This is getting hilarious. From time to time studies come out trying to identify biological distinctions between conservatives and liberals. And usually, conservatives are somehow biologically “different,” e.g, bigger area in brain for anger, unable to make proper eye contact, a quicker sense of disgust, etc.
Now, we find that conservatives–poor dears–have bigger fear centers in their brains, and smaller areas that look on the bright side. From the story:
Tories may be born not made, claims a study that suggests people with right wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear. Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions. On the other hand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life. The “exciting” correlation was found by scientists at University College London who scanned the brains of two members of parliament and a number of students. They found that the size of the two areas of the brain directly related to the political views of the volunteers.
Notice “normal” brain structure is always the liberal.
Besides, what is “conservative” in the UK, may be middle of the road in the USA. Does that mean our conservatives’ brains are even more convoluted? And again, some people become conservatives after being liberal. Look at Ronald Reagan and First Things founder, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. It works the other way around, too: I have a friend who was a big Goldwater conservative, and now wears pink underwear (to borrow a quote from Richard Nixon during his commie hunting days.) It was a miracle healing!
It seems to me that political attitudes are shaped primarily by experiences. Ask anyone why they became strongly one persuasion or another, and often it is a powerful event, a strong leader, or a combination of the two. I was once very strongly “left” due to the influences of JKF, Ralph Nader, MLK and the horror of the assassinations and Vietnam. I became “right” thanks to living in San Francisco and the left’s illiberal support of assisted suicide. I may have been seduced by the dark side, but I don’t think my brain structure changed. (And yes, as I have stated often, I still consider myself a Martin Luther King liberal.)
But, if its all in our hard wiring, we’d better make political views a suspect category for civil rights and hate crime protection. After all, we shouldn’t punish or discriminate against anyone for being who they are.
December 29th, 2010 | 1:17 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Nurse Scrubs. Nurse Scrubs said: Biology and Politics: They Can't Help It, It's Their Brains: It was a miracle healing! It seems to me that polit… http://bit.ly/gx3q8t [...]
December 29th, 2010 | 3:26 am
Once again, the journalists put their own unfortunate spin on research findings.
As this article explains, this was initially a light-hearted investigation suggested by the actor Colin Firth (who was serving as the guest editor of Radio 4′s Today program).
Note here that neither the “conservative” nor the “liberal” brain is considered the “normal” one: Both are characterised by the unexpectedly large size of certain neural areas: the anterior cingulate gyrus in “liberals” and the amygdala in “conservatives”.
Some journalists have gotten into the habit of describing the amygdala merely as the brain’s “fear centre” (in order to give us the impression that conservatism is driven by irrational fear) but we know that it is important in emotional processing in general and in the consolidation of memories, especially those of emotionally significant events. Conservatives are forever telling us to “learn the lessons of history”. Maybe they’re just better at remembering them than liberals are.
Other studies have (if I remember correctly) shown a positive correlation between conservatism and the number of friends one has. This is consistent with the findings about “conservative” amygdalas as these structures tend to be larger in those with larger social networks (see this study of Facebook users)
Also note that no causal link has been established here. The study was done on [a non-representative group of] adults so there is no way to tell if their brain wiring resulted from the subjects habitually using their brains in certain ways. The brain exhibits a great deal of plasticity, and cortical areas which are used frequently tend to expand at the expense of those which are not. The cortical areas for hearing grow larger in people who become blind after birth. These neural changes result from, rather than cause, their extra dependence on auditory stimuli. It might be just the same with politics and the brain. Many years of thinking like a liberal might give you a “liberal brain” and many years of thinking conservative thoughts might similarly leave their mark.
Then there’s the recurrent question “what about those who change their minds”? This is a strange question to ask for it seems to imply that these studies are making claims about there being hard-wired. They are, of course, doing no such thing. We will never discover a part of the brain in which the words “conservative”, “liberal” or “libertarian” might be indelibly etched. The sorts of neural factors being examined will, if eventually found to be causative influences, merely increase or decrease the probability that certain arguments and perspectives appeal to one. Biological propensities of this sort may have some predictive value (when a large population is being considered) but are always influenced by the environment. Possession of a “gene for alcoholism” or depression doesn’t mean that you are doomed to either. It means that you are far more likely than the average person to develop those conditions if presented with the right environmental influences.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 29th, 2010 at 10:23 am
Raven: If a conservatives part of the brain is bigger or smaller, and we are told there is a correlation between the size of the brain part and one’s political persuasion, doesn’t that at least imply hard wiring? If not, why bother with the study?
December 29th, 2010 | 5:51 am
And they call it SCIENCE… Give me an epistemological break!
December 29th, 2010 | 10:29 am
Well, they say a liberal is a conservative who’s never been mugged, and a conservative is a liberal who’s never been arrested. So I think you’re right in that experience is the trump card.
However, if you look at a lot of appeals that conservatives make, they tend to be fear-based. Terrorists are everywhere! Socialists want to kill your grannie! Atheists want to outlaw God! The government wants all your money! IBM in their heyday called this FUD selling (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
Liberal causes, on the other hand, tend to use intellectual appeals and rational arguments a lot more. (Plus a lot of guilt, but these guys didn’t test for that.)
In both cases they’re using the pitches that tend to resonate with their audience. So there may be something to the idea that it’s easier to arouse fear in conservatives, and to appeal to the intellectual ego of liberals.
December 29th, 2010 | 11:53 am
The brain is extremely plastic, Wesley, and reorganises itself based on the tasks it routinely performs. An enlargement of a certain brain area might merely be the evidence “under the hood” that the area in question has been put to great use. We do not know if shifts in ideological perspectives are accompanied, in the fullness of time, by corresponding changes in the appropriate regions of the brain.
There is, as we all know, something described as the “athlete’s heart”. We find that well-trained athletes have larger hearts and lower resting pulse rates than their sedentary counterparts. We do not, however, jump to the conclusion that the “athlete’s heart” causes athleticism. Similarly “conservative” or “liberal” brains (as described in the study) do not necessarily cause – or even predispose their bearers to – conservatism or liberalism. They may simply be the neural analogues to the weightlifter’s bulging biceps i.e evidence of a certain kind of activity. Further investigation is required.
December 29th, 2010 | 1:09 pm
Padraig, I wouldn’t say that’s the case. Every election year, we’re told the Republicans will take away social security. That’s why Republicans are mortally afraid of proposing fixes to it, lest they be savagely demonized in the public. Fear is that case is used very effectively. Fearmongering isn’t a left-right thing, it’s a rhetorical strategy as old as politics itself, and a powerful motivator. Sometimes though, fear is rightly warranted and the correct response.
Personally, I reject a left/right dichotomy. Political ideologies are rational plans for public action based on assumptions of human nature. Many are kindred in spirit or share many assumptions, but there can be as many ideologies as there are theories of human behavior. Shoehorning every political belief into one continuum is a product of horse-race journalism in two-party systems, I believe. For example, what is fascism/national socialism? Is it right wing? Is it left wing? No, it is what it is. Aristotle had it right in the Politics when classifying governments based on how many people were calling the shots and if they were calling good shots or evil shots. The only practical difference between Communism and Nazism was their public relations departments.
December 29th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
To add a laywoman’s view to Raven’s point – consider this. A person with OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) can overcome his disorder by realizing that the compulsions come from a malfunctioning brain, rather than from some real outside source that could be causing problems. For example, if a gent with OCD believes he has to wash his hands for exactly twenty minutes (minutes, not seconds) because of germs, his *mind* (not his brain) could realize that this compulsion comes from a malfunctioning brain and re-wire himself so that he overcomes his compulsion.
Likewise, a lady like me, who was “liberal” in youth (anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc.) was influenced by outside sources that told me that all that stuff was good and right. On my own, I studied and came to the conclusion that the things I believed weren’t right, and I have become more “conservative.” (I don’t label myself Liberal or Conservative – I’m Catholic, and that’s the only “political view” I take.) If one were to compare my brain as a youngster of 16 with my brain as a woman of 33, might the different areas be different sizes? Possibly. That would then be an effect, not a cause.
So instead of it being “hard wired,” brain size could be an indication of change in the brain, or brain use. But people imply that if the brain shows something, then it’s “hard wired” into us. Which is baloney. The brain is an object, the mind is subject, and the two interact but aren’t the same. Therefore, as Raven pointed out MUCH better than I have, the idea of something being “hard wired” into humans should always, *always* be suspect.
December 29th, 2010 | 3:30 pm
jc: “Padraig, I wouldn’t say that’s the case. Every election year, we’re told the Republicans will take away social security. ”
That’s because the Republicans keep saying they want to do it. Check out Ron Paul’s stuff. Or at least privatize it. Can you imagine a Social Security fund that’s tied to the stock market? Now THAT is scary.
jc: “Fearmongering isn’t a left-right thing, it’s a rhetorical strategy as old as politics itself, and a powerful motivator. Sometimes though, fear is rightly warranted and the correct response.”
True, but it seems to me conservatives most often exploit a fear of change. To me, welcoming and adapting to change is a mark of liberalism, and trying to stifle it is a mark of conservatism.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 29th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
padraig: Change isn’t a synonym for progress. But we need both those who put their foot on the gas and those who put it on the brake. I used to be a peddle to the metal guy, now I am alarmed at the careening I perceive, and I am tapping the brake to prevent a spin out.
December 29th, 2010 | 5:59 pm
[...] Biology and Politics: They Can’t Help It, It’s Their Brains - Secondhand Smoke [...]
December 29th, 2010 | 8:00 pm
“That’s because the Republicans keep saying they want to do it. Check out Ron Paul’s stuff. Or at least privatize it. Can you imagine a Social Security fund that’s tied to the stock market? Now THAT is scary.”
How about giving people the option of investing a percentage of their social security in the market? Does that still sound ludicrous to you?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 29th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
bmmg39 and all: Let’s not get into SS or economics. Merci.
December 29th, 2010 | 8:18 pm
One thing we all must be careful with, is assuming that, different regions of the brain, are “for” certain things. It’s true, that the brain does seem to work in a modular fashion, to some extent, but, and this is the crucial point, each part, relies on others parts, to carry out its function. There’s a tremendous amount of communication, between various brain areas, with even the most rudimentary of activities.
Certainly, unless one wishes to postulate the dubious existence of some Cartesian immaterial “ghost”, as it were, to explain human functions, it’s obvious, that, the brain is responsible for ALL our traits, political, or ideological ones being no exception. and, since, obviously, liberals, and conservatives think differently, this must be a reflection of different neural states. But, as Raven pointed out, brains are highly plastic, meaning they change, as an adaptation, to new experiences.
December 30th, 2010 | 11:32 am
Wes: “I used to be a peddle to the metal guy, now I am alarmed at the careening I perceive, and I am tapping the brake to prevent a spin out.”
Wes, that feeling you’re experiencing is called “aging.” Have it myself. Doesn’t mean we should get in the kids’ way.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 30th, 2010 at 11:46 am
I prefer to call it wisdom. But we should keep them from driving off a cliff.
December 30th, 2010 | 2:09 pm
Padraig and re the study-but if you think of it another way, liberal arguments are based on fear, too:
Outlaw late term abortion, and women will loose the right to vote! Don’t have that down syndrome baby or your life will be over! The government is tapping your phone liines and coming after your Arab neighbors! We must have ESCR or we’ll never find a cure for breast cancer! Bush is Hitler! Religious opposition to gay marriage is hate speech, no matter what the context! The police are out to shoot you!
So, when taken to their extreme, both viewpoints cause problems with how one percieves actual problems and events. IMO, sometimes the conservative position is right, and sometimes the liberal position is right. That is why I am a moderate.
December 30th, 2010 | 5:48 pm
I think the saying
‘If you’re 20 and aren’t a liberal, you don’t have a heart; if you’re 40 and aren’t a conservative, you don’t have a brain.’
sums it up well, but I’m sure you would need brain scans over time to prove it.
There is a difference between what sounds like a good idea and what is actually a good idea. The wisdom of discernment comes from real life experience.
I have never heard a liberal argument that wasn’t based on guilt, fear of returning to the 1950′s, or had any rational underpinnings. And I’m under 30, so you can trust me on that.
December 30th, 2010 | 7:58 pm
safepres: “Outlaw late term abortion, and women will loose the right to vote! Don’t have that down syndrome baby or your life will be over! The government is tapping your phone liines and coming after your Arab neighbors! We must have ESCR or we’ll never find a cure for breast cancer! Bush is Hitler! Religious opposition to gay marriage is hate speech, no matter what the context! The police are out to shoot you! ”
I live in an extremely liberal community and I’ve never heard any of these, so I presume you made them up. The conservative fear messages I paraphrased did NOT originate with me.
Perhaps where you got this from was conservative talk radio. They love to put words like this in “liberals”‘ mouths. I’ve only heard one liberal, an alderman, who sounds the way conservatives say liberals sound, and she was run out of office.
December 31st, 2010 | 12:02 am
Paidraig: I’m sorry, but no. After the “partial birth” abortion decision, Joy Bauer asked if the government was going to take away the right to vote next. I have done extensive research on the abortion issue and the top reasons I’ve seen women give for having an abortion in the case of a prenatal diagnosis is either that they feel that the baby would consume their entire lives, and/or that the baby would have a life filled with suffering. This mind set is used by some pro choice advocates when they argue for the legality of late term abortion-prenatal diagnosis is always used as an example of a situation in which a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy at a late stage. During the Bush administration I repeatedly saw articles and news stories that insinuated that the government was, in fact, tapping people’s phone lines and that it was just a matter of time until the government started spying on our arab neighbors. The Bush/Hitler analogy was made by a very liberal friend of mine just a few months ago, and I have heard that analogy before. Often such insinuations were made on signs during some of the liberal protest rallies. During the 2004 election, Kerry said that the lame would literally walk of he was elected because he would fund ESCR. During the 2008 election, Biden said that Palin must not REALLY care about special needs kids because she doesn’t support ESCR. In other Western countries, pastors have been arrested for speaking against homosexuality. This hasn’t happened here, but there is a big effort on the part of some in the liberal community to cast ANY
December 31st, 2010 | 12:11 am
Sorry, I hit the submit button by mistake-there is a big effort among some liberals to cast ANYONE who has any kind of religious objection, even that arising out of honest questioning and not bigotry, to homosexuality as a first class bigot. It is also very common for the extreme left to portray the police as bad guys. For an example of what I’m talking about, look at this commercial by MoveOn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVmYcswXTcE
This commercial contains almost all of the fear factors I mentioned, except the police.
It also bothers me that you assume I listen to talk radio and that Wesley recycles his posts from fox news. ONe of the reasons I read Wesley’s blog is because I would NEVER KNOW about the issues he covers unless he did it because NONE of the networks, including Fox, pay any attention to them. You shouldn’t assume people get their info from a source just because the source you are referencing has a political angle going and the info happens to (in your view) support that political angle.
December 31st, 2010 | 2:46 am
[...] Smith over at First Things points out a couple more flaws in the study: Notice “normal” brain structure is always the [...]
December 31st, 2010 | 10:31 am
We’re getting far afield from the subject of the post, but I wanted to remind padraig that perhaps the most famous example of fear-based campaigning in recent US history, the 1964 “Daisy” ad for LBJ, was used against conservative Barry Goldwater.
Also, scare tactics over Social Security reform do not cease being scare tactics if you think the fear is warranted.
January 3rd, 2011 | 2:54 am
This year the Republicans will count on their amygdalas very often to give them the courage to oppose even the good proposals and the atmosphere in the House of Representatives will thus be very emotional. So it all fits to the description.
January 3rd, 2011 | 9:08 pm
Anyone seriously suggesting political position be made into a “suspect category for civil rights and hate crime protection” probably needs to trim the fat from his amygdala.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 3rd, 2011 at 9:24 pm
It’s satire, PT.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact