Brain ''Wiring''

[nutronjon]

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.

 

Up to age 8 our brains absorb information like a sponge. Then a filter is firmly established, and we become discriminate about what we agree with or disagree with. This process is not based on the facts at hand, but on what was learned and decisions made before 8 years of age.

 

Teaching critical thinking, and a life style that constantly activates critical thinking, will train the brain to work with the facts at hand. So far these forums appear to attract people with critical thinking skills. Surely everyone has experienced forums and people who do not have critical thinking skills. They reject even the most obvious facts, when they are not in agreement with what they learned before age 8. They are using their feelings to tell them what is true and what is not, not critically thinking skills. Surely you remember all the students to strongly resented having to get out of their 8 year old cocoon to learn something new. Christians in a college science cless dealing with the science that puts creativity in doubt, become extremely uncomfortable as their faith is put in question.

 

This phenomenia is also what makes our personality more or less stable, so at age 80 we are basically the same person we were at age 8. Sometimes it is very painful to witness an older person, dealing the world as s/he did at age 8. Changing what we hold to be true can feel like a life threatening event. We might reason, we are not dying, but who are we if not who we think we are? If we want hold to be true is not true, it can fundamentally change our sense of self, and thoughts of life after death.

 

It is my experience few religious fundamentalist have developed critical thinking skills. In this case, without question, the appeal of religion is to the right brain, and a person's emotions. Now you get a 56 year old man, who thinks Satan caused his MS disease, and that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, because they are not Christian, and therefore are evil, and we must destroy such evil. Thank goodness science has made progress in counteracting Satan, right.:applause: We can take pills that weaken the effect Satan has on our bodies.

[InfiniteNow]

This phenomenia is also what makes our personality more or less stable, so at age 80 we are basically the same person we were at age 8.

This seems to ignore the multitude of studies which show neural plasticity throughout life. While formative years do create a certain foundation for all future behavior, it is, by no means, static... Hence, the 80 is not "basically the same person" they were at 8.

[questor]

Infinite, you are speaking of macro physiology when you speak of neural pathways. I am speaking of micro physiology and biochemistry when I speak of the underlying mechanics that create these pathways.. Why don't we get on the same subject and you explain your perception of the biochemical basis of thought, otherwise this exchange of ideas has become quite boring and meaningless. Should I understand that your position as moderator gives you the right to belittle and insult others with no consequence to yourself? I would be interested in knowing where you studied biochemistry and neuro-physiology?

[InfiniteNow]

Should I understand that your position as moderator gives you the right to belittle and insult others with no consequence to yourself? I would be interested in knowing where you studied biochemistry and neuro-physiology?

 

I no longer moderate these boards. So, I can call you a dumbshit all I want as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences of my words from the people who are currently moderators. :)

 

Again, you asking me questions to support my stance does nothing to validate the claims you've been making, the claims we've been poking holes in.

 

Onus of proof is on the person making the claim. If you feel that something I've shared needs evidence in support, then let me know and I'll share said evidence.

 

However, you're continued questions to the rest of us is evasion, pure and simple. The issue here is that you're idea is false, no matter how much you yell that it isn't or ask arbitrary subjective questions, and it's become quite obvious that you can't back it up with data or evidence.

 

And, since you asked, I studied biochem and neuropsy at the University of Texas at Austin. :)

[questor]

In that case, if the moderators have any integrity, you should be banned from the site for gratuitous insults. Also, the next time you study a subject, keep the book open, you may learn something. Since you don't or can't understand what I'm talking about, go bother someone else.

[InfiniteNow]

In that case, if the moderators have any integrity, you should be banned from the site for gratuitous insults. Also, the next time you study a subject, keep the book open, you may learn something. Since you don't or can't understand what I'm talking about, go bother someone else.

 

Where do you believe I've insulted you (besides, maybe, the post before this one?) You said I've made "gratuitous insults." That's quite a claim. How about you show me specifically what you're talking about... direct quotes would be nice. Since it's "gratuitous" this shouldn't be difficult for you to show.

 

For that last post, I may get an infraction, but frankly seeing your response was quite worth it. A ban seems a bit unlikely though. :)

 

 

Now, what part about your post above supports your conjecture?

 

Is it the part where you imply that I don't understand your presentation (which I do, but just disagree with as it's unsupported and counter to the evidence available), or the part where you tell me to quit responding to this thread?

 

Any theory or hypothesis worth anything should be able to stand up in the face of challenges. Yours clearly does not.

 

I've tried repeatedly to help you understand why, but you go on repeating yourself even in the face of contradictory evidence. Repeating yourself adds zero validity to your claims, especially when you are repeating statements which have themselves been repeatedly demonstrated to be invalid.

 

I'm also not the only one here who has shown you the faults in your idea, nor the only one who has attempted to help you learn more about this issue.

 

What exactly about my posts do you feel warrants your suggestion that I should "keep the book open, {so I} may learn something?"

[Ahmabeliever]

If the biochemical reactions and neural pathways were the same for all people, we would pretty much think the same way.

 

Oh come on, you are just talking nonsense now you know that no one has the same life as another. It is stimulus through the senses that program the different ways we percieve things it's been pointed to you ad nauseum. Add to this the subconscious understanding of stimuli, which we know very little about, and perception, like literature, is an infinite possibility of variants of human thought.

 

I threw an analogy in there. Literature and writing. I have the same 26 letters you have to work with, but I'm putting across an individual perception of this debate all the same. :)

 

You'll find plenty of like minded clones in sports bars and a multitude of other social places. In these places despite a long list of commonality everyone is still different, they may very well think the same way - about some things.

 

My Brother and I are completely different men. Same genetic pool, same schools diet home teaching mentors etc. Different politics values musical taste clothes goals etc etc. And similar goals tastes clothes politics etc - it depends on the subject at hand.

 

We are quite capable of individual thought, thank you very much.

 

Is my brother different to me, yes, is he the same, yes.

 

Are you flogging a dead horse in the hopes of expelling more gas, yes. :phones:

[questor]

If some of you wish to discuss this on a biochemical or genetic level, OK. For those of you who wish to blather on about observed differences on a macro level which are not disputed and are not important to the subject, I'm not interested.

A statement like this: ''My Brother and I are completely different men. Same genetic pool, same schools diet home teaching mentors etc. Different politics values musical taste clothes goals etc etc''-- does this not show that there are differences in people not explained by environment? Where do you think these differences lie? You are proving my point about ''different wiring''.

You and your brother may share the same gene pool, but you didn't receive the same gene configuration otherwise you would be clones. Explain to me why you and your brother have different political views? Use scientific language if necessary, I will understand.

[modest]

Anyone who’s seen Star Trek knows your clone is always evil and sometimes has an evil goatee.

 

Study of political attitudes of identical twins:

 

Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?

 

Abstract:

We test the possibility that political attitudes and behaviors are the result of both environmental and genetic factors. Employing standard methodological approaches in behavioral genetics—–specifically, comparisons of the differential correlations of the attitudes of monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins—–we analyze data drawn from a large sample of twins in the United States, supplemented with findings from twins in Australia. The results indicate that genetics plays an important role in shaping political attitudes and ideologies but a more modest role in forming party identification; as such, they call for finer distinctions in theorizing about the sources of political attitudes. We conclude by urging political scientists to incorporate genetic influences, specifically interactions between genetic heritability and social environment, into models of political attitude formation.

Counter points to study:

 

Why Twin Studies Are Problematic for the Study of Political Ideology:

Rethinking Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?

 

Abstract:

We argue that many of the arguments presented, and methods used, by

Alford, Funk, and Hibbing in “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?”

(APSR 2005) are flawed. Our critical discussion has three parts. We begin

with a general discussion of the heritability statistic (h2); we explain why

the statistic is not an estimate of the extent to which political attitudes are

genetically inherited, as well as why the authors are wrong to extrapolate

their findings to the American population. Next, we describe problems

with the “twin study” method that cause us to doubt the “heritability” and

“environment” statistics it generates. We then discuss several politically

relevant “genetic” theoretical claims made by the authors that are either

not tested or not supported by their data analyses. Upon concluding these

critical discussions, we provide an alternate research agenda for the

exploration of the origins of political orientations and attitudes. First, we

discuss findings from the political socialization literature that suggest a

very important role for social transmission in attitude formation. Second,

we provide a theoretical framework for analyzing the contribution of

genes and the environment to political orientations that takes into account

the complex, interacting relationship of these two influences.

 

-modest

[InfiniteNow]

Nice citations, modest. Thank you for helping to elevate this discussion with supported evidence and studies. I hope that trend continues.

 

 

Questor, fyi - You can rest assured that the staff here have integrity.

[HydrogenBond]

If we assume neural memory is stored via neurons and synapses, then memory does cause biochemical change. It would have to be very specific to result in a very specific memory. But on the other hand, we learn, therefore we are inputting data into the brain, both consciously and unconsciously, inducing the biochemical changes needed to result in the memory.

 

What this implies is the memory grid is different between liberals and conservatives. Both create fixed neural filters that affect perception. If we had a liberal and conservative watching the same scene, the raw data input into the brain is exactly the same. One can video the scene to prove it is one set of data for both. But once it enters the brain, the data is processed differently, depending on the neural filter or framework that was set up. An analogy is using two methods for processing raw data coming out of a scientific instrument. The same raw data result in different formats.

 

In some cases, political opinions are solidly fixed without appearing to use any real time thought. The filter may have been logically deduced at one time, to set the grid. Once the method is set, it will process the same over and over again. Sometimes this filter or memory grid is set by association. It could bring back memories of a great time with friends or it may be due to high respect for a parent or a professor. Once the grid is set, it continues to be used, resulting in a very reproducible output. The output can even be part of the filter processing, adding strong conviction. This is the part of the method, for adding big letters at the top of the printout.

 

One possible difference in the filters of Conservative and Liberals could be connected to short and long term memory dynamics. By their very nature Conservatives use the same long term memories as their forefathers. They are not interested in short term change. The Liberal tries to change the long term into new and improved solutions. It is less concerned with retaining the long term, but is more engaged creating new temporal solution. This is not to say both can't store memory both ways. The difference is more within the grid or their method for the raw data.

 

Here is what you get, two people with different methods, producing different output results from the same raw data. Because this is done mostly at an unconscious level, based on a previously created grid, they may not be able to see eye to eye. One would have to go back to the grid and tweak it. But that is more work than doing it once. It is also a group dynamics, with a group setting up very similar grids, so they can see eye to eye.

[questor]

Two interesting and informative posts by Modest and Hydrogen Bond. Both deal with a layer of perception that can be observed; attitudes and opinions. Research of this kind, if continued on a biochemical basis and at the level of ''grid'' formation or the genesis of thought will ultimately yield the answer I am seeking. For those capable of civil conversation, such as the above posters mentioned, it may be interesting to ask ones' self, what do right brainers have in common with other right brainers? If you accept the premise that there really are people who are predominately right brain thinkers, what do they have in common?

[modest]

If you took a few hours reading and understanding the study I posted questor - you would be much better capable of making an argument toward your position.

 

-modest

[questor]

Modest, thanks for posting the studies. The studies definitely support my position, even though the biochemical influence on genetic activity and vice versa has not been deeply pursued. It would be helpful if anyone who wanted to discuss this subject would read this material rather than argue from a position of ignorance.

[InfiniteNow]

The studies definitely support my position, even though the biochemical influence on genetic activity and vice versa has not been deeply pursued.

 

Questor,

 

Can you please cite specifically which parts of the studies you feel support your conjecture? A few quotes and the specific link from which you drew them would suffice.

 

 

It would be helpful if anyone who wanted to discuss this subject would read this material rather than argue from a position of ignorance.

 

I agree.

[HydrogenBond]

The correlation between long and short term memory is a possible link between the contrast of Conservative and Liberal. By its very nature the conservative tries to protect the long term memories. The Liberal is more likely to want to change things.

 

Say you were born with little capacity to create long term memory. This condition does not allow one to remember beyond say, one day. Under these conditions, each day would appear new without any sense of context from the past. If one learned that fire was hot yesterday, you would forget about it and have to learn it again and again. One would also have a hard time extrapolating into the future, beyond one day, since one would lack backwards extrapolation for future extrapolation. The adaptation would be living in the here and now. There is no yesterday and there is no tomorrow. The impulse of life is react to life in any way, since it does not affect tomorrow, since it does not exist.

 

If we do this the other way around, where one can only store long term memory but has little short term memory capacity, then one will need to depend on what has already occurred. It would be like someone telling you their name but not being able to remember it in real time. It is only after it is placed in long term memory that that the name comes back. Only what sticks in long term memory will become the context of what one sees. One will already have things pegged since they can't see short term variations. If something new comes along, and is not in long term memory, there is no way to react to its real time expression without the short term memory. This can make things uncomfortable until one is given a long term memory context.

 

One can also parallel this to the two hemispheres. The creative right side is more likely to see the world in new ways. This is the nature of creativity. If one is long term biased about X, there is no room or need for change. If we soften this long term biased, like it doesn't exist, then X is possible. The more analytical left side is built upon long term knowledge and experience and places what we observe in the context of this tradition.

 

This would suggest the right hemisphere is somewhat biased toward short term memory. This is useful if one is trying to come up with something new, allowing one to more easily overcome the bias of fixed memory. The left benefits by long term memory where things are not in flux, but where the environment becomes more fixed so it is rationally predictable. If something new appears, the right side may just go for a quick explanation, since it is more detached from the long term. But the left prefers slow. This assures the formation of long term memory.

 

This does not means either Conservative or Liberals are purely left or right or purely short or long term memory extremes. All it would take is a slight biased one way or the other. The result would be the use of both long and short term memory, but with a slight bias for their contrast.

[questor]

Infinite, due to your attitude from the beginning of this thread, I have to believe you only want to argue, not to learn. It does not matter to me whether you believe or disbelieve my position. Since I had to do some work and spend some time arriving at my opinion, why don't you do the same? The information is there before you. I don't care to communicate with a rude person, so when you apologize for the insults you have directed toward me, maybe we can have polite dialogue. You never want to seek out knowledge for your self, you always want it spoon-fed to you by others. Why don't you re-read the posts to see where the insults are?