A new scientific study has come to that conclusion. Of course, it might also be said that liberals are the different group, but that‘s not the way I happen to see it.
The results of the study were published last week in the journal Nature Neuroscience. The study had been conducted by scientists at New York University and UCLA.
The main conclusion is that political orientation is related to how the brain processes information.
The research data concludes that “liberals are 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.”
Conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals, the scientists say, “are more open to new experiences.” And these traits are not just confined to political situations but also show up in every day decisions.
Could this explain President Bush’s seemingly single-minded fixation with the war in Iraq? And what about that “accuracy” thing?
Other interpretations of the results indicate that liberals would be more open to new ideas in such areas as science and religion, and it was observed that this is supported by historical fact.
And finally, the study underscores the fact that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals is about as likely as finding clean water in the Chicago River.
…..Actually, they didn’t put it exactly that way…..
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 44
:-)
'scientists at New York University and UCLA.'
Conservatives? I don't think so. Not exactly BYU.
These are two different types of minds, totally. However, with evolution as is always the case the preferred type, Liberal, because they are open to change will prevail in the long run. One can see this in Schooling, religion, as well as governments.
The right loves America like a father, without question. Father knows best.
The Left loves America like a son, guide him to do the right thing. He needs our guidance.
I do honestly question myself all the time on why I think the way I do. I don't think the right does likewise.
Both sides love America, that's about where the similarity ends.
If liberals are so open minded and value studies about the brain so much then why did nearly the entire liberal faculty at Harvard University villify university president Larry Summers as a sexist when he dared suggest that the reaon men sometimes are better at math is because men and women's brains are different and process information differently.
I'm just curious...because here you are......telling me that liberals are open minded about pretty much everything and understand how different people's brains are different.....yet the politically correct liberal faculty at Harvard had a field day with Larry Summers. They just don't seem to sound like the type of liberals you're describing do they David?
Maybe you'd care to venture an explanation?
And where does concern for the common good end and the ability to experience personal reward through one's own individual effort begin?
As a conservative I do venture outside myself with concern for others Sam. Only I am more selective with that concern than liberals. My concenr is for those that cannot help themselves or those that can help themslevs but just need a little help. Children, the mentally handicapped, the elderly, these people cannot help themselevs so I believe society has an obligationt o help them. Single moms who work hard but still struggle to make ends meet......at least they're trying...so yes they deserve a little help now and then....... Then we come to the people that deserve no compassion........people that just don't feel like working but would rather collect a govt check....people that do not put forth a serious effort into their own succees and then want ot whine about how hard it is..........people that desire items they can't afford so they put them on the credit card and then complain how hard it is to afford the basics in life.....illegal alienas.........noen of these people deserve or will ever receieve my compassion or sympathy Sam
Emotional insecurity.......you want to talk about emotional insecurity? why is it that every left winger assumes that anyone who is doing better than them is corrupt? It is standard practice on the left to assume that anyone who has any money must be a corrupt republican who does give a damn at all about anyone but themself... how's that for emotional insecurity Sam.....where does that hostility come from? is that some sort of manifestation of the repression of the acknowledgement of one's own shortcomings in the light of the success of others Sam? cause that's what it seems like to me. "I didn't get it done but the guy next to me did so I'll just be a miserable bastard, blame society and cast all kinds of negative attributes to that guy whom I know nothing about." Something like that right?
As for your fear as a motive comment... Both sides do it. You libs claim the GOP uses fear of terrorism as a tactic. Well the left uses fear of global warming, fear of not having the govt to step in and save you...fear of not having health insurance etc.....
CONSERVANAZIS= people who say they pray to god yet go into bathrooms and play gay footsey with other men
CONSERVANAZIS= people who disreguard the Geneva conventions laws and use torture and other sick means to get what they want. ( most are into torture as a sexual enjoyment)
CONSERVANAZIS=people who would do anything to increase their personel wealth using insider trading and other means to build there bank accounts
CONSERVANAZIS= undercover sickos who stalk young boys yet they denounce homosexuality yet 50% of them have taken it up da Ol pieolio themselves and wear womens panties and bras
CONSERVANAZIS= Non compassionate lowlife scumy cowards who make the poor man go fight their wars while they drink their martinis and brag about how they got outta fighting in a war
CONSERVANAZIS= people who brake the consitution to achieve what they wish in order to control other people
CONSERVANAZIS= a group of people whose days are gone while the true and just leve headed Liberals control our great country
CONSERVANAZIS= people who think they know everything but all they really know is how to find loopholes in order to make more money
In my opinion the conservatives are the ruination of our great country their uncompassionate acts and greed and powermongering have bankrupped our great country look at GW Baboon what hes done
first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month. presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history. changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history.broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election). cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.
..look at the great president Bill Clinton has done ( Budget surplus -booming economy- a dictator taken out of power without a long war)
Now looking at these 2 men one from the left and one from the right..which party is best for America? which way of thinking is best for the future of our planet?
Look at all the Clinton "crime" bashers doing even worse, from Ted Haggard, Newt"I want A devorce before you die" Ghingrich, Bob Livingstone, Tom Delay,
the Repubs couldn't get a speaker of the house who hadn't cheated on his wife.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Then how exactly do you view the left's approach to garnering support, which is to threaten the voters by saying that the only way they can get ahead is through government welfare programs advocated by the left. Then the Dems fail to deliver any real solutions for anyone via those programs and they make the same claims all over again during the next election cycle. The Democrats bread and butter is to keep people from helping themselves but rather always dependent upon the government for their welfare. That way they get to villify conservatives as being uncompassionate and themselves as everyone's savior although all they ever do is seek more and more dependency on government by private citizens.
Oh and as far as you're concerned Pantarra. it was the private sector .com boom that drove the economy in the 1990's not any kind of economic genius by Bill Clinton. That's why when the the bubble burst late in his second term we started losing jobs while he was still in office. But then I wouldn't expect someone with their head that far up Bill Clinton's ass to be able to see the light of logic and reason.
As for you mr. rude dolt......your party is no better when it comes to scandals
from Ted "i killed a pregnant women while driving drunk with my car"
to William "I got caught with 90K in bribe money" Jefferson
to Gerry" i had sex with congressional pages" Studds
to the 11 Democrats in NJ that were just brought up on bribery charges
to Sandy "i stole national security documents from the white house' Berger
to Gary "I had an affair with Chandra Levy and then had her killed" Condit
to Bill " I sexually harassed over 60% of the women in Arkansas"
Don't even try and suggest that the Dem party is in any way more honorable than the GOP when it comes to scandals because it just isn't true Rude dolt
Have any of you guys switched between Rep and Dem? How about just from one of those to Independent? Why did you do it?
Could it be that liberals themselves have done quite well in this war, but everyone else has not?
Just for the record, it's not true anyway. One of the base values of conservatives is fiscal responsibility. I would defy you to look at the spending of the conservatives over the past six years and show me where it exhibits the slightest adherence to that principle.
Dana: You make a common mistake when interpreting statistics. You cannot take a statistic that says X generally does Y, then consider it incorrect because one X did Z. If you actually read the study's results you would find that it has what is termed a "confidence rate" which is expressed generally as + or - a certain percentage. So your comment about the President of Harvard's statement is simply a non-sequiture. That's where so many people misunderstand such things. They think a study finding has to reflect 100% or nothing. Rather proves David's point in a way, doesn't it?
By the way, I feel exactly the same as you about who deserves help. I consider that a hand up is generally better than a hand out in the majority of cases. I think that some people are becoming jaded by all of the corporate scandals and dishonesty and have concluded, probably incorrectly, that they are all dishonest. I do, in fact, believe most of those at the very top are utterly out of touch with the needs and the struggles of common people. This is why they can outsource jobs without feeling guilty about it because the bottom line is always more important than people. It's why many don't know about such things as supermarket scanners and other common things.
I also draw the line between some who earned their money and their position and those who simply fell into it. I certainly don't label them all Republicans. There are many dishonest Democrats as well. I think people tend to return contempt when they feel contempt coming from those who often regard themselves as better than regular people. By the way, you make a common conservative leap of logic when you conclude that all those at the top earned their way there in some way. I think you will find this is not the case if you actually did a study of their backgrounds.
Your examples are a bit odd. Global warming is a real concern, whether or not we as humans are contributing to it or can do much to stop it. Only an ostrich would look at the shrinking polar ice caps and pretend it's not happening. What it means is what is under debate. Yes, some liberals (not libs) believe that the Conservatives (not cons) use terrorism as a way of scaring people into compliance. "If we don't fight them there, we will fight them here," sound familiar? That's an opinion which may or may not be correct, it is also very definitely a scare tactic. Fear of not having health insurance is very real to a lot of people. I worked at a relatively good paying job with very poor insurance because it was a small business. I had a hernia go bad and was swamped with thousands of dollars in medical bills that it took me literally years to pay off. Some people have no insurance at all and are afraid to even get sick. That's wrong.
Dana: Again with the all or nothing philosophy. Nobody, liberal or conservative, says that the only way you can get ahead is through government welfare programs. I would venture not one, but since that's an absolute I am probably wrong. There is probably some nutjob somewhere who believes that. Most don't. Why? Because it is simply not true. Yes, some pretty stupid social programs are proposed by some few really left wing nuts. They no more reflect true liberal values than do those who believe that those without health insurance should be allowed to die on the front lawns of hospitals (a situation that actually existed at one time). Would you take offense at someone who characterized your beliefs that way? Well it's the same with your generalizations.
I will repeat a point again.....because you can find someone in a particular group who believe something, it does not mean that every person in that group not only supports that person but believes the same way. Beliefs are not set in stone but encompass a spectrum across groups.
BTW the girl in Teddies car wasn't pregnant, and Sandy Berger stole COPIES of national security documents from the National Archives, not the White House. Your logic that because some democrats are crooks or dishonest that all republicans who get caught are therefore automagically exempt is flawed. All crooks belong behind bars. Mr. Jefferson in particular, and I still want to know what the man has on whom to remain out of jail this long. Several of your so-called cases are simply venom-filled invective without a single shred of proof designed, I would suppose to pad what is a very short list compared to what someone could come up with for Republicans and not have to reach back 10-12 years. And yes, that was a cheap shot designed to demonstrate how silly such things are.
Chris: I really do believe that the battle today isn't between Democrats and Republicans, or even between liberals and conservatives, but rather between all of those and the extremes of both parties/philosophies, but particularly the extreme religious right. There have always been political divides, but never ones as virulent and ridiculous as today. You don't see these baseless or nearly baseless rants coming from moderate Republicans or even traditional conservatives who are, in many cases, embarrassed by the rhetoric.
What I saw in Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in 1980, is obviously not what many other people saw.
Conservatives contend government interference in the market stifles growth and subverts the "personal responsibility" imperative to natural economic success. So Bush and Co gut governmental oversight in all areas including the mortgage markets. Sharks, taking advantage of this lax, start issuing mortgages under deceptive terms that would not have seen daylight before Dubya. Of course, let the buyer beware, right? Who says any businessman should be restricted by little inconveniences like the truth and economic accountability? Millions of people sign up and as the fine print kicks in default. Under conservative doctrine, too damn bad. Of course the lenders who hold these loans go broke, the housing market, where most of America's wealth is held, takes a tumble, followed in short order by Wall Street. Once again, the true conservative should "let the market run its course." That's what the true conservatives said in 1929 too. But now reality strikes. The RNC primary donor base is stands to lose big bucks so your tax dollars goes into giant "welfare" payments to bail out these dirtbag sharks and their bankers. Still 2 million folks are about to lose their homes and that's a lot of credit problems, which means no new lawnmowers, refrigerators, furniture sold. So Dubya, regardless of "personal responsibility" demands the lenders rewrite the mortgages, now backed by your tax dollars again, so most folks can stay in their homes. Of course, it's not really your immediate tax dollars, it billions borrowed from our good buddies The Peoples Republic of Communist China. (10 billion just a few days ago.) That of course runs up the deficit even further.
So Dana, here we have the summit of conservative governing bailing out bad loans made by sleazy sharks to people who couldn't afford the terms using money borrowed on interest from Communists guaranteed by Federal assets and tax revenues from your grandkids all because "government" should not regulate business.
Of course the "liberal/Constitutional" method would have been to follow the Constitutional dictum "Congress SHALL regulate commerce."
This comes as no surprise, but I am still grateful for the information. It is obvious, even to those of us who are not "so-called scientists".
I wish someone would do a study to find out why conservatives think putting the words "so-called" in front of things they don't like eliminates them. If the words had the magical elimination power they seem to wish they had, I think we would see the words "so-called conservatives" written everywhere.
~Natalie Neal
Best in the Whole Wide World
I read that study the other day, and thought a long time about how a conversation on it here would go, and I would never have pictured it this peaceful. I just decided not to do an article about it, glad you did.
I don't think true conservative principals dictate that money is the supreme concern. I am all for the exposing and punishing of any business entity that willfully screws over American citizens. That being said.....I also think it is every citizens responsibility to do their homework before committing their funds. I forget who created it but there is a socioeconomic theory that states that if we were to take all of the money and assets in the world and redistribute it so that everyone had an equal amount the people who were on top and had most of the wealth and assets would within a five year span be on top again, possessing most of the world's wealth and assets. I believe that this theory would be proven true if ever put to the test.
I hate to admit it but there is something to the corporate greed culture that some lefties rave so vehemently about. I just don't think it's as endemic as they say. And I don't think that the existence of a corporation is inherently evil in itself.
I like to think of the system that benefits America best as "capitalism with a conscience," in which the free market drives the economy but fairness and morailty are given fair consideration in the pursuit of profit.
Dana: The existence of a corporation is not, of itself some sort of evil. It's just that corporations, like anything else need curbs or they will run out of control. There is an overwhelming culture of corporate greed right now. I believe it is endemic and that it will remain so until necessary curbs are again placed on what they can/cannot get away with. Remember, those at the very top of the corporate food chain have little if any really connection or understanding of the real world the rest of us live in.
Sam: I too do not believe capitalism is inherently evil. Like you, however, I believe it has to be regulated, otherwise the excesses you see every day become rampant. I too wish that people were simply honest enough not to need oversight, but I wish I could win the lottery too, and that's about as likely to happen as honesty in huge international conglomerate corporations.
You hear a lot about how, left unregulated, that markets find equilibrium; however, you can look at recent history and come up with a bazillion (precise figure) examples of greed spinning out of control. Where do you think the whole discussion about obscene corporate executive salaries originates? When people or organizations lack the morality and honesty to self-regulate, then they have to be forced to do so whether they like it or not.
The problem is the polarization with vehemenence that is the greatest problem, it is the extremes on either 'side' that we all despise I would bet were we to be able to really discuss all of this calmly and rationally. Everyone seems to want to bring up only the worse of their opponent and then exaggerate the hell out of such to paint all of their opposition the same ...
And I see the far right so-called conservatives as being the very best by far at doing just that ... congratulations Dana, you WIN the title (dubious as it is.) :-)
The one thing is for sure, for every dimension that shows one side superior, there is another dimension that shows the other side superior. The fact that we evolved with a distrubution of these traits, and all a little difference should be a strength not a weakness or a reason to attack each other.
Things are too skewed to the Republicans side for a while, but now they are swinging back, but it takes our minds to understand the system changes we have made that over time are favoring one group of people and end up putting another at a disadvantage. To me it is a problem in social engineering, not just a feelgood competition.
As to what all is wrong with George W. Bush ... who knows?