Brain Wiring Redux

[questor]

One other point: is it not obvious to you that a great number of people embrace the liberal viewpoint or generally agree with each other on most liberal issues, and the same can be said for conservatives? Does this not beg the question how great numbers of people can believe in one set of ideas and a similar number believe the direct opposite?

[modest]

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio%20et%20al.%20(2007

)%20Nature%20Neuro.pdf

...Now that I have the one published study that I believe you were talking about, I will look at it and see if it supports what you say:

 

OK, alright, I read it cover to cover. All 2 pages - and I even looked at the graph

 

Rather than writing a big, long summary and critique I'll just say: this study had nothing to do with genetic predisposition toward political ideology or left brain / right brain tendencies. If you read it and want to discuss particulars I'll be around. Otherwise, I'll not get into what I thought of it.

 

~modest

[questor]

Modest, how do you interpret this paragraph from the study?

''Political scientists and psychologists have long noted differences in the

cognitive and motivational profiles of liberals and conservatives in the

USA and elsewhere. Across dozens of behavioral studies, conservatives

have been found to be more structured and persistent in their

judgments and approaches to decision-making, as indicated by higher

average scores on psychological measures of personal needs for order,

structure and closure1. Liberals, by contrast, report higher tolerance of

ambiguity and complexity, and greater openness to new experiences on

psychological measures. Given that these associations between political

orientation and cognitive styles have been shown to be heritable,

evident in early childhood, and relatively stable across the lifespan2,3,

we hypothesized that political orientation may be associated with

individual differences in a basic neurocognitive mechanism involved

broadly in self-regulation.''

What do these words suggest to you?

[questor]

I do not want to waste my time parsing words. Everything I read about this relatively new subject of political neuroscience points in the same direction. It seems to be irrefutable that the brain hemispheres are wired differently and exhibit distinct traits. It is also true that it is not an either/or for everyone, there are crossover patterns. I maintain that this difference in wiring accounts for or is involved in liberals being liberal and conservatives being conservative. As the above study implies, this is a heritable tendency. Neural

pathways are inherited although they can be influenced or perhaps modified by environment. Liberals have certain reactions to societal interactions which are observable and predictable. This is why we have a huge philosophical split in our country and two major political parties.

[modest]

Modest, how do you interpret this paragraph from the study?

''Political scientists and psychologists have long noted differences in the

cognitive and motivational profiles of liberals and conservatives in the

USA and elsewhere. Across dozens of behavioral studies, conservatives

have been found to be more structured and persistent in their

judgments and approaches to decision-making, as indicated by higher

average scores on psychological measures of personal needs for order,

structure and closure1. Liberals, by contrast, report higher tolerance of

ambiguity and complexity, and greater openness to new experiences on

psychological measures. Given that these associations between political

orientation and cognitive styles have been shown to be heritable,

evident in early childhood, and relatively stable across the lifespan2,3,

we hypothesized that political orientation may be associated with

individual differences in a basic neurocognitive mechanism involved

broadly in self-regulation.''

What do these words suggest to you?

 

I'm sure it means just what it says. That's the introduction of the paper explaining why the authors hypothesized there would be a difference in electroencephalograph readings between self-proclaimed liberals and conservatives. This study doesn't test the premise you quote there - it's just more to put the study in context. The sources it gives for that are these:

• Alford, J.R., Funk, C.L. & Hibbing, J.R. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 99, 153–167 (2005)
  
• Block, J. & Block, J.H. J. Res. Pers. 40, 734–749 (2006)
  

 

I'd rather not go on another PDF fishing trip by the way. If you want to find those papers to support the paragraph above then try Google Scholar.

 

~modest

[questor]

Modest, I won't ask you to do any work except think a little.

 

Excerpts from the article you quoted:

 

''''Political scientists and psychologists have long noted differences in the

cognitive and motivational profiles of liberals and conservatives in the

USA and elsewhere.'' This sentence means that the brains are wired

differently and motivated differently.

 

''Across dozens of behavioral studies, conservatives

have been found to be more structured and persistent in their

judgments and approaches to decision-making, as indicated by higher

average scores on psychological measures of personal needs for order,

structure and closure1. Liberals, by contrast, report higher tolerance of

ambiguity and complexity, and greater openness to new experiences on

psychological measures.'' This paragraph describes the traits exhibited

due to the different wiring.

 

''Given that these associations between political

orientation and cognitive styles have been shown to be heritable,

evident in early childhood, and relatively stable across the lifespan2,3,

we hypothesized that political orientation may be associated with

individual differences in a basic neurocognitive mechanism involved

broadly in self-regulation.'' This sentence explains that these traits are heritable and lasting and associated with the political orientation.

 

Is there something here that has escaped your grasp?

[Overdog]

...I maintain that this difference in wiring accounts for or is involved in liberals being liberal and conservatives being conservative.

 

I maintain this is about the most rediculous assertion I have ever heard. Why should evolution be concerned with politics?

 

Please explain how natural selection accounts for hard wireing conservatism or liberalism.

[Moontanman]

Is it possible the reason every one seems to fall into these two categories is there were only two categories offered? Personally I don't ascribe to either ideology, I think that anyone who leans either "direction" automatically is not using his or her brain at all wiring or not. An intelligent human being will choose between a range of possibilities and choose the ones that are correct for them. I don't think I could be categorized except by someone with an agenda to prove.

[modest]

Modest...

 

Excerpts from the article you quoted:

 

[...]

 

Is there something here that has escaped your grasp?

 

I looked up the source that the paper uses (the one I recommended you use google scholar to look up). I did use google scholar to look it up and this is it:

 

Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?

 

This is the source used for the comment you quote and interpret above. Now, this probably doesn't look familiar to you, so I'll remind you. This is the study with the twins - that I posted in the last brain wiring thread. Remember? My previous post:

 

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

 

So, this really is nothing new. You've found a passing comment in the introduction of a paper that refers to something I already pointed out to you months ago. As I've already gone three rounds with you over the twin study, I'd rather not start that conversation over again. Like I said, there is a reason that thread got closed.

 

But, there it is for anyone interested in questor's argument. The top article abstracted above is questor's best evidence for what he's saying (minus the left brain / right brain claim). The article abstracted below it are the problems people had with the study (the counter points).

 

~modest

[modest]

Is it possible the reason every one seems to fall into these two categories is there were only two categories offered? Personally I don't ascribe to either ideology,

 

The are some odd things about questor's study that I link in post 14:

 

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio%20et%20al.%20(2007)%20Nature%20Neuro.pdf

 

Looking at the graph, it has 7 people who identify themselves as conservative and none of them say they're strongly conservative. It has 29 liberal participants and four with no preference. Why so many more liberals in the stuy? More importantly - why so few participants at all? This type of study is prone to error. What if someone is not as conservative / liberal as they say they are? What if they used to be liberal, but as society has changed they now consider themselves conservative?

 

In a study with so many subjective variables it's a must to have a large sample which this study doesn't have. It also doesn't give other data on the participants. What if the conservatives in the study have a higher mean age than the liberals? The results of the study are far more likely to represent age in my mind because it basically measures what happens in someone's brain when they push a button repeatedly and occasionally push the wrong button.

 

The results could be biased by which group of people play more video games or which have better visual acuity. There is no control on this study - no way to know if they really are testing something that has anything to do with political ideology. The proper thing to do would be a blind test where they get a few hundred participants and run the test without asking them what their ideology is (or even what the test is testing). When the test is over they try to guess the participants' ideology and see if the test is correct. But they didn't do this.

 

They didn't set up controls or assure any kind of fair sample. No, I don't like that study at all. Way too many assumptions. If you read the introduction which questor really likes, you see way too many assumptions. It's like the author was trying to get some quick newspaper headlines. I mean - It's a 2 page study - with graphs!

 

~modest

[questor]

Modest, I see no further reason to continue to to argue these points. What would you learn from a twin study? These people are in the same environment and their genes are from the same source. Admittedly research up to now has not been properly done, but the interest is growing. When reading excerpts from

any study, keep in mind the study may be flawed. Your interpretation of data and prediction of possibilities does not agree with mine. Would you asume that from the discussion and what you have read, my theory is incorrect?

If so, what facts do you have that would show invalidity?

[questor]

Overdog, what are you referring to in this question?

''Please explain how natural selection accounts for hard wireing conservatism or liberalism.''

I am not aware that I have made any comments about natural selection.

As far as heredity, the research article clearly states:

''Given that these associations between political

orientation and cognitive styles have been shown to be heritable,

evident in early childhood, and relatively stable across the lifespan2,3,

we hypothesized that political orientation may be associated with

individual differences in a basic neurocognitive mechanism involved

broadly in self-regulation.'' This sentence explains that these traits are heritable and lasting and associated with the political orientation.

[Overdog]

Overdog, what are you referring to in this question?

''Please explain how natural selection accounts for hard wireing conservatism or liberalism.''

I am not aware that I have made any comments about natural selection.

 

Well, the reason I asked is that evolution, through natural selection, is the theory generally used for explaining different features that different species posses. I have seen explanations of how natural selection accounts for certain behaviors being "hard wired", but I have not seen any explanations as to how natural selection would account for any "hard wireing" of political persuasions.

 

But I see now where you said this earlier...

 

"I have never said there is scientific evidence substantiating my theory. I have said that current research points in that direction..."

 

So you are expressing an opinion, then. Cool...No explanation needed.:)

 

I agree with Modest that the research has some serious flaws.

[questor]

Overdog, just because you haven't seen something does not mean it doesn't exist. All things have not yet been discovered, and all theories or propositions are not neccesarily scientific fact. As far as brain wiring, the wiring is genetic and heritable. There can be no argument on this point, the argument is whether this wiring can make a person lean to the liberal side or the conservative side in politics.

[Overdog]

...the argument is whether this wiring can make a person lean to the liberal side or the conservative side in politics.

 

Yes, I get that.

 

But the proposition you are arguing in favor of is an extraordinary one, and needs to be backed up with extraordinary evidence, which, as you have conceeded, isn't there.

 

So, like others, I have to wonder what underlying beliefs motivate you to argue in favor of the proposition?

[questor]

Overdog, are you having trouble understanding that new concepts and new inventions happen constantly for which there is no previous ''extraordinary evidence'' in the scientific literature?

You asked: ''So, like others, I have to wonder what underlying beliefs motivate you to argue in favor of the proposition?'' My question to you is:

Why do you ask ?

The answer for me is.. observation, curiosity, and ratiocination. Pass it on to the ''others''.

[Zythryn]

Questor, I am not sure if you are intentionally being vague or if it just is happening that way.

Without any defensive posturing, can you answer this simple question.

Is your supposition that this 'brain wiring' you refer to set at birth, or by experience? If both, about what percentage (rough guess of course).

 

Even if this were true, why should a 'test' be applied to people running for office? Can we not tell based on their platform? This point may deserve a thread of its own.

 

Are you aware the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed many times in history?

 

Finally, I don't think you can label most people as one or the other. Most have aspects of both. For example, I don't think you could label me either one (take your best shot though:)).