agenda.

@ krellin
you know left vs. right is a false dichotomy meant to divide us? Look on both sides and you will see people generally want the same things, peace prosperity, make sure their families are safe and have food on the table etc.
itsd when you start using us vs. them language that everyone jumps onto one side or the other of a hot-button issue (which is pretty much always not a this or that two sided issue) and divisons form, or not form... are exacerbated to a point waaaay beyond the actual issue itself

@Leif you said: 'If the mind transcends the body and the physical (call it consciousness, a soul, whatever you want; a postulate that the methodological naturalist would categorically deny from the outset, but that most religions readily accept) then might it be more profitable to ask the question, "How do one's poltical, moral, social values and views ultimately shape one's physical being?"'

i don't think you can, if the soul is at work here but it is inscrutable and immaterial then you can never pin it down as having any particular attribute except through the physical.

I don't think asking this question can give any answer which is different from the ones actually being asked.

Also, i'd just like to point out, there is a nice neuro-scientist who is able to disable a person's morale sense using a magnetic wand of some kind. This indicate that if the soul if the morale agent of causation then it can be blocked by interfering with the brain.

Also, if the soul is the driving force, and you damage the cockpit (supposing you accept tha t brain damage changes how people behave and this model implies the soul is doing it's driving via the brain) Then why do people with the connecting tissue between their brains cut have two apparent controlers? (both malfunctioning and unable to communicate directly with each other, but able to communicate with the outside world in different ways to answer different question) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain


"conservatives are more sensitive to threat or anxiety in the face of uncertainty, while liberals tend to be more open to new experiences"

i would judge not that this has a liberal bias, in some circumstances being open to new experiences will get you killed, where being anxious in the face of uncertainty would keep you alive.

It is entirely dependent on circumstances, both are equally valid ways of living one's life.

@"Look on both sides and you will see people generally want the same things" - yes, but they don't necessarily agree on the best way to get what they want.

@Sic -- give me a break. OK...if it's a false dicotomony, and there is no difference between left and right, then I expect you will be voting for the Conservative candidates in the next election, correct? After all, there is NO difference, right?

Moron.

Just because somebody wants the same supposed end does not mean they are the same. Hilter wanted peace...he just wanted it on his own terms. He wanted his people to be wealthy, once he wittled the population down to what he thought it should be. He wanted intellectual and scientific progress. He was for the arts and culture. Sounds pretty damned noble, huh?

So get your head out of your ass (where clearly it is firmly lodged) grow up and acknowledge that the Left and the Right, Liberals vs Conservatives -- however you want to phrase it -- have nearly diametrically opposing ideas on HOW to achieve the end means.

You and I are at a house. We want to go the store. I choose to walk west down the block to the store. You choose to travel east around the world to arrive at the store. Same objective....vastly different means of achieving a goal.

Not too hard to figure out how the Left and Right are different. So you are either playing devil's advocate, or you are willfully ignorant...or, sadly, perhaps you are just truly stupid.

It is not a false dichotomy because there is no difference. It is a false dichotomy because it takes a spectrum and makes it a coin. Between left and right there’s lots of ranting but little dialog. If only people would listen to one another they’d find there are real people on both sides. Life is more complicated than black and white, excuse me red and blue. Issues have more than TWO sides, especially in a country with over 300 MILLION people. I think everyone has a unique perspective, but even if you dont believe that, I imagine 300 million people have more than one of two attitudes about an issue.

Are you telling me that on ANY issue, you can pick out your exact feelings about it from either a list of liberal talking points or conservative talking points? Really? And you're calling ME a moron?
It isnt a choice between walking right to the store in a straight line, or walking left to the store, its which streets should I take? which turns to get there? should I walk on the sidewalk or gutter, or street, or all three at different intervals? shall i stop anywhere? a friends house? a different store? I could go to the park first.
My point is this is real life, not Halo or a high school basketball game, and there are more than two "sides" to EVERY issue.

You seem to live in a world of absolutes and if this is so I pity you greatly.

a world of absolutes is exactly what you get when you need to be absolutely sure you don't get killed by your neighbour.

You get a gun, and you make sure you're ready to use it. Safety first... living in a world with varying shades of grey/gray is a luxury afforded only to those who aren't under immediate threat, those who can afford to spend some more time mulling over their decisions and thinking about the world.

There are even some brain structures which specialize in these two areas...

Quick add-on. The two-party/two-ideology concept exists to give us this illusion of definitive choice. It's like arguing over which foot to shoot yourself in rather than arguing over whether we should be shooting feet at all.

Just in case it comes up, i support the shooting of the left foot!(sic)

Is there a link for the article? Also, (I don't know much about biology or psychology, so I apologise if this is quite a stupid question) but when they say different brain structure, is it something that can change overtime? Even among adults who have stopped developing (to the extent children do)?

I'm trying to figure out people who's ideas change overtime. Would there brain structure change, or does not really matter?

there is some level of neuro-plasticity in adults, (and i think we are the only mammal which has shown neuro-plasticity as adults, while all are neuro-plastic while young and developing)

Some things are definitely set before birth and do not change overtime (i'd guess sexuality fits into this category but it is known that some genes get switched of and others on during development and this definitely has an impact)

So how much a person's ideas will change over-time may depend on how flexible (or plastic) their brain is in certain areas, and i don't know the answer to that. However i think it is possible to hold the same kind of view (simple, direct, threat identifying, for example) about a different thing (let's say the tea party pushed republicans in a direction you didn't like - you might identify them as a threat)

And i don't think that one is better at coping with "conflicting information" does not mean the other isn't able to cope at all with "conflicting information".... An important question to ask would be how big are the differences across any given population, and how other countries compare to the US.

That is, how much variability is there in any given population... might be very interesting to see how scandanavian countries compare with sub-saharan african ones and with south east asian countries...