Brain ''Wiring''

[modest]

Is political orientation transmitted genetically?

 

My parents wish! :steering:

 

-modest

[REASON]

Interesting article.

 

Of course it says nothing about political persuasion relative to hemispheric orientation or genetic aptitude for political leadership positions.

[freeztar]

My parents wish! :evil:

 

I'm right there with you, or is that left there with you. :)

 

Edit: Double entendre! :steering:

[freeztar]

Interesting article.

 

Of course it says nothing about political persuasion relative to hemispheric orientation or genetic aptitude for political leadership positions.

 

Nor should it!

It's strange enough as it is. :steering:

[Brinnie]

With the Presidential elections coming up in 2008, I would like to start a discussion on what may be a biochemical difference in human beings. My question is this:

 

why are approximately 40% of Americans liberal and 40 %

conservative with the rest somewhere in between?

How can two people view the same event and have totally different perceptions of what occurred and the sequelae thereof?

 

Yes, to be a politician one must be part machine.

Politicians have to carry out critical tasks and orders.

 

i think everybody in Americon basically has the same overall views: No stealing or killing, fr33 spe4ch, etc... but the HUGE differences are in moral. [1] WatchingAmerica.com covers what the rest of the world thinks of Americans and America. if u have lived abroad, this will clearly hit home. if not, u may learn just how isolated we r. scientifically, abortion and stem cell research is all in a days work. but not 2 morally concerned folk, such as baptists. politicians will try 2 appeal 2 voters regardless of what they truly believe in and so will u, but that's a different story...

 

nobody is entirely right-brained or left brained. at best, hemispheres can contrast at 70/30. teh most successful business leaders r in fact “balanced” that is 2 say they hav no predominance, so they think logically and methodically but equally, they can b creative and not b confined by paradigms [1]

 

yes, we r obviously wired. how is a completely social.

[Ahmabeliever]

You Are 30% Left Brained, 70% Right Brained

 

The left side of your brain controls verbal ability, attention to detail, and reasoning.

Left brained people are good at communication and persuading others.

If you're left brained, you are likely good at math and logic.

Your left brain prefers dogs, reading, and quiet.

 

The right side of your brain is all about creativity and flexibility.

Daring and intuitive, right brained people see the world in their unique way.

If you're right brained, you likely have a talent for creative writing and art.

Your right brain prefers day dreaming, philosophy, and sports.

 

Looks like about as right (hair) brained as it gets. Though the test failed to point out I also enjoy long walks on the beach.

 

I prefer sports - WTF? No, I do not like sports,

I am good at math? I did many grades solely in my head, till at a certain point the game was up, it was too complex, and I'd failed to learn any formulas leading up to that point.

 

I agree where Buffy said the majority think a variant of "a pox on both their houses".

 

Nature and nurture could enter the debate too.

 

eg:

 

A right brainer in low economic bracket has a lot less time for dreaming and may become very pragmatic. Of course, he will still dare to dream, but knows he must act to feed his family. The stresses placed on an individual including all social educational and experential inputs will alter individuals from 'type'.

 

Practicality and organisational thought can be learned. Communication and reasoning can be learned.

 

But can creativity be taught? Can intuition be taught? Without these functions in leadership are we not lacking?

 

I really enjoyed hydrogen bonds earlier sports analogies concerning the subject at hand.

 

A right brain coach with a left brained team. This formula works.

 

As a geek game strategist my right brain called the plays and the left brain boys took us to win the championship with strategies I made.

 

As an editor my right brain made it pleasing to the eye, figured out how to sell lots of sponsorship deals to reduce advertising, and made it interesting to read, my left brained secretary did everything else. We doubled the size and tripled the circulation of that paper in 6 months.

 

Winning combo.

 

Emotion seems to rule over intellect when it comes to political views with many people, that or complete apathy. Similar to religion in this respect.

 

Is fundamentalism a right wing phenomenon? How prevalent?

 

If the biblical version of end times is correct... and fundamentalist types are correct in their beliefs that it is end times...

would they not be 'the select few' surrounded by 'the immoral majority'?

not 40% of the population...

:hihi:

[questor]

As yet, I have not seen an explanation of why a large portion of the population is liberal and a large portion is conservative. Both camps are exposed to the same information, but the perceptions and conclusions reached are quite different. Consider the issues of immigration, education, affirmative action, prayer in schools, capital punishment, morality, etc. How can people living in the same country, with the same facts available, come to opposite opinions? Arguments from either side hardly ever change an oponents mind because his opinion has been reached by his own personal way of processing data.

[InfiniteNow]

As yet, I have not seen an explanation of why a large portion of the population is liberal and a large portion is conservative.

 

<...>

 

How can people living in the same country, with the same facts available, come to opposite opinions?

It's interesting you say that you've never seen such an explanation, as one has been repeatedly offered you in this very thread. I think that you've often seen these explanations, you've just chosen to ignore them since they don't fit with the worldview which is required of the bilateral dominance model you propose.

 

People have different life experiences, regardless how they share a country or a job type or a whatever. They each have very unique circumstances which make them an individual, and those past experiences act as a filter on all new incoming information.

 

It is not as simple as you're trying to force it to be. We are much more than just a collection of genes within some borders on a map...

 

 

I will make this as basic and simple as I can through an analogy which covers both the nature and nurture sides of the conversation which have been raised:

 

You have a mother. I have a mother. Why aren't we exactly the same? Well, we had different mothers. Simple really.

[Zythryn]

No one is 100% rational. We all are swayed by different arguments even if the underlying facts are the same.

Values are different from person to person. And their personal values color the way they see facts. Not so much in changing the facts, but in determining the importance of the facts related to other facts.

 

For example, three people may see a homeless person sleeping in a park. One seeks out a way to help the immediate needs of the person by buying them soup and a sandwich at a diner across the street.

The second may donate money to an adult education center hoping to help address homelessness on a larger scale.

The third sees this as a possible danger to children in the park and seeks out a police officer to remove the person.

 

All three felt they were doing good. And others in each of the cases would likely disagree that they were not just wasting their time, efforts or even that they were doing evil.

 

Which one is right?

Which one is wrong?

[CraigD]

As yet, I have not seen an explanation of why a large portion of the population is liberal and a large portion is conservative.

Though my judgment is, as is almost certainly necessarily the case with as vaguely and controversially defined terms as “liberal” and “conservative” (See the wikipedia articles “Conservativism”, “Neoconservatism”, and “Liberalism” for fairly lengthy discussions of this vagueness and contraversy) , the most compelling explanation I’ve yet encountered is the one offered by George Lakoff in his 1996 book “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think”.

 

In this work, Lakoff answer the question by proposing the existence of two dominant and contradictory worldviews, acquired early in life through an enculturation (“nurture”, or learned behavior, not “nature” or innate genetic determination) process early in life: the “strict father morality” and the “nurturant parent morality”.

 

I strongly recommend this book – not only to questor, but to all readers interested in this questions - and to myself, as to date, while I’ve read considerable commentary and analysis of it, I’ve yet to read the original book. ;)

[HydrogenBond]

In this work, Lakoff answer the question by proposing the existence of two dominant and contradictory worldviews, acquired early in life through an enculturation (“nurture”, or learned behavior, not “nature” or innate genetic determination) process early in life: the “strict father morality” and the “nurturant parent morality”.

 

I think things are clearer if the nurturant parent morality is replaced by the mother. A good mother doesn't make distinctions between her children but will love them all. In fact, she will often put more effort into the child who is different, since he needs more love. The strict father may side more with the child who plays by the rules.

 

If you look at liberalism it is more likely to spawn activism. This is a different side of the mother-child relationship. The spoiled child is the one who throws a tantrum to get his way. The conservative father wants to give him a time out or worse. But the mother often feeds into this by creating a symbiosis that will reinforce this behavior in the future. What the mother gains is a child for life who is dependent upon her.

 

The moderates are the children in the middle, who get alone with both parents but are not their favorites. Each parent favors the extremes, who form a better symbiosis with the needs of the parents.

 

The dynamics at the level of the parents is antagonistic but the relationship is held together with a common passion. This passion does not make sense at the rational level. But at some irrational level there is a bond, that occurs behind closed doors. But in the light of day (publicly) they will agree to disagree to maintain the special relationship with their favorites.

[questor]

The discussions on this topic are interesting, but generally concern the overt expressions of people who may be called liberal or conservative. My topic is more concerned about the biochemical or cellular basis that causes this difference. As research continues on brain function and technology allows us to examine tissues on a functional basis rather than depend on dead cells, we may come to better knowledge about this difference in ''brain wiring''.

It is quite obvious to me that this difference exists as anyone following the current political scene may deduce. People with a conservative mentality view issues such as the war, taxation, morality, education, religion and government in a different light from those of liberal persuasion. The question is why? And also, which method of ratiocination produces the best results for the society?

[Zythryn]

questor, I think your premise is not accurate.

There may be a biochemical 'aspect' to liberal or conservative, but it is certainly not dictated by biochemistry.

People change (some don't). I used to be very liberal, I am now fairly conservative in many areas.

 

People with a conservative mentality view issues such as the war, taxation, morality, education, religion and government in a different light from those of liberal persuasion.

 

You have it backwards. People who view the war in one way are labeled conservatives. The reason they view it in such a way is not because they are conservative, they are labeled conservative because of their views.

The reason for those views stem from upbringing and life events, not because of some arbitrary label assigned to them.

[InfiniteNow]

My topic is more concerned about the biochemical or cellular basis that causes this difference.

 

But in that very statement, you implicitly assume that these ideological differences are caused by biochemical or cellular structures. You have yet to offer a single bit of evidence of this assumed cause/effect relationship.

 

 

Conclusions grounded in false premises are themselves false, no matter how logical the steps in the middle may appear.

 

 

EDIT: I cross-posted with Zythryn. :eek2:

[questor]

I must need some tutoring. Please tell me which human activities, including thought, are not carried on by biochemical reactions?

[InfiniteNow]

I must need some tutoring. Please tell me which human activities, including thought, are not carried on by biochemical reactions?

 

You must stop equivocating. "Carried on" and "caused by" are not one and the same.

[Zythryn]

Your implications seems to be that some fundamental difference in the chemical makup of the brain causes people to be either 'conservative' or 'liberal' and that this is 'hard wired' in some way.

If that was not your intent, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Could you perhaps rephrase your position and assumptions? This will help me understand what your position is.

 

Edit - Infi you beat me to it this time:)