Is this why scientists tend to vote for Democrats?

Submitted by Gabriel on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 10:18am. Tags:

Science and Tech

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Lacking any scientific basis it has always been my opinion that this, or something like this, is true. Liberals and conservatives do tend to think differently, not just arrive at different conclusions. And maybe this explains why so many who work on high-tech tend to be liberals.
--

This place is my vacation.

Gabriel's blog
Login or register to post comments

Didn't Larry Summers get fired over something like this? (#57896)

by tomsyl on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 1:01pm

After all, some polls show women tend to vote more liberal than men do.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

(

)

I agree, this is pointless. -nt- (#57899)

by Punditus Maximus on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 1:07pm

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

This is an example of the (#57873)

by Juker on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 11:37am

This is an example of the poor science that is typical of the social sciences. Was there statistical control for education level, age and such factors? Is it repeatable? (The article does mention that the experiment was also performed in reverse, but I doubt that is really enough.)

OK, "W" is an upside down "M" -- but "W" is an obvious emotive symbol for liberals. Did this skew the results?

Do the authors show that their results are attributable to liberal v. conservative specifically? I mean, they might have gotten the same response using dog owners v. cat owners.

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please --Mark Twain

(

)

A couple of points (#57880)

by Wagster on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 12:07pm

The subjects were all college students, and yes, they did switch the M and Ws.

More Wagster!

(

| parent )

Yes, students for hire (#58054)

by Juker on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 9:46pm

Oops, that was in the first paragraph and I missed it.

I haven't read the original paper (haven't looked). A commenter on Lubos Motl's site said:

"I read that paper. In the sample of 43 people, of who 8 self-identified as conservative, and when making a snap-decision on whether to press a button or not, the liberals averaged 37% errors while the conservatives averaged 47%."

If this is accurate then BFD. And shame on the LAT. Wow, 43 students earned their beer money and a researcher's marginal hypothesis gets national coverage.

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please --Mark Twain

(

| parent )

Personally (#58127)

by Sulla on Tue, 09/11/2007 - 11:33am

I would not be surprised if it is the cover of Newsweek and Time next week.

"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss

(

| parent )

I don't have the report.... (#57862)

by Bernard Guerrero on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 10:57am

...so my comment must perforce be limited to personal experience. That said, I find the reality on the ground in my own life to be so different as to cast question on the blurb above.

My wife and I are easily the most "conservative" people in our local circle in political terms. We're the only people who regularly vote GOP, are pro-war and in favor of lower taxes and social spending. That said, we're also the only ones who regularly take our kids to MOMA, eat anything exotic, avoid church, etc. I think we're easily the most flexible on a number of different dimensions. How to rencile this with the report? Either we're outliers, the report is wrong or (and I'd put my money on this one) they're using a very particular definition of "conservative". Or possibly the subjects, if self-identified in that fashion, are using very specific markers themselves.

The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer

(

)

You're not a conservative (#57870)

by TXG1112 on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 11:29am

You're an imperialist. :) To be honest, most of your views are pretty radical from my perspective. From reading your posts over the years, you seem pretty flexible on social issues, (though I could be wrong) which is where I suspect the conservative definitions come from.

I would not be surprised at all to find out that you were an outlier by any measure. :) We wouldn't have it any other way.

---
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

(

| parent )

Can't agree. My family share a lot of the Guerrero family (#57889)

by Ken White on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 12:24pm

attributes and so do a large majority of my friends and extended family in several States -- not including the northeast.

Perhaps he appears to be an outlier only due to where he's located and is not as a resident of the larger nation...

The K Codes explained HERE.

(

| parent )

You are too. (#57903)

by TXG1112 on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 1:57pm

I don't think you or Bernard measure in the "normal" range for most things. By simple dint of you posting here and your basic political awareness puts you well outside the "mainstream".

Don't worry, being an outlier is a good thing. :)

---
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.

(

| parent )

Possibly true but I think the mainstream is far more diverse (#57914)

by Ken White on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 2:41pm

and aware than many give them credit for.

The K Codes explained HERE.

(

| parent )

Maybe... (#58057)

by M Aurelius on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 9:54pm

But consider that you and Bernard are patrons of this site, with it's peculiar collection of conservatives and liberals who seem to share one thing, the ability to beat to our own drum.

I think a good many of us here are outliers. I suspect the whole Forvm is an outlier.

As for the study, I think there is a correlation, particularly with religious social conservatives; the kind who think the bible is the literal source of knowledge of natural history.

I don't think free-market semi-libertarian types qualify.

I also think far-left types, commies and the like, are more like far-right religious conservatives than they are like liberals.

I think a quick metric of ideological rigidity is the length of the list of things you believe you (or the state) have the right to kill, imprison, or torture for. The longer your list, the more rigid you are. Family background and personal history may make you a Chavista or a fundamentalist Christian, but the mindset is surprisingly similar. Basically, such people do not listen.

Because of the way the US is structured, I suspect a lot more people of this kind turn to the right than to the left. I believe this is a local effect, though. It probably does not hold internationally. The study may be valid, and yet not universal.

Of course not!

(

| parent )

Well said (#57871)

by Bill White on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 11:35am

Recall that just about all of the prominent neo-conservatives started out as flaming liberals.

Which is why they are driven to shape the world in America's image using the US military and economy as a tool of world building (a generous view) or put our boot on their necks (a more traditional imperialist view).

Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.

(

| parent )

Follow-up. (#57863)

by Bernard Guerrero on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 11:00am

I'm not sure that your post title follows, either. Most of my experience with scientists, either "hard" science or econ, has admittedly been in an academic setting. That said, they've always seemed like a pretty hidebound lot to me. Science advances one obituary at a time....

The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer

(

| parent )

I don't think scientists (#57868)

by Gabriel on Mon, 09/10/2007 - 11:35am

are perfectly 'flexible' in their willingness to accept new ideas but they certainly are more willing than the population at large. Otherwise there would be no scientific advance.

As for you personal experience, as you know you can't get much from a single data point. Scientists and those that work in high-tech vote for Democrats in higher numbers than the rest of the population but it doesn't mean that ALL of them do. Plus, I agree with TXG1112 that you are not really much of a conservative.

This place is my vacation.

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries