Differences between Liberal and Conservative brain structure

[Samson]

While that might be an over-simplification of the functions of the cingulate cortex and amygdala, why is it a radical notion that neurophysiology drives behavior?

I suspect the original study was more cut and dry and the press inserted their own OPED into the findings.

Ya Think?

Hey, How about that sun rising in the East thingy? Think it might happen again tomorrow morning?

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Um...its might be because THE PRESS INSERTED THEIR OWN OpED??

Christ, catch the fuck up with yourself....

 

[geauxtohell]

Leery About Liberal, Conservative Research Findings | Therapy Soup

I found it interesting that your article was written in response to the study, yet didn't really directly question the study itself.

The best it could do was some vague language about bias in the peer review system. It did not even attempt to address the methods, data, or conclusions of the study.

Even with that, it didn't say how and why bias directly assisted this article.

Thinking critically about the issues when you’ve been raised to believe/think there is only one right way (and taught to believe that those who believe/think differently are inferior), is no mean feat. I guess that’s why studies about about the psychological/physiological differences between Liberals and Conservatives leave me leery and dare I say it? Suspicious. Sure, the brain differences might very well be real. But I’d love to know more about the sample of individuals tested as well as the political persuasion of the researcher!

We should note that the study was done with student subjects. I would find it more convincing if the test subjects were from a variety of age and professional backgrounds.

You would have had to read the whole thing to catch the above.

The articles I brought links for only note the very limited methods used in the study and/or ask questions not addressed or broadly show how common bias can corrupt even good and well meaning scientific endeavors. Something that is not common knowledge among laypeople. (such as myself)

Why would it make a difference if the subjects were adults and/or students? How would that change the outcome? Was there a good reason, neuro-developmentally speaking, why younger subjects were used? Why does using younger subjects make the findings less acceptable to the blogger?

Again, they don't really address any of the meat of the study. They just toss out some generalizations.

Scientists pass the time by picking apart scientific papers, methodology, statistical number crunching, and conclusions. You can word a study to say what you want it to say, but you can't fake the data. That's why graduate scientific fields have "journal clubs" to pour over studies and the findings (if that kind of thing turns you on).

Outside of fraud, bias will only get you so far in scientific studies. The holes are usually easily found. That being said, the overwhelming majority of scientific papers are not political in nature and I have yet to see a substantive point being made to show that this study was biased.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ya Think?

Hey, How about that sun rising in the East thingy? Think it might happen again tomorrow morning?

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Um...its might be because THE PRESS INSERTED THEIR OWN OpED??

Christ, catch the fuck up with yourself....

I am not interested in the OPED. I am interested in the actual scientific study. The one that was published in a scientific journal.

Are you caught up now?

 

[Ragnar]

Ya Think?

Hey, How about that sun rising in the East thingy? Think it might happen again tomorrow morning?

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Um...its might be because THE PRESS INSERTED THEIR OWN OpED??

Christ, catch the fuck up with yourself....

Does "bitch fit" mean calling into question a dubious scientific study which even if largely correct proves nothing about any randomly chosen liberal or conservative individual?

 

[Samson]

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Um...its might be because THE PRESS INSERTED THEIR OWN OpED??

Christ, catch the fuck up with yourself....

I am not interested in the OPED. I am interested in the actual scientific study. The one that was published in a scientific journal.

Are you caught up now?

I was caught up after I read the OP (that means "Original Post")

You should try it some time.

 

[Samson]

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Um...its might be because THE PRESS INSERTED THEIR OWN OpED??

Christ, catch the fuck up with yourself....

Does "bitch fit" mean calling into question a dubious scientific study which even if largely correct proves nothing about any randomly chosen liberal or conservative individual?

Yes, Watson, I believe you have grasped the essential point.

 

[Ragnar]

I found it interesting that your article was written in response to the study, yet didn't really directly question the study itself.

The best it could do was some vague language about bias in the peer review system. It did not even attempt to address the methods, data, or conclusions of the study.

Even with that, it didn't say how and why bias directly assisted this article.

Thinking critically about the issues when you’ve been raised to believe/think there is only one right way (and taught to believe that those who believe/think differently are inferior), is no mean feat. I guess that’s why studies about about the psychological/physiological differences between Liberals and Conservatives leave me leery and dare I say it? Suspicious. Sure, the brain differences might very well be real. But I’d love to know more about the sample of individuals tested as well as the political persuasion of the researcher!

We should note that the study was done with student subjects. I would find it more convincing if the test subjects were from a variety of age and professional backgrounds.

You would have had to read the whole thing to catch the above.

The articles I brought links for only note the very limited methods used in the study and/or ask questions not addressed or broadly show how common bias can corrupt even good and well meaning scientific endeavors. Something that is not common knowledge among laypeople. (such as myself)

Why would it make a difference if the subjects were adults and/or students? How would that change the outcome? Was there a good reason, neuro-developmentally speaking, why younger subjects were used? Why does using younger subjects make the findings less acceptable to the blogger?

Again, they don't really address any of the meat of the study. They just toss out some generalizations.
.

It would say more about the general population were it not such a small subset of society. We know that brain growth occurs over decades and that growth could be charted over time and changed over time.

Maybe people are leery about it just because Colin Firth (a fine actor) thinks there is something biologically wrong with people who don't agree with him, lol.

"I took this on as a fairly frivolous exercise: I just decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don't agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it and they actually came up with something," said Firth.

Colin Firth explores politics of the brain | MNN - Mother Nature Network

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Uh because it has to do with Science? Which is where the thread was placed? Ironically, your comment reflects "fear" that it's true, thereby making the scientific conclusion credible.

What does this have to do with science? Is it because they used the word science in the article?

It could be that it was published in "Current Biology".

Oh, and your earlier question about "peer review"?

Received 11 January 2011;
revised 10 February 2011;
accepted 4 March 2011.
Published online: April 7, 2011.
Available online 7 April 2011.

ScienceDirect - Current Biology : Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults

I keep seeing people claim this was some sort of hoax or joke. I can't find any information to support that. When you look at the article, it seems pretty cut and dry. Self identified conservatives and liberals had differences in brain structure as quantified by MRI.

As I said before, the larger implications, to include pejoratives, seem to have been inserted by the press.

You know what, all that proves is that somebody published something. That article is behind a pay wall, and I cannot access it. For all I know all the comments about it are pointing out exactly the same thing I am, and the peer reviews are calling out the methodology and the sample group.

Want to try again?

 

[geauxtohell]

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Um...its might be because THE PRESS INSERTED THEIR OWN OpED??

Christ, catch the fuck up with yourself....

Does "bitch fit" mean calling into question a dubious scientific study which even if largely correct proves nothing about any randomly chosen liberal or conservative individual?

What exactly was dubious about it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Leery About Liberal, Conservative Research Findings | Therapy Soup

PsychCentral’s founder, Dr. John Grohol, suggests that research studies be put to the test themselves. He discusses how and why flawed research happens.

And what is the overarching cause? Bias.

Dr. Grohol writes: ”…here’s the real troubling aspect — these kinds of biased studies appear in all sorts of journals. JAMA, NEJM and the BMJ are not immune from publishing crappy, flawed studies in medicine and psychology. We think of “respectability” of a journal as some sort of sign of a gatekeeping role — that studies appearing in the most prestigious journals must be fundamentally sound.

“But that’s simply not true. The emperor is not only naked — his subjects have hidden his clothes in order to further their own careers.”

And except for religion and perhaps in some circles, race/ethnicity, what topic is more loaded, spiced, and seasoned, with a cherry-on-top with heated, passionate bias than politics?

I found it interesting that your article was written in response to the study, yet didn't really directly question the study itself.

The best it could do was some vague language about bias in the peer review system. It did not even attempt to address the methods, data, or conclusions of the study.

Even with that, it didn't say how and why bias directly assisted this article.

Try this.

The Neurocritic: Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience

http://www.edvul.com/voodoocorr.php

It seems that people tend to see correlations even when there aren't any. That simple facts always makes me skeptical when people start seeing correlations that make them look more intelligent than the people they disagree with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you say is undoubtably true, the brain is a very complex organ and most people evolve over time. The operative word is most, there are the willfully ignorant who adopt an ideology, a dogma, as an immutable truth and no amount of evidence will ever diabuse them.

You shouldn't give up on yourself like that.

Cute. What ideology or dogma can you offer that I accept as immutable? Don't be shy, you said i have so you must know. If you don't I must assume you lied.

You are a partisan hack. You constantly call out Republicans for doing what Democrats do, then insist we should start cleaning house at the top with Republican governors, ignoring the fact that the Democratic president is doing the same thing.

Figure it out for yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While that might be an over-simplification of the functions of the cingulate cortex and amygdala, why is it a radical notion that neurophysiology drives behavior?

I suspect the original study was more cut and dry and the press inserted their own OPED into the findings.

Ya Think?

Hey, How about that sun rising in the East thingy? Think it might happen again tomorrow morning?

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Better question.

Why aren't the people who claim to love science pointing out the flaws? Does it make you feel superior to believe that your brain prevents you from thinking for yourself?

 

[geauxtohell]

It would say more about the general population were it not such a small subset of society.

That concept is known as the "power" of a study. In essence, you are correct; the more people or data points you study, the higher the "power" of the study and the more statistically sound it is. That doesn't mean that studies with a low power are useless or should be automatically discounted. If you read peer reviewed publications, you'll notice a lot of studies with just a handful of individuals studied.

We know that brain growth occurs over decades and that growth could be charted over time and changed over time.

The brain essentially stops developing at around the mid-twenties. Obviously, that is not when people stop learning or using their brains, but developmentally, the structure of the brain stops at that point (by and large, the concept of neuroplasticity is being studied now, but that still is not a regular developmental phase).

Maybe people are leery about it just because Colin Firth (a fine actor) thinks there is something biologically wrong with people who don't agree with him, lol.

That's still not a good reason to simply discount the study. Was it flawed in it's methodology, application of statistics, or conclusions?

"I took this on as a fairly frivolous exercise: I just decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don't agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it and they actually came up with something," said Firth.

Colin Firth explores politics of the brain | MNN - Mother Nature Network[/QUOTE]

Firth just "commissioned" the study. Unless you can show he unduly influenced the results, it really just becomes a pointless deflection.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ya Think?

Hey, How about that sun rising in the East thingy? Think it might happen again tomorrow morning?

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Better question.

Why aren't the people who claim to love science pointing out the flaws? Does it make you feel superior to believe that your brain prevents you from thinking for yourself?

Other than histrionics, I can't really find any flaws in the study. It's pretty straight forward; self identified conservatives had larger amygdalas and self identified liberals had larger cingulate cortex regions as determined by MRI.

All the other noise is just that; noise.

Perhaps you could show me the flaws if I have missed them.

 

[Samson]

You shouldn't give up on yourself like that.

Cute. What ideology or dogma can you offer that I accept as immutable? Don't be shy, you said i have so you must know. If you don't I must assume you lied.

.....
Figure it out for yourself.

Wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.....

Wry's not the sharpest tool in the shead.

 

[geauxtohell]

You know what, all that proves is that somebody published something. That article is behind a pay wall, and I cannot access it. For all I know all the comments about it are pointing out exactly the same thing I am, and the peer reviews are calling out the methodology and the sample group.

Want to try again?

The fact that it was submitted, revised, and resubmitted prior to publication is the peer-review process.

You asked about peer review and why this was considered a scientific study earlier in the thread, and I answered your question.

It was deemed sufficiently scientific to be peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

 

[geauxtohell]

Try this.

The Neurocritic: Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience

Ed Vul - Voodoo correlations

It seems that people tend to see correlations even when there aren't any. That simple facts always makes me skeptical when people start seeing correlations that make them look more intelligent than the people they disagree with.

Again, I am not interested in OPED about a relatively straightforward scientific study nor am I interested in the larger projections about the results that both sides are running with.

The study simply found a difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives. It did not claim one was superior to the another. Other's have done that.

 

[Samson]

The study simply found a difference in brain structure between liberals and conservatives. It did not claim one was superior to the another. Other's have done that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If that were so obvious, then why are so many conservatives on this thread throwing bitch fits about the study?

Better question.

Why aren't the people who claim to love science pointing out the flaws? Does it make you feel superior to believe that your brain prevents you from thinking for yourself?

Other than histrionics, I can't really find any flaws in the study. It's pretty straight forward; self identified conservatives had larger amygdalas and self identified liberals had larger cingulate cortex regions as determined by MRI.

All the other noise is just that; noise.

Perhaps you could show me the flaws if I have missed them.

I am just supposed to take your word for it?

I don't take anyone's word for anything.

 

[Samson]

Does "bitch fit" mean calling into question a dubious scientific study which even if largely correct proves nothing about any randomly chosen liberal or conservative individual?

Yes, Watson, I believe you have grasped the essential point.

Better question.

Why aren't the people who claim to love science pointing out the flaws? Does it make you feel superior to believe that your brain prevents you from thinking for yourself?

Other than histrionics, I can't really find any flaws in the study. It's pretty straight forward; self identified conservatives had larger amygdalas and self identified liberals had larger cingulate cortex regions as determined by MRI.

All the other noise is just that; noise.

Perhaps you could show me the flaws if I have missed them.

I am just supposed to take your word for it?

I don't take anyone's word for anything.

But....I'm from the Government, and I wanna HELP YOU!!