Brain ''Wiring''

[questor]

Brain closed, case closed.

[InfiniteNow]

Brain closed, case closed.

 

 

An open mind is more about accepting nothing, than about accepting everything.

 

~ Eclogite's signature

[CraigD]

In “Guantanamo Bay: Shame on you, United States” post #130, creator of this thread questor, responded to a reference to a 9/10/2007 article “Study finds liberal-conservative difference in brain functioning” about this paper by David Amodio, John Jost, Sarah Master, and Cindy Yee, with the claim that it supports his claim that

Right brain thinkers occupy the liberal wing of politics. some are benign, some are violent activists. They have difficulty understanding cause and effect, they may be able to describe a problem, but can't understand the proper way to solve it.

This was promply – and I think correctly – rebuffed in the Guantanamo Bay thread, noting that Amodio et al’s research, though focused on neural differences between self-identified liberals and conservatives, did not address brain lateralization (left/right brain function), let alone support questor’s claim.

 

This study actually appears to exactly contradict a related claim by questor that

They [liberals] do not easily change their minds when presented with facts when the facts are contrary to their beliefs

Amodio’s study reaches exactly the opposite conclusion: that a self-identified liberal is significantly more likely to change his response than a self-identified conservative.

 

Amodio’s study is very interesting, and bears summarizing here, to avoid misunderstand such as that to which questor appears to have initially fallen victim.

• 27 women and 16 men, all right handed (right handedness is important for technical reasons having to do with the test procedure) describe their political attitudes by selecting a number from -5 (for extremely liberal) to +5 (for extremely conservative).
  
• Each subject was seated at a computer screen with a keyboard in his or her lap, and instructed to quickly (with .5 sec) press a key when one of two letters (the letter M or W) appears on the center of the screen, and to press no key when the other appears The specified letter is called the Go Stimulus.
  
• This test is repeated 500 times at about 2 sec intervals, with a 2 minute break at the halfway point of the roughly 15 minute process. In a random pattern, the Go stimulus is displayed about 80% of the time.
  

(The authors’ more detailed description of this procedure is given here)

 

This mostly-Go, a few no-Go test requires the subject to anticipate the Go stimulus, but “catch themselves” before erroneously pressing the key for the no-Go stimulus. This is associated with activity in the anterior cingulate cortex region of the brain. The subjects were fitted with electrodes and connected to a recording device that allowed detection of this activity.

 

In short, liberals were significantly less likely than conservatives to make incorrect key presses. The authors speculate, and cite previous research suggesting, that this fundamental neurological trait explains the tendancy of liberals to “flip flop” by changing their opinions on various questions when presented with new information, and conservatives to “stay the course” by not changing their answers when presented with new information.

 

Although this study appears to exactly contradict questor’s claims, a 7/12/2007 comment to the cited article contains the following

Similar work about 4 years ago. Using PET scans.

 

More “emotional center” response to pictures of conservative versus liberal figures in confessed liberals..Versus “objective area” response in conservatives.

Although this comment provided no references, and may simply be repeating a “neuroscience myth”, questor or other interested folk might want to pursue this lead in an effort to find a reference to the work to which Joe refers.

[questor]

Craig, as I read the experiment by Amodio et al, the reaction to the submitted tests do not show information as to the political affiliation of the subjects but only describe their reactions to certain stimuli. I assume the political affiliation was a subjective statement by the participant preceeding the study. I am not certain that brain lateralization is of itself a reason for the difference in thought patterns and I stated this caveat in one of my posts. I am certain that a difference exists and can be demonstrated clearly

by asking certain questions. I do not know which lobes are involved. When reading research papers on left-brain, right- brain thinking the description of traits exhibited by supposed lateralization seem to be equivalent, so the right brain traits are consistent with my observance of people who are usually politically liberal, and the left with the conservatives. Proper research will someday be done on this subject because I believe it has importance in picking national leaders. After all businesses spend thousands of dollars on tests in picking their senior officers, why should not the president of the US

be scrutinized thoroughly?

[REASON]

Nice thread questor.

 

It appears that you have come to the conclusion that you and your superior "left brained" cohorts, with your business and economic savvy, and your obvious advanced ability to recognize the consequences of your actions, should be the one's to hold office, at any level I'm sure you'd agree, and in effect, take over the world.

 

This has got Master Race written all over it.

 

Well you know what, we've already been down this road, so you know the outcome.

 

Do you even realize that you have become so immersed in your bigotry that you have developed a prejudice against the right side of your own brain?

 

I imagine the biggest difficulty you have is having to constantly remind yourself, "Left is right, left is right."

 

Maybe it would do you some good to spend a little more research time toward understanding the environmental impacts on political persuasion instead of trying to link it to some unqualified notion of genetic brain functioning.

 

Maybe you could conduct a study to determine what the political tendencies would be of someone who only listens to conservative talk radio, for example. Or Air America for that matter. You can't form beliefs around concepts you know nothing about. The direction you steer the information will be the road you travel.

 

Politically, I am a self proclaimed Independent, left-leaning moderate who believes in liberal mindedness and consevative fiscal policy. I expect I am this way because I choose to exercise both halves of my brain, which I cherish equally.

 

Looks like you need to do a little right-brained workout, questor. You've been neglecting it too long.

[questor]

Reason, you may want to buy some Valium, a discussion should not cause so much intemperance. Since you call me a bigot among other things, please explain why you do so. It is clear to me by your writing that you are liberal--

''Politically, I am a self proclaimed Independent, left-leaning moderate who believes in liberal mindedness and consevative fiscal policy. I expect I am this way because I choose to exercise both halves of my brain, which I cherish equally.''

Since I don't know how you describe ''liberal mindedness'' and ''conservative fiscal policy'', I can't speak to those beliefs, but some may think these are

mutually exclusive positions.

I am not interested in a master race. I am interested in trying to always having the best qualified for the particular job. Sometimes it's a lefty, sometimes a righty.

[CraigD]

Craig, as I read the experiment by Amodio et al, the reaction to the submitted tests do not show information as to the political affiliation of the subjects but only describe their reactions to certain stimuli.

The hozontal axis of the scatter plot in Figure 1 of the Nature Neuroscience articleis of the study participant’s self-described political attitudes, on a -5=most liberal to +5=most conservative scale.

I assume the political affiliation was a subjective statement by the participant preceeding the study.

As described in the supplement linked to here and in my previous post, each subject’s political attitude was measured by having them complete, in private, a questionnaire consisting of the single question described above. No one except the subject knew the response given until after completion of the study.

 

For all intents and purposes, with the exceptions of people such as Congresspersons who’s legislative voting records are public, all knowledge of people’s political attitudes can only be known through self-reporting. Self-reported conservativism vs. liberalism correlates strongly with self-reported voting in 2004 for George W. Bush vs. John Kerry (r = .79, p < 0.001 – from a reference in the linked article).

 

It’s important to note that self-reported data is not subjective. That a particular survey subject chooses a particular -5 to +5 value is an objective datum. If, by looking at and conversed with a subject, the surveyors were to assigned a value, this would be a subjective judgment. No well-controlled study should use this latter approach.

I am not certain that brain lateralization is of itself a reason for the difference in thought patterns and I stated this caveat in one of my posts.

It’s important to note that the term brain lateralization, as used scientifically by neurologists, refers to the segregation of specific cognitive functions to one or the other hemisphere of the brain, not to a trait attributable to individuals. The only truly “left-brained” or “right-brained” individuals are ones who have had one hemisphere of their brain badly damaged – in which case, it’s observed that many functions formerly localized in the damaged hemisphere reappear in the undamaged one.

 

Questor, I recommend you review the literature explaining the error of using this neurological term and concept as you have in this thread. A brief description and a reference can be found in the “Pseudoscientific exaggeration of the research” section of the above linked wikipedia article.

[questor]

Craig, I admire your ability to do research and present you arguments so well. When I started this thread, I did not claim scientific proof for my observations. I did list some findings by some researchers as to personality traits exhibited by different people. I did not imagine these traits, they are consistently listed by researchers.

 

''Right Brain Inventory

• Visual, focusing on images, patterns

• Intuitive, led by feelings

• Process ideas simultaneously

• 'Mind photos' used to remember things, writing things down or illustrating them helps you remember

• Make lateral connections from information

• See the whole first, then the details

• Organisation ends to be lacking

• Free association

• Like to know why you're doing something or why rules exist (reasons)

• No sense of time

• May have trouble with spelling and finding words to express yourself

• Enjoy touching and feeling actual objects (sensory input)

• Trouble prioritising, so often late, impulsive

• Unlikely to read instruction manual before trying

 

Left Brain Inventory

• Verbal, focusing on words, symbols, numbers

• Analytical, led by logic

• Process ideas sequentially, step by step

Words used to remember things, remember names rather than faces

• Make logical deductions from information

• Work up to the whole step by step, focusing on details, information organised

• Highly organised

• Like making lists and planning

• Likely to follow rules without questioning them

• Good at keeping track of time

• Spelling and mathematical formula easily memorised

• Enjoy observing

• Plan ahead

• Likely read an instruction manual before trying

 

I am totally aware this is not an all or none situation, few things are. The

Amodio study doesn't impress me as very scientific--too many subjective

aspects. We are now at the stage where electrodes or heat emanation from different brain areas can better inform us where the activity is. If lateralization plays no part in this liberal-conservative dichotomy of thought, what does it matter, the phenomenon still exists and is evident. The jury is out until specific research is done on this issue.

[REASON]

Reason, you may want to buy some Valium, a discussion should not cause so much intemperance.

 

I've never taken Valium. Will it make me stop laughing at your ridiculous, unsupported, self-serving premise?

 

Or maybe you just wanted to imply that I have a drinking problem.

 

My intemperance arises out of the gall you display here in attempting to suggest that people of your ilk possess some sort of genetically superior mental construct because you tend to favor a particular hemisphere when processing information. Further, you have implied that the creative mind is irrational, and those that are oriented that way, liberals as you suggest, are therefore less qualified to hold office. It's narcissistic bunk.

 

Since you call me a bigot among other things, please explain why you do so.

 

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

Your posts are rife with contempt for liberals whom you are attributing specifically to right-brained orientation while providing no data to support such a conclusion. This is stereotyping. Use of terms intended to be derogatory, such as "libs", "dems", and "democrat", where democratic would be the proper usage, are clear indicators of your bigotry.

 

It is clear to me by your writing that you are liberal--

 

Don't try and fit me into one of your nifty little boxes. You know nothing about me whatsoever, other than my political proclamation, and my distaste for your fallatious assertions.

 

I will offer that I am in no way ashamed of either the liberal, or conservative elements of my mental make-up.

 

''Politically, I am a self proclaimed Independent, left-leaning moderate who believes in liberal mindedness and consevative fiscal policy. I expect I am this way because I choose to exercise both halves of my brain, which I cherish equally.''

Since I don't know how you describe ''liberal mindedness'' and ''conservative fiscal policy'', I can't speak to those beliefs, but some may think these are

mutually exclusive positions.

 

Do you think I care what "some people may think?" It seems perfectly reasonable to me, in reference to politics, to be supportive of progressive policies that are fiscally responsible.

 

To name a few, I support consumption taxes, fiscal responsibility, a work-for-welfare program, a restricted second ammendment, environmental protection, national security, a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, limited government, single payer government run healthcare, the US military, the VA, the separation of church and state, sensible tort reform, renewable energy, "Green" development practices, border security, civil rights, bi-partisanship, and it doen't bother me that the word "God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm all over the map, questor. So how do I fit in your pre-theory?

 

I am not interested in a master race. I am interested in trying to always having the best qualified for the particular job. Sometimes it's a lefty, sometimes a righty.

 

But you have implied throughout this thread that left-brain oriented people, such as you view yourself, are best qualified for leadership positions. And since you contend, with nothing but your personal experience, that this is a result of brain "wiring", your suggestion is that people who think as you do are genetically superior. How does that not smack of "Master Race"?

 

Take a look at your so called left-brained leadership that currently holds office and commands business. We are currently in economic, monetary, and geopolitical crisis. We are bogged down in seemingly endless war. Approval ratings hover at all time lows. The country, including canidates from both parties, is rallying around change. This doesn't reflect well on your genetically superior thinking does it?

 

Your political "Brain Wiring" concept is nothing but self-serving bullshit!

 

(Reason heads to the drug store to pick up a Valium prescription)

[questor]

Reason, you are an angry man. Why would you get so worked up over a conversation? If you are liberal, aren't you proud? Let me speak to some of your comments: you said:

''To name a few, I support consumption taxes, fiscal responsibility, a work-for-welfare program, a restricted second ammendment, environmental protection, national security, a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, limited government, single payer government run healthcare, the US military, the VA, the separation of church and state, sensible tort reform, renewable energy, "Green" development practices, border security, civil rights, bi-partisanship, and it doen't bother me that the word "God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. I'm all over the map, questor. So how do I fit in your pre-theory?''

 

You ARE all over the map! How do you acomplish all these things without big goverment? Do you think a citizen is best served by being responsible for himself or should government play a major part in caring for the citizens?

Let me explain my position. If people exhibit the traits listed by researchers for right brain thinking, they would be better at literature, and the arts. If they exhibit the traits listed as left brain, they would be better at business management, and the sciences. I think that most people are crossovers in that they use both hemispheres but will usually be strongest on one side.

If this is true, which hemisphere would you say has the characteristics you would pick for your president?

I have said nothing about a master race, I'm just trying to match the talent to the job.

While you're getting your Valium, get some soap to wash out your mouth!

[InfiniteNow]

Reason, you are an angry man.

 

Out of all of the misrepresentations and ridiculously wrong comments you have made during your tenure at Hypography, the above takes the cake.

 

Reason is, to the best of my knowledge from reviewing his posts here on Hypography, a very reasonable and rational man.

 

What you interpret as "anger," questor... is "frustration" with your inability to empathize accurately with the thoughts of others and to support your assertions and to ammend those assertions when contradictory evidence is presented. Many here have tried to help you see the blinders you wear, but you seem unable to remove your cranium from your colon.

 

 

Is anyone else reminded of arguing evolution with a creationist here? Perhaps arguing anthropogenic climate change with a denialist?

 

 

 

Questor... Your little brain wiring idea (and support of torture in the GB thread) has the same scientific merit as the suggestion that leprechauns cause erections in purple unicorns. :)

[questor]

Infy, on the assumption you can do something other than post insults, how do you interpret these findings of traits?

Two Brains?

 

Everybody has two cerebral hemispheres that make up one brain. The left part is where speech comes from. It also controls the right side of your body. Our logic and reasoning skills come from this half as do number skills. The right side of your brain is your creative and athletic part. Art appreciation comes from this half. The right is known as the visual side. The right side is where spatial imagery comes from. People with damage here have a hard time picturing things. As people get older, they use one side more. Other parts of my page will go in depth with this.

 

The two halves are connected by a bundle of nerves called the corpus callosum. This is how the two halves communicate. Doctors used to think it served no purpose and it is still a common procedure to have it severed to protect you from seizures. Patients who have under gone this have little difference in the life. Doctors were sure that the bundle of millions of nerves must have some use. They started to do a lot of test. Most experiments used a split screen which would present a question or image to only one side of the brain. One test I read about and thought was neat involved a person named P.S. To the left side, the logical side, a picture of a chicken was presented. To the right side, a picture of a snow scene was shown. He was asked to select two cards from a series of cards. He picked one of a chicken, with his right hand, and one of a shovel with his left hand. (The right side of the brain controls the left hand and the left side controls the right hand.) The selections he made went together. He was then asked why. His left brain took over and used its language superiority to answer this. His right side couldn't contact his left side so he did not know why he selected the shovel. His left brain automatically employed its logic and gave the answer, "The chicken goes with the chicken and the shovel is used to clean his pen." He thought the answer was right but it wasn't. Pretty Neat.

 

For more information about this experiment and the doctor who was involved, please see Carl Zimmer's article from May 10, 2005: A Career Spent Learning How the Mind Emerges From the Brain

 

and also read this whole article:

Lateralization of brain function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freeztar]

Two Brains?

 

Everybody has two cerebral hemispheres that make up one brain....

 

First of all, it's good practice to take a small excerpt from a link rather than post the whole thing. Furthermore, it's good practice to put quote tags around the excerpt so that the reader is not confused between what you are saying and what your source is saying.

 

FYI, posting copyrighted materials in there entirity is considered plagerism and is against forum rules. Please keep this in mind in the future. Failure to comply with this rule, or any of the others, may lead to an infraction or other disciplinary actions.

 

With that out of the way, let's discuss the article...

 

I'm quite confused with how this article supports your original claims. It seems to be a general article explaining the concept, which we are all familiar with ("all" meaning the people that have been involved in this discussion).

Unfortunately, the link to Zimmer's page is broken, so I can't follow up on his research and how it may apply to your assertions.

 

and also read this whole article:

Lateralization of brain function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That link has been printed in this thread multiple times already. I personally have read the whole thing.

To bring up a point that Craig originally brought up, the end of the wiki has a section entitled, "Psuedoscientific exaggeration of the research".

I urge you to read this short paragraph and formulate a good response for why you think your ideas do not fall into this category.

Otherwise, it must be assumed that they do.

[InfiniteNow]

Unfortunately, the link to Zimmer's page is broken, so I can't follow up on his research and how it may apply to your assertions.

 

It appears to reference this:

 

SCIENTIST AT WORK: MICHAEL GAZZANIGA; A Career Spent Learning How the Mind Emerges From the Brain - New York Times

 

 

So you know, it doesn't support questor's claims about the impact of brain wiring on sociopolitical outlook.

[modest]

Our country is about to undergo

a tough political war with the winner being faced with the monumental job to lead us through some perilous and uncharted waters.

 

I think you’ll find America’s political turnovers much less bloody than the world average.

 

I call this ''different wiring''

 

Others call it Phrenology

 

 

It would seem that if the world's largest business is to be run properly you need to have a large portion of rationality with a seasoning of idealism.

Success, drive, ambition, morality, compassion, tolerance, large-vocabulary (stop me when I’ve gone too far) pleasant-smile, good handshake, male-of-the-species, blond hair, blue eyes…

 

I can envision the time when all our politicians will have to have their brains scanned so as to fit the activity which they are supposed to perform.

 

I’m sure you can.

 

I do know the difference in left brain- right brain thinking and it seems obvious to me that businesses and governments should be run by left brain thinkers, the more practical, pragmatic, mathematically inclined.

 

If you didn’t get this idea from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy you sure should have. In order to become president Zaphod had to have half his brain removed.

 

Oh, yeah, apparently you can't be president with a whole brain.

 

As proof of this theory, the US seems to be poised to elect a right brain thinker as President. A person who has no experience in business or management or foreign policy.

 

Rainman?

 

I always thought a better way to elect the president would be sort of a national election bee, based on the format of the spelling bee.

 

That’s how Dan Quayle lost in ‘92.

 

Right brain thinkers occupy the liberal wing of politics. some are benign, some are violent activists. They have difficulty understanding cause and effect, they may be able to describe a problem, but can't understand the proper way to solve it… They do not understand that forcing a productive worker to support a non-productive person is beneficial to neither. They are non-judgemental, meaning that no one gets criticized for bad behavior. This, of course, leads to more bad behavior. They are unable to understand the societal value of religion or a ''higher authority'', so they each make up their own set of morals which allow them to do ''whatever feels good'' at the time.

 

Do you think only presidents should be scanned and checked against the right brain scourge, or should the general population be as well? Do you think they should be put into prisons or perhaps segregated ghettos? Maybe we could make them wear a patch signifying they are righties. This kind of thing is not at all unheard of. There is actually a very well documented case-history we could go off of. I'm sorry if it sounds like strawmaning this position, but everything said here is leading there.

 

The truth is most people are not polar symbols of conservative or liberal ideology. Most people have issues and thought patterns that are traditionally conservative while also having issues and thought patterns that are liberal. We are not a bar-coded product of our left or right brain and neither are the candidates we support. Our beliefs are based on too many things to pigeon-holed like that. Our brains are complex and so are our beliefs. I have beliefs that are liberal and conservative.

 

We all must use our whole brain to consider and weigh issues before making up our mind. Only then should we take a political stand. Taking your cues from the far left or right and faithfully executing those orders without reason, logic, or understanding, is not left-brained or right-brained - it’s NO BRAINED.

 

We are far to similar and our differences far too few to claim we are biologically different because of our political affiliation. What is the motive behind such a belief? Why would one advocate that because of biological differences the liberals of this great nation are violently destroying it?

 

Fortunately some politicians are attempting to rise above our petty differences to bring the nation together. This is the best solution for the interests of the country. It is also directly opposite to the theme of this thread that apparently has NO effect beyond segregating the population and stigmatizing the half that disagree politically. This is abhorrent and literally, literally sickens me.

 

A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

 

In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?

-Barack Obama

[freeztar]

So you know, it doesn't support questor's claims about the impact of brain wiring on sociopolitical outlook.

 

I had a sneaking suspicion...

[questor]

I can offer no better example of different ''brain wiring'' than the last few posts. Obviously these people are wired alike. They interpret data or information the same way and express themselves in similar fashion. It would be quite interesting to find out what their political and societal philosophy is. It would also be interesting to know their age and employment history. I think I could construct a personality profile for them by asking a few questions. This would not be done on this site, but by personal email.