Brain Study: Liberals and Conservatives Differ

Some of you might be quite closed-minded about this:

Brain study finds political divide, by Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times: Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

Scientists at New York University and UCLA showed through a simple experiment to be reported Monday in the journal Nature Neuroscience that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results showed "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research. ...

Frank J. Sulloway, a researcher at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research who was not connected to the study, said results "provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity." ...

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrates a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, was accused of being a flip-flopper for changing his mind about the conflict.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

Lead author David Amodio ... of ... New York University cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better than another. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes...

Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.

"Does this mean liberals and conservatives are never going to agree? Maybe it suggests one reason why they tend not to get along," Amodio said.

Might this also explain why college faculty tend to be Democrats?

Comments

[robertdfeinman]

This seems to confirm the research of Robert Altemeyer on what he calls the "right wing authoritarian" personality type.

The Authoritarians

John Dean, a big fan of Altemeyer, is dealing with the same issue, currently, from his personal perspective in his online column on the Findlaw web site.

[Gabriel M.]

What about libertarians? Or other "non-aligned" people?

[ken melvin]

Gabriel, did they fall off the right end of the teeter? Is that how they come to be non-aligned?

I think there's a difference. I see the conservative as someone looking for knowns. They think they know how it should be, or how it was before back when things were the way they were supposed to be. Problem is, of course, is that there are no knowns. The liberal is more apt to ask what should be and try to find out what is.

[Brian Holt]

Actually, this isn't new knowledge: cf. from July 2003: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

From the article:

"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin."

[pgl]

Is this study assuming that the brain of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity actually works. I don't think so.

[chris]

It's consistent with the fact that conservatives aren't funny (aside from the odd old Tory satire, I'll give you that).

[anne]

What this amounts to is a return to "The Bell Curve." Sort of racism or sexism made political preference. This is offensive pretend research, as the pretend racial differences and sex differences in intelligence that are so handily used in understanding why women in the natural sciences have difficult gaining seniority.

Now, we need to find out why Catholic brains differ from Hindu brains.

[Stephen Heyer]

"Scientists at New York University and UCLA showed through a simple experiment ... that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information."

"... conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. ...those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions."

"The results showed "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," ..."

The persistence of two cognitive styles, even in the one family, makes a great deal of evolutionary sense. In fact, this kind of thing has been observed in other species.

In short, it is an adaption to an environment that changes.

After all, if things are going just fine for you it is a really bad move not to be a conservative. Adopting every new fad and fashion is likely to do you and your reproductive success real damage.

However, when things turn bad (personally, nationally or whatever) adopting new ideas and ways of doing things might well be the way to survive and even thrive, at least for that small percentage who find new ideas that actually work.

The thing to remember is that historically things turn really bad at a frequency ranging from a couple of times a lifetime to a few centuries. In other words, things never stay good for that long.

You would think that the best tactic would be to recognise these inflection points, then swap behaviour patterns as necessary. Unfortunately, this seems hard for evolution to code, hence the persistence of both behaviours even in the one family.

Not however, that some people don't, though the change from conservative to liberal seems to usually require a great deal of stress over a long period. On the other hand and from personal experience the change from liberal/left to conservative/right/selfish is much easier, merely requiring that the person become relatively rich, or rather, convince themselves that they have, or even have a reasonable chance of becoming rich.

Sadly, this makes a great deal of evolutionary sense.

[anne]

Methodist brains are much better at baseball, but not so much at tennis, though Jewish brains are just right for golf narrowly beating out Anglican brains which are naturally Tory though not so naturally now.

Japanese brains are skiing brains, while German brains have a thing for white wine and fish on weekends.

[Daniel]

After a recent situation I witnessed:
The study tends to explain why conservatives are such easy targets for passive-aggressive personalities. Be careful out there.

[RW]

Depending upon theoretical framework the study may not have any deterministic implications -- e.g., detectable brain activity can be a cause or an effect depending upon how you look at it -- and complex social interrelationships including differences in political world-view do not follow a neat continuum from hard left to hard right in any case; for example I am something of an anarchist libertarian with tribalist tendencies (I believe in collective action) which is as far (or as orthogonal) from a Randian Objectivist as it is from a Fascist.

IOW there are the worldviews of real people and then there are strawmen so I find the actual qualities identified in the study such as intolerance of ambiguity or uncertainty avoidance more interesting than the labels attached to them. But even then any set of qualia can be gathered together into a style, cognitive or otherwise, or more into a category to be more general but what is more difficult is demonstrating that the qualia so gathered and identified have any real usefulness; what is illuminated by that category that was dark before?

I'm personally more interested in how relevant behaviors (and brain patterns) are developed and triggered. How much do they need to be practiced to become predominant? Is it as Gerald Edelman argues, a kind of neurological Darwinism where 'successful' brain cells propagate and 'unsuccessful' brain cells die out? Why would I tend to act more 'liberal' in reference to social problems (as I do) but more 'conservative' in reference to fiscal issues (as I also do)? Curious.

[anne]

Australian brains are all about sex, trust me, I know. Of course, what else do Australian brains have to look forward to. Swedish brains, on the other hand, find difficulty enough in becoming pregnant (the women actually). What was Ingmar Bergman's brain about? Italian brains, you would not want to know. Me, I have an Irish brain. What does my Irish brain make me?

What offensive idiocy.

[save_the_rustbelt]

College professors tend to be Democrats because they like existing in a world heavily subsidized by the federal government (directly and indirectly). I've been one for a part of my career so I'm partially like a lib I guess. :)

Actually I tend to agree with Anne, the only theory I've found convincing in the past 30 years is left brain - right brain psychology, which as far as I can tell does not directly connect to political affiliation or thinking.

[Mark Thoma]

I understand the point, but not sure where the line ought to be drawn:http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/06/taboo_research_.html

The Subject is Taboo, by Olivia Judson, Commentary, NY Times: ...I was 7 or 8, and ... had just spent the day walking around a golf course with a great friend of my mother’s ..., a man called Tim, and his opponent, a woman called Nora... Nora ... trounced him. Worse, she didn’t do it from ... the “ladies’ tees.” ... She did it from the hardest of all, the “tiger tees.”

I was chatting happily about this, ... not knowing that Nora’s tigerish defeat ... was, in Tim’s mind, an exasperating humiliation. I soon found out. As I relived Nora’s victory yet again, Tim leaned over to me and said, “Olivia. The subject is taboo. Do you know what that means?” And he explained.

Looking back, it seems somehow fitting that I learned this word in the context of male versus female performance. For certain subjects in science are taboo — and research into genetic differences in ability or behavior between different groups of people is one of the biggest of all.

The reasons for this are obvious. Some of the most ghastly atrocities of the 20th century were carried out under the banner of the “master race” and nasty pseudoscientific notions about genetic superiority. Sexual and racial discrimination still persist. ... Many geneticists I know are scared — really scared, and with reason — of having their careers ruined if they ask any other questions. Look no further than Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University, who was pilloried ... for wondering if mathematical ability in men and women might have some genetic underpinning. A sign has been hung on the door that says “Area Closed to Research.”...

Research into the genetics behind certain sorts of group differences — skin color, the ability to digest milk, the underpinnings of autism and the like — is now starting to be published. But other subjects remain ferociously contentious. Let me tell you a tale of three papers.

Last September, the journal Science published two papers that claimed natural selection had acted recently and strongly on two human genes involved in brain development. Let’s look at what this claim means. ...

The two [genes] featured in the Science papers are among those thought to affect brain growth. ... What do we know about these genes...? Not much. ... both appear to be involved in cell division, for example — but no one knows ... exactly. We also know ... these genes come in several subtly different forms. Whether these subtle differences matter is unknown. ...

Now, what does it mean to say that natural selection has acted on these genes? As I’ve been discussing ... Sometimes, natural selection promotes rapid change: a mutant form of a gene appears and spreads quickly — within a few hundred generations, say. Evidence of a rapid spread — within the last several thousand years — of a new version of each of the two genes is what the Science papers announced.

The papers caused a stir. For the papers also claimed that the new versions of the genes ... were more rare in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere. All this means is that, in populations outside Africa, the new forms of the genes may have conferred some sort of advantage — perhaps related to head size, perhaps not... But it didn’t take long for the whisperings to start that the new forms of the genes must be involved in intelligence.

The whispering has no basis: there is no evidence whatsoever that the variants have anything to do with intelligence. ... But brains, genes and race form an explosive mixture. So much so that ... the lead scientist on the papers, Bruce Lahn, will now be retiring from working on brain genes.

Meanwhile, another paper has appeared ... in ... the online journal Public Library of Science Biology. This paper failed to confirm the earlier result. However, the authors found that versions of other genes, also thought to be involved in brain function or structure, have been under recent natural selection ... and this time, the population is not outside Africa, but in it. ... Again, we have no idea what this means. But strangely, these results have received almost no attention: there has been no whispering this time.

I offer this story as ... an illustration of some of the grave difficulties in this field of research. ... As you can imagine, it is virtually impossible to work in an area as poisonously political as this one. On one side, you have neo-fascist groups twisting the most innocuous data out of shape; on the other, well-intentioned anti-racists who don’t even want the questions asked. Worse still, as ... the “intelligent design” movement shows, it is not always easy to make sure that science is discussed rationally. Result: most geneticists are totally unnerved — and who can blame them?

Perhaps, if open debate is impossible, declaring the area taboo is the best way to proceed. I don’t pretend to have a solution. But here are some thoughts. ...

If we declare brain genetics out of bounds, it will make it harder to understand how our brains are built ... and treat the diseases that affect people’s brains, especially in old age. ...[T]he study of human genetics has already illuminated a lot that is interesting and important about our evolutionary past, and how we have come to be. Handled well, this is a tremendously exciting area for research. Do we want to limit it? ...

[G]enetic information is pouring in. Questions about the genetics of human differences are not going to go away. ... Scientists have an essential role to play in mediating understanding. Do we really want to scare good scientists from this field? Then the only people left researching it could be those whose agendas genuinely are sinister.

Now that is a frightening thought.

[realpc]

I want to know if they controlled for education level and age. Everything they concluded about conservatives is also probably true of people who are less educated and/or older.

According to this research, liberals are more likely to be intelligent, open-minded and sophisticated, while conservatives tend to be dolts. I have no doubt whatsoever that the researchers are liberals.

So did these clever liberal researchers remember to check for possible confounds? Or did they forget because they were so elated by their ego-gratifying results?

[Stephen Heyer]

anne: "Now, we need to find out why Catholic brains differ from Hindu brains."

Given that our world-view greatly effects how we see and handle things, I would expect there to be some difference between practicing Catholic and Hindu brains. Of course, the difference would be related to culture and upbringing rather than genetics, but no less real for that.

I speak from personal experience here, being from a somewhat devout Catholic family, but having been shifted more towards the Hindu/Buddhist viewpoint by personal experience (Out Of Body Experiences, strong family and personal ESP). It really does change how you see things and "process" the world.

Mind you, none of this is news to anyone who seriously studies history and society.

[anne]

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=55

June 28, 2006

The Subject is Taboo
By Olivia Judson

[A brilliant response by Mark Thoma; at least for me since I adore Olivia Judson. Thoma and Judson win, then, I reluctantly think. Yes, you win and I am wrong to complain so.]

[anne]

Stephen, I am satisfied and will take your perspective. Well argued; while I was only getting going. I will think through this research direction wholly from a benign perspective and read the complete study carefully.

[anne]

Mark Thoma knew and was prepared:

"Some of you might be quite closed-minded about this...."

Nice.

[Stephen Heyer]

anne: "Australian brains are all about sex, trust me, I know. Of course, what else do Australian brains have to look forward to. ... Me, I have an Irish brain. What does my Irish brain make me?"

Sigh! Anne has either never been to Australia or missed the good parts. Australia is one of the most liveable countries, even officially, combining great environment, good institutions, pleasant culture, a generally more educated and intellectual population than, say, the USA, less inequality that the USA and near European type social services.

Where I live is especially great if, like me, you like a combination of community, beach, outdoors, cultural and intellectual pursuits.

In fact, one of our main troubles is that too many people know this and are coming here as we have limited water supplies (driest continent on earth) and a limited economy. Our current population of 20 million plus is almost certainly way too high in the long term.

anne: "Me, I have an Irish brain. What does my Irish brain make me?"

Yes, Same as my lady! Sigh! :-)

[david]

Don't quit so easily Anne. What about the Spanish brain, the Uruguayan brain, the Papuan brain?

In other news, brain scientists have used a couple of MRIs of undergraduates in their classes to confirm every other goddamn unreflective commonplace observation they've made about their neighbors after a few beers.

[anne]

Mark Thoma posted a number of Olivia Judson's essays for the New York Times, as did I, on these threads. There are 20 essays that can be read at this address:

http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/ ,

along with another set of essays in the NYTimes proper.

[anne]

Australia is, by the way, heavenly, simply heavenly, and Australian sex has much to recommend it....

[James Killus]

Many years ago, before the internet thing caught on and there were these things called computer bulletin boards, like Compuserve and GEnie, and even AOL in its infancy, I got into a discussion/argument with a geologist about the evolution of the Earth's atmosphere and the general theory of oxygen being the remnant of primordial photosynthesis. The nature of the argument does not matter; what matters is that he was right and I was wrong and after he'd corrected a certain bit of ignorance on my part I said, "Oh, I see. Well, then that does make sense."

Things there were sufficiently the same as now that he was surprised that I'd so easily admitted error (and this probably convinced him almost immediately that I was, as advertised, a scientific professional).

I note this incident because we have just witnessed a variation of it, with good grace, from Anne, and such flexibility should be noticed, perhaps even researched. And the attempts by others to keep the argument going (or at least to score some points at anne's expense) might also be observable by MRI.

For the record, it's not at all surprising that different personalities might show sufficient mental differences to be observable with sufficiently precise measurements of the brain. This says nothing about how those differences came to be, nor whether or not one might be able to change them. I will say that I believe that authoritarian behavior is due to a deficit not a surplus, but I would not yet care to conjecture what the quantity is, except to suggest that some part of it has to do with imagination.

[Stephen Heyer]

James Killus: "I will say that I believe that authoritarian behavior is due to a deficit not a surplus, but I would not yet care to conjecture what the quantity is, except to suggest that some part of it has to do with imagination."

I really wish I could agree with you. It would make me feel better as I dislike authoritarians. However, given what a successful evolutionary/reproductive strategy this often is, I cannot.

Maybe it is just that some of the large toolbox of behaviours humans come equipped with just are not very pleasant. Worse, some of the most unpleasant can, in some circumstances, be the most effective.

James Killus: "I note this incident because we have just witnessed a variation of it, with good grace, from Anne,..."

Noted and agreed.

[Brian Holt]

"Of course, the difference would be related to culture and upbringing rather than genetics, but no less real for that."

Yes. this isn't about genetics. This is about cognitive styles, which are predominantly learned.

Having said that, and as far as biological creatures go, a helpful way to think about behavior is that creatures tend to "conserve the most recent and successful method of adaptation." This concept is a principle coined by the Santiago theory of cognition, originated by Maturana and Valera. (see: Wikipedia entry about Matruana; a good book on this subject is titled the Tree of Knowledge and can be found here with other books on this topic).

It's quite related to economics in that it basically says that we only try something new (i.e. change) when the 'cost' of not changing is more 'expensive' than the status quo.

Some might say this is how we are all conservative. Of course in terms of evolution cost and expense are ultimately linked with survivability and the ability to proliferate one's genes. Within personality and cognition, people are said to be Cognitive Misers, prefer not to admit we are wrong, and are superb at fooling ourselves that we are right to think as we do. Based on the evidence, it appears that Conservatives are the best at it.

Actually, this is why we teach critical thinking because using such thinking is very reliable in pointing out our cognitive blind spots (e.g., confirmation biases, availability, anchoring, and representativeness heuristics).

Politically speaking, Liberals find that progressive and dynamic systems are less 'expensive' than the Traditional ones trumpeted by Conservatives.

[Brian Holt]

James Killus: "I note this incident because we have just witnessed a variation of it, with good grace, from Anne,..."

Yes, and it is not surprising that Anne is a champion of the Liberal cause!

[donna]

In the case of conservative vs. liberal, I would pick nurture over nature. There isn't any difference in brain structure - only in actually applying the brain. Conservatives don't seem to like doing that.

[dh]

Ha,
it is obvious that psycology majors do not read economics
blogs. Different portions of the brain are involved(ha,ha)

Carl Jung's theory of Psycological types explains everything(I do mean everything.) If you don't want to read the 400 page book,
then read-up on Meyers-Briggs type indicators.

[Erik]

I think this whole discussion is confused due to the warping of the american political vocabulary. People who are called liberals in the US are really not liberal at all, they are social democrats or sometimes even full fledged socialists. I certainly think you have to be different to be libertarian - just try debating with anyone who has never heard about your pollitical views, he or she will find you totally crazy.

Also, the left wing bias in the whole article was poorly disguised.

[realpc]

"the left wing bias in the whole article was poorly disguised."

Yes, the bias was obvious. And there was no mention of how "liberal" and "conservative" were defined. As Erik said, the meaning of "liberal," in America, has changed completely. I consider myself a liberal, but not by the current definition. If I were a subject in their experiment, how would I be classified?

[Alex Tolley]

Brains are not biologically the same. There are considerable genetic differences that manifest themselves in many ways, including mental disease states.

The characterization of "liberal" vs "conservative" brains is just silly. What we likely have is biology affecting how we perceive and react to the world. Labeling sets of those reactions with political symbols doesn't tell us anything about the symbols at all.

[Barry]

save_the_rustbelt says...
"College professors tend to be Democrats because they like existing in a world heavily subsidized by the federal government (directly and indirectly). "

Wow. The sheer ignorance of this argument is breath-taking. And you're supposed to be an accountant? You don't know how much right-wingers get subsidized? Heck, we're seeing a classic example right now, where it's suddenly urgently necessary to bail out as many rich financial firms as possible. 'Moral Hazard', of course, is put in the basement, because it's not currently needed to torture the little people.

[reason]

I suspect the Liberal/Conservative axis was self-selected. The test however, was fairly independent of politics so the result is interesting. Science does have a liberal bias in a sense, it is by its nature sceptical. (i.e. It asks a question, and designs a test of that of question). As we have seen, self selected conservatives prefer to ignore the evidence.

[Alex Tolley]

"I suspect the Liberal/Conservative axis was self-selected. The test however, was fairly independent of politics so the result is interesting. Science does have a liberal bias in a sense, it is by its nature sceptical. (i.e. It asks a question, and designs a test of that of question). As we have seen, self selected conservatives prefer to ignore the evidence."

Let's be clear what the experiment demonstrated. It showed that there is a spectrum of response in the subjects' brain activity (anterior cingulate cortex) and the correctness of the responses.

The connection with a self described liberal/conservative axis is just bogus. One could take all sorts of axes and test these - religious/non-religious, introvert/extrovert, etc, etc.

Applying some political label to the measurements might make for a better PR response, but it is not science.

[reason]

Alex..
how do you know that? Maybe they did ask people to label themselves in all those ways you suggested and only Liberal/Conservative had a significant correlation with the test results. You are reacting to the results, and not rationally. If you want to disprove the results find an experiment that disproves the conclusions.

[Busakisama]

This is all absurd. I can't believe people are actually indicating they believe this study. I agree with Anne.

And on a side note if this "research" is believed it won't be long before the cominant powers can (and probably will) try to "prove" that the other side has brain dysfunctions and therefore must be stopped by any means necessary.

Don't beleive me? Think it could never happen? Listen to talk radio (both the few Liberals and the litany of Conservative voices) and you will hear how the radical extremes of both sides imply or outright allege that the other side is stricken with a desease. I think Michael Savage is a good case in point when calls liberalism a mental disorder, which he recites like the Lord's Prayer.

So don't be an idiot, use your brain and think for yourself. Remeber the earth was once flat and Jews were the cause of evil in western civilization, there was proof of both.

[realpc]

I don't believe the study -- but how did they manage to get those results? I don't think there was any intentional deception. It's very suspicious when "liberals" discover that "liberals" have superior mental agility and are more responsive to evidence. That's what they have been claiming all along, and here's the proof.

So what is the subtle confound in this research?

[robertdfeinman]

I don't know why people are so upset at the idea that people have different makeups. This one just happens to concern a certain psychological attitude. I'd call it the need for certainty vs the willingness to deal with change.

As Robert Altemeyer (and others have shown), at this moment in North America there is a strong correlation between these attitudes and what we are currently calling "conservative" and "liberal". At other times and in other cultures these personality types may manifest themselves in other ways.

Now is the personality due to nurture or nature? It would seem from anecdotal information that much of it is due to nature. The evidence comes from families where one of the children is an outlier. Take the fundamentalist family where one child becomes a "hippie". I know of a family of very liberal, atheists whose son became a born again Christian.

I don't think this experiment is an attempt at eugenics or racism, it just is demonstrating a correlation between a certain type of brain activity and the ability to perform a certain type of test. The extra information about political preferences is not part of the experiment, but rather an observation. Of course people want to use it to "prove" their position, that's not the fault of the investigators. It's more an indication that everything these days is looked at through an ideological lens.

Altemeyer ran some experiments in which the subjects played a world simulation. A group of high authoritarians destroyed the world. The group of very low authoritarians did nothing, that is they just dithered. His conclusion, the world needs a mix of types. The danger lies when too many of one type gain control.

Call it psychological checks and balances.

[Alex Tolley]

reason:

here is the article abstract:

"Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern."

here is the comment about political orientation in the supplementary materials:

"Political attitudes questionnaire. A measure of political attitudes was embedded in a larger set of personality and attitudes surveys completed at the every beginning of the
experimental session. Participants completed these questionnaires in private. Participants were instructed to not make any identifying marks on the questionnaires and, upon completion, to place the questionnaires into a large envelope. These questionnaires remained in these envelopes
until the completion of the study, at which time they were entered into a computer database.
The critical political orientation item asked participants to indicate their political orientation on a scale ranging from Extremely Liberal (–5) to Extremely Conservative (+5), with neutral corresponding to 0. This single item has been shown to provide a valid and reliable measure of political orientation that is very strongly predictive of intended and actual behavior (e.g., voting decisions)."

Should be pretty clear that the idea was to test the hypothesis that political orientation was correlated with this brain response, not an unbiased testing of all personality traits.

Secondly, the issue is not whether political orientation is correlated more or less strongly with some brain functions. Political orientation is a social construct. It is like suggesting that being raised in location A vs B or religion A vs B is correlated with brain function.

Imagine if you will an experiment measuring some stress response and the subjects were asked which city they lived in and the results showed that coastal dwellers showed some higher response than inland residents. Would you conclude that New Yorkers had some fundamental stress response that was different from residents of Bozeman? Or would you look for the factors that distinguished living in a large, urban city from a small, relatively rural one?

[david]

"It would seem from anecdotal information that much of it is due to nature."

Amazing how anecdotal information so accurately reinforces what we think. Even more amazing the faith that people put in crap studies about brains that reinforce what they think.

[brian holt]

Alex,

Of course Brains are biologically the same in that they all metabolize sugars, their neurons work the same way, etc.
Our brains allows us to perceive the world, which is why for the most part we all experience the world similarly--who doesn't like pizza?

As for how to characterize liberal vs. conservative, there are many reliable and face valid questionnaires, even online, that do a pretty good job of pegging where people stand (This one is pretty good). Once you have categorized a person's political worldview, experimentally determining their cognitive styles is pretty straight forward.

[Alex Tolley]

Robert Feinman: "I don't think this experiment is an attempt at eugenics or racism, it just is demonstrating a correlation between a certain type of brain activity and the ability to perform a certain type of test. The extra information about political preferences is not part of the experiment, but rather an observation."

The abstract posted above, and the title of the Brief Communication: "Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism", suggest otherwise.

I think you are correct that the investigators are not making any value judgments about the results, that was left to the journalists and the people they quoted to make them.

[brian holt]

Alex:

"One could take all sorts of axes and test these - religious/non-religious, introvert/extrovert, etc, etc."

and find what? the same results? hardly. there may be overlap, but to equate what you said with the study is ridiculous.

[Alex Tolley]

brian holt: "Of course Brains are biologically the same in that they all metabolize sugars, their neurons work the same way, etc.
Our brains allows us to perceive the world, which is why for the most part we all experience the world similarly--who doesn't like pizza?"

So your brain has the same functioning as that of someone suffering from schizophrenia or depression or autism or...?

I do hope you were trying to be facetious.

[Alex Tolley]

brian holt: To reiterate these points:

1. The experiment was looking to test the political hypothesis using a neutral test.

2. The results would have had a lot less exposure if they correlated the functioning with a functional metric which might have explained the correlate better, e.g. anxiety.

3. Political axes are social constructs. Worse, they have a lot of ideological baggage attached to them. Just read the various journalist interpretations. Is GW Bush usefully described as having a "conservative cognitive style"? Was Kerry's "flip flopping" really him adapting to new information? Don't you think other explanations might fit too, especially ones that pull together more fundamental brain functions - such as emotion responses?

[JRossi]

I would like to know who leaves more progeny on average, US liberals or conservatives. That way I could figure out where politics are going and so give my kids sound advice on whether to emigrate to Canada. On second thought, I'll just tell them they should.

[James Killus]

James Killus: "I will say that I believe that authoritarian behavior is due to a deficit not a surplus, but I would not yet care to conjecture what the quantity is, except to suggest that some part of it has to do with imagination."

Stephen Heyer: "I really wish I could agree with you. It would make me feel better as I dislike authoritarians. However, given what a successful evolutionary/reproductive strategy this often is, I cannot."

Whether a particular behavior is due to a something that is added or subtracted from the psyche says nothing about evolution and reproductive strategies. It's entirely possible for something extra to be a detriment, or a lack to be an advantage.

In any case, I do not believe that authoritarian behavior is bilogically heritable, nor it does it appear to me that authoritarian cultures have a special advantage in the world. Authoritarians tend to follow what I call "brittle strategies," which often seem to work for a short while, then fail catastrophically.

It's easy to be pessimistic about time spans of less than one's own lifetime, as we tend to project our own mortality on the enterprise. But I believe that humanity is better than it was a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, a thousand years ago. The future is always dark and uncertain, but it seems to me that young people today are, despite everything, an improvement on previous generations, except, of course, for their music, which is just noise.

[realpc]

"The results would have had a lot less exposure if they correlated the functioning with a functional metric which might have explained the correlate better, e.g. anxiety."

That's a possible explanation. An anxious, distrustful, person might be more likely to self-identify as a political conservative. The word "conservative" implies "careful," which appeals to an anxious person, even though the political meaning is somewhat different.

An anxious person might not perform as well on certain kinds of tests.

So even if nothing else is wrong with the research, failure to define its independent variable renders it ambiguous, and probably invalid.

[calmo]

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

So there you have it folks: a body of empirical evidence that points to (ordinarily I'd say "proves", but now that I'm a self-discovered liberal, I'm conflict tolerant, you know?) liberal brains bein more tolerant than conservatives.

But there is another view: this body of work solidifies the case that "liberal" means tolerant and "conservative", not so much. Are you liberal enough to see that? conservative enough to agree wholeheartedly that this is just fiat and not science?
But I do like James' piece and commendation of anne (and his (possibly only former) self with the geologist bein right) and noting that this is pretty rare: admitting that you were wrong; even rarer: admitting that you were wrong before and drawing further attention to it for heuristic purposes (and not say exorcism or masochism or...).
Bein wrong is not half as bad as bein Bad and refusing to admit it. Bein dense is what we should all be tryin to overcome...that's Me: density combatant.

[robertdfeinman]

Here's the question that everyone is dancing around: were the investigators predisposed to find a certain outcome? Even if they were, did they take steps to eliminate their bias?

By not looking at the results of the questionnaires until the experiment was completed the answer to the second question seems to be yes.

Did they then state their results in an inflammatory or biased fashion? The answer to this seems to be maybe. Those who dislike their conclusions will say yes, while those who think they confirm their prejudices that conservatives are mentally deficient will say no.

I would say that they used "fighting words" in order to get their paper noticed within all the hubbub of the current media world. Whether this was proper on not, they can take up with their spiritual advisers. I always try to write a heading on my essays that will get them noticed, and so does every headline writer at newspapers.

Does this lead to overstating things? Yes. Do you have a better idea? Please let us know.

[romath]

99% crap research (there is a grain of truth). First, the study is of college students, i.e., teenagers who come from structured environments and are still early in the process of learning about the world, forming more or less lasting opinions, and seeing their personalities develop. Second, most people combine some mixture of 'conservative' and 'liberal' and sometimes 'radical' or revolutionary. Third, how does one explain common individual change in views over time, often more than once in a lifetime, with this theory? Fourth, how does one explain widespread shifts in political thinking during major political crises, such as during wars, depressions and uprisings/revolutions?

[anne]

Ah, just finished reading the paper and Alex Tolley fairly and well gives a sense of the research, though I now have to think carefully through the methodology. As I explained, I am sympathetic to the research having changed a presupposition thanks to Mark Thoma. Also, I have to ask myself several times why my presupposition was so fixed and strong. Why should any such research be threatening, because there is obviously no slanting of the methodology?

Without critiquing the paper as yet, I am taken with the nature and direction of such research.

[Mark Thoma]

I asked myself the same question. There was a time when I had a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that genetic differences were important. I now find myself more receptive, but something about it has been nagging at me and I haven't been able to fully figure out what it is. I guess I don't know where it leads us.

"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who."

[anne]

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1979.html

September 9, 2007

Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism.
By David M Amodio, John T Jost, Sarah L Master & Cindy M Yee

[Alex Tolley]

mark thoma: "There was a time when I had a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that genetic differences were important. I now find myself more receptive".

That's interesting. I might suggest that this is because humans have used visible differences to exert power over other groups. This is genuinely "unpleasant" behavior and you wish to disassociate yourself from these historical precedents.

However, rather than looking for differences, one can look for similarities. For example, Richard Dawkins likes to suggest that our recent evolutionary split from the apes should make us more appreciative of how close cousins they are to us humans and that we should treat them much better than we do. I strongly agree with him. If you can accept the apes as deserving of care, it becomes much harder to distinguish between humans by genetic means.

What I find interesting is that I have debated with people who will find any excuse to separate humans and apes on some fundamental level, often to justify our exploitation of them as they are "different" and "below" us.

[brian holt]

I understand that this research can be considered troubling. Nature is a good journal, and although we should always be skeptical, this current research is not an aberration (see posts from others above). It doesn't mean that liberals are better thinkers, necessarily either. even the lead author makes mention that there are times when the conservative styles are more beneficial.

Alex: "So your brain has the same functioning as that of someone suffering from schizophrenia or depression or autism or...?"

I wish you would continue the list, but I'm not surprised because you are using very odd comparisons. Are you saying that the brains of schizophrenia (and others) don't metabolize glucose? Would you say that Schizophrenics are *always* out of touch with reality? Are you saying that Schizophrenic brains don't need oxygen? You are grasping here, I think, to make a point that people are different. Everything I've said does not preclude individual differences. Not every rose looks the same, but they are more similar than different.

And that people are different does not rule out that biologically we are more similar than different. To make the point, Alex, that people are different you resort to using examples where less than 1% of the population meet the criteria for the disorder--they hardly represent a counterargument. You would have been better off sticking to your examples of introverts/extroverts, because at least in those examples we don't know if there are differences in the cognitive styles defined in the current study--that would be an interesting hypothesis.

Let me be very clear, our ability to perceive the world is based on our nervous system. Even psychotics know that tables are for eating dinner on. Where they have difficulty is more complicated to discuss here, but suffice it to say that their troubles seem to be caused by misinterpreting sensory events that are familiar to everyone, whereas 'normal' people are better able to ignore them--it's like the feeling you get when you almost step out in front of a bus; the rush of anxiety and adrenaline is overwhelming. Schizophrenics, sadly, occasionally have that experience when people say "hello" to them.

The point of this research is to understand whether there are cognitive differences between people with liberal or conservative tendencies. Robert makes a very good case why we should take this seriously. One shouldn't conclude that this is necessarily biologically caused--cognitive styles are learned for the most part (I should leave some room for some biological factors of cognitive styles).

Last point to help clarify the origins of these cognitive styles: everyone has to learn how to deal with stress and failure. We all go through a developmental process to this end. Four factors contribute to individual differences: 1) Temperament (e.g., some people are genetically more anxious than others), 2) Childhood experiences (trauma), 3) Skills learned from parents ("honey, just don't think about it and just keep busy"), and 4) Skills learned by happenstance (e.g., self-hypnosis--if it worked to reduce anxiety, you'll be more likely to try it again in the future). All contribute to individual differences.

It's not surprising that authoritarian parents are pretty good at raising their fair share of authoritarian children. Is it 100%? Of course not, but it's not non-significant, either.

[Alex Tolley]

brian holt: "Are you saying that the brains of schizophrenia (and others) don't metabolize glucose?". I'm saying that your level of similarity/difference is not relevant. All cells in your body, indeed all eukaryote cells metabolize glucose. Is your brain like your liver, or a rose? The relevant issue for brains is their wiring and neurochemistry. Some of that is known to have genetic components - hence my list.

"The point of this research is to understand whether there are cognitive differences between people with liberal or conservative tendencies."

I'm arguing that there is no meaningful functional continuum along this axis. What does liberal mean in this context? Left wing, social democrat, or free-thinker (i.e. classic meaning liberal)? Similarly what does conservative mean? These are poor labels to apply as variables. If I had to to choose a more meaningful variables, I would use curiosity/exploratory behavior. This is a universal behavior, can be tested on animals as models and is free from socially constructed labels. Furthermore, if you wanted to apply a label after that, it would be far more useful to say that, e.g. a classic liberal/scientist exhibited greater curiosity/exploratory behavior than e.g. a member of the clergy.

Having said that, I don't think we are that far apart.

[brian holt]

Hi Alex,

I think you have a good point when you say that you are "...arguing that there is no meaningful functional continuum along this axis."

My experience is that past attempts at defining liberalism and conservativism have been lacking--I think you would agree to this. This research in question, however, might be a good step at using empirical observations to do so.

The subjects are basically allowed to self-select as to whether they are liberal or conservative. Never mind that this method has been shown to be both reliable and valid in actually identifying liberals and conservatives.

If you have a group of people self-select on any dimension (e.g., intro-/extrovert, catholic/protestant, Good/Bad, Pretty/Ugly, A/B) and then after participating in an experiment the two groups show markedly different cognitive styles, would you not find that remarkable?

I'll push the point further: If you randomly chose any discrete variable--hair color for the sake of argument, had subjects self-select themselves into one or the other, and then assessed their cognitive styles, wouldn't you expect random variation in performance across the variable (i.e., no significant difference in performance)?

[Alex Tolley]

brian holt: "If you randomly chose any discrete variable--hair color for the sake of argument, had subjects self-select themselves into one or the other, and then assessed their cognitive styles, wouldn't you expect random variation in performance across the variable (i.e., no significant difference in performance)?"

The issue is the meaning of the variable. E.g. Is wrinkled skin associated with hair color? Shouldn't be until you realize white hair is correlated with this condition. But white hair (or hair color) is the not the relevant variable, age is.

You ask would I find relationships in cognitive styles between different pairs, e.g. catholic/protestant. Actually I wouldn't. The reason is quite simple, how would I explore this further? Read the relevant biblical texts? Study the churches? Investigate the organizational hierarchies? What I would be asking is "What is the biological or cultural reason for the observed differences?" Are they innate (the person self-selects their religion) or environmental (e.g. church training). Conservatism doesn't tell me much. But if I can substitute emotion vs logic, then I have a handle on neural wiring. In the case of religion, it is more about the feelings of "connectedness" and the sense of awe at creation. But these are being connected to distinct neural pathways, which explain the feelings which everyone senses, not a religion per se, which is a cultural manifestation rooted in a particular place and time. Then I can ask different questions, e.g. if many feel awe at creation, and scientists do too, why do they not accept holy texts but want to understand the mechanics of the universe? Now I can start to think about the the relationships about different parts of the brain. Do scientists have strong exploratory behaviors, plus strong logical capabilities that manifest as feeling happy when trying to understand puzzles. Why is this different from physical explorers? And so on.

Thus to me at least, the liberal/conservative axis has no real value other than some surrogate for the real personality traits that better map to the underlying brain structures and functions. Because, at its core, I want to understand behavior based on the relevant structures in the brain and for that, I need good mappings of the relevant behaviors that are connected with them.

[brian holt]

"But white hair (or hair color) is the not the relevant variable, age is."

Actually, age is just a convenient proxy variable used until we know more about a phenomenon. And if you are suggesting that there could be other variables responsible for these behaviors, I'm open to hearing about them. I'd just like to point out that whatever varialbes you can think of, we don't really know about the utility of them like we know the utility of the variables used in this study. After all, that's the power of empiricism.

"You ask would I find relationships in cognitive styles between different pairs, e.g. catholic/protestant. Actually I wouldn't."

Of course you wouldn't. That was my point. I wonder if you glanced over what I wrote, or maybe I didn't write it clearly. I wouldn't expect to find differences in cognitive styles between protestants/catholics, etc, either, because there shouldn't be any relationship there, as far as I know. If there is no relationship, there's no significant result. In this study, however, there is significance, and that *is* remarkable. In other words, if these constructs liberal/conservative have no meaning, how could they possibly cleave cognitive performance so clearly?

I appreciate your concern with the 'meaning' of the liberal/conservative dichotomy. My sense is that your approach is to have a clean, operational definition of those terms, or any terms that may be used to explain differences in behavior. This is good thinking.

But in construct validation, the direction of explanation is turned around: this experiment actually gives meaning, perhaps more concrete meaning to those terms than what came previously.

If the methods are sound, this should be a fairly straightforward experiment to replicate, and I would bet that the more we learn, we will find that these cognitive styles are relatively stable and dependent on those 4 factors I listed way above (temperament, experience, learned coping, happenstance), and persist in dividing liberals from conservatives (at least those who rate themselves in the extreme of those categories).

As for brain structures that could causes the differences, I think that is an odd question. One Cognitive style isn't necessarily better than another--such outcomes would depend on the definition of success, which is largely context dependent. And both styles are probably localized in the same region(s), just as different languages from different cultures are localized in the left hemisphere. Again, the vast majority like pizza.

[reason]

To reinforce what Brian Holt says about interpreting the results as good or bad...
If you think about it, it depends on the relative frequency of false positives or false negatives.
I don't think such studies "prove" anything, but at the same time rejected information merely because it doesn't match your priors is basically rejecting the whole of science. Science remains the only objective tool we have for discovering truth. It is constantly screened for bias. (Peer review, reproduction of results, double blind testing etc.)
This study is just a brick in the wall. But maybe it points in an interesting direction. It seems hardly surprising to me, those who a more sensitive to nuance, notice differences more. Hardly earth shattering stuff.

[btgraff]

I wonder if the left/right division is appropriate, and if there might not be another way to look at this...

People on the far and far left tend to deal with issues the same way - they tend to put problems or issues through the same filter rather than trying to approach it with an open mind.

Here in Canada there are 3 main parties - Conservative, NDP and Liberal - very often hard-core Conservatives and NDPers find that they have more in common with each other because they tend to base everythin on ideology - and Liberals are seen as the enemy becuase they are not intellectually "consistent" and also becuase Liberal politiicians tend to "flip-flop" depending on public opinion (which helps Liberals win elections, of course). Hard-core left wing NDPers hate the Liberals and dream of a day when we will have a 2 party system - which they imagine will be highly polarised rather than having 2 parties slightly left or right of centre.

The US political landscape is quite different from many other countries and this might have skewed the results compared to doing a similar survey in a country which had a stronger left wing bias in the population.

[Alex Tolley]

brian holt: We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the value of the liberal/conservative axis.

I will say this. Churchill(?) once said that if you were a communist until you were 18, there was something wrong with your heart, but if you were still a communist at 40, there was something wrong with your head.

When I was at university, many many moons ago, I would have described myself as socialist, in line with most of my peers in Britain at the time, although I would not consider myself one now. I knew people who called themselves communists (at least they were part of the university communist society and bored us with their silly arguments about property) but subsequently became quite conservative later in life.

I would posit to you that what people call themselves has much to do with their peer groups. If you would grant me that observation as true, then you would have to consider why some neural wiring is related to that. Furthermore, if you were to posit that the wiring is in some way related to the liberal/conservative variable, you would have to show that it indeed changes as the self-descriptions change.

If you want to tell me that I am confusing liberal/conservative with a political axis, rather than some deeper, measurable cognitive style, then fair enough. But that is partly the point I am trying to make, that this confusion is being made in the PR reports by referring to politicians and their behavior.

[Patricia Shannon]

Being a "liberal" in a "conservative" family, I am inclined to think there is some genetic basis. Some here have attributed these differences to "personality" traits, but where do the differing personality traits come from? From genetics. A major component of conservatism seems to be fear. Surely the strength of the tendency to be fearful is affected by both genetics and experience.

I agree with Stephen Heyer. For most of human history, it has been a survival mechanism for most people to be "conservative". If you ate the taboo plants, you were likely to die, because they were poisonous. I have read that wild animals who don't keep to the established paths are less likely to survive. The established ways might not be "the best", but the fact that the society existed showed that they worked well enough. But a smaller percentage of "liberals" were also necessary for when things changed, and to make progress possible. I wish we could value each other for our differences, for the world need us all (well, maybe not Rash Limburger!) Of course, that is the liberal point of view! :) Unfortunately, we are living at a point in history when conservative ways of thinking can cause all of us great harm by failing to deal with threats to our environment.

That does not mean that self interest and environment don't also affect our way of thinking. But also note that the tendency to become less flexible (ie. "conservative") as people grow older, is probably due greatly to the slowing down of biological processes as we grow older, including those of the brain. We can still create new brain cells and connections, but I would expect more slowly. And the older we get, the more experiences we have that give us cause for fearfulness. And those with very low amounts of fear probably don't live as long!

[brian holt]

If you can't agree that the study actually provides evidence that the liberal/conservative distinction *is* useful, then, well, there is always tomorrow. Really, I want to be able to find some common ground here, but there isn't. It's just too simple of an experiment to ignore. Let me demonstrate again:

If I bet you $1,000 dollars that 50 people who claim to be extremely conservative would demonstrate significantly more tolerance for ambiguous situations than 50 people who claimed to be extremely liberal, would you take the bet?

If you don't take the bet, based on the results of this study,I'm sorry to say that that decision would be foolish.

Now, self-identifying one's self as liberal or conservative has been reliably shown to be a good predictor of actually being aligned with those political factions. It's not an irrational conclusion to suggest that, as a group, those factions think (i.e., use cognitive styles) differently.

As for this quote:

"I would posit to you that what people call themselves has much to do with their peer groups. "

Of course they do, but people select their peers, not the other way around. And part of how peers are selected is based on our cognitive styles. Birds of feather, so to speak.

Clearly it's complicated. You are taking a very biologically determined track, I think, that there must be some biological mechanism to explain these differences. I don't think you will find one, unless you include within the definition of 'mechanism' the quantity or pattern of neuronal connections. People who frequently exercise certain cognitive skills will have more neuronal connections in certain brain regions compared to someone who uses those skills less. To me, that's not a mechanism, that's a pattern. (Could be that I'm hearing something semantically different than you intend. Sorry if I am.) This then begs the question of why would a person use some cognitive skills over others? Again, the 4 factors (temperament, experiences, learning, chance).

I refer you again to Maturana and Valera, who have demonstrated with simpler organisms that nervous systems are simply about coordinating action. The more complex the nervous system, the more complex the action. And again, if something works to maintain survivability (and in the case of people, cognitive and emotional equilibrium), then that organism will persist in that action until it doesn't work.

When it doesn't work, something new emerges. What emerges will be caused by those 4 factors (temperament, experience, learning, and chance), which will shape whether one person likes complexity, for example, or shuns it.

Based on this research we've bantering about, it's pretty clear that people who claim to be extremely conservative tend to shun ambiguity.

Lastly:

"If you want to tell me that I am confusing liberal/conservative with a political axis, rather than some deeper, measurable cognitive style, then fair enough."

Now I understand you. If you are trying to answer what does it mean to be liberal or conservative, politically speaking, that is hard. I've been trying to understand it since exactly 6 years ago today. Ironically, I've been teaching Authoritarian parenting styles for about 10 years, and I never made the connection to political parties. But the research that has been coming out these past 4 years are demonstrating that the political definitions could be replaced with cognitive ones. I'd expect that Liberals might have a some distractability or impulsivity issues, perhaps with an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex. And like this study, such a finding doesn't mean liberals suck--being distractable is good in certain situations.

But when you see a politician say "life is simple, and the other guy makes it too complicated," it's pretty clear that he's not talking to liberals, who tend to think "life is complex and nuanced, those other guys are oversimplifying things."

And Alex, I appreciate your willingness to keep engaging me on this.

[brian holt]

Patricia:

"But also note that the tendency to become less flexible (ie. "conservative") as people grow older, is probably due greatly to the slowing down of biological processes as we grow older, including those of the brain."

Actually, it's better to think about this tendency in terms of 'cost in rearranging one's world view'

Children have very simple world views. When the infant puts an ink pen into his mouth, he suddenly experiences that there are suckables and non-suckables. That's a pretty basic distinction that will in time become much more complicated. At this stage, it's easy to overhaul one's world view.

For adults, our world views are very complex and very useful. We like to add bits of information, but complete overhauls are very traumatic. In fact, it sometimes takes a massive, traumatic-like experience for people to change how they see things. A heart attack might jar a smoker into quitting.

but the cost for adults to change their thinking is usually much more expensive then it is for younger folk.

to use a very mechanical metaphor, for younger folk, it's like upgrading your computer from Dos to Windows. For adults, it's like XP to Vista, or Windows to Mac. it's a pain.

And yes, it doesn't help that as we age we loose a few brain cells and they don't signal as fast as they used to.

[Patricia Shannon]

True, it's likely there are several factors at work, interacting with each other.

[Lafayette]

DA: The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Right, especially information that trickle-down economics is without a shred of substantiated foundation.

Very distracting, that, for the structured conservative mentality.

[DJM]

robertdfeinman said;
"Altemeyer ran some experiments in which the subjects played a world simulation. A group of high authoritarians destroyed the world. The group of very low authoritarians did nothing, that is they just dithered. His conclusion, the world needs a mix of types. The danger lies when too many of one type gain control."

Funny thing is that is not the way I recall the world simulation went at all....the high authoritarians did destroy it in record time (in fact twice) but the low authoritarians worked together and created global organizations to solve world problems and aid natural disaster victims and created a better all around world .
You can read it all for yourself in the online book; http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
or quickly check it out here;
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/08/17/essentials-altemeyers-the-authoritarians/

The experiment Altemeyer conducted in 1994, described in his free book, which looked at what happens When Authoritarians Rule the World

[DJM]

dh mentioned the Meyers-Briggs type indicators... I read "Type Talk" years ago, it was probably the first book I read on the subject of personality types and I thought it fascinating.

[anne]

Thank you, DJM. I will have finished the book this weekend.

[reason]

Patricia Shannon
Being a "liberal" in a "conservative" family, I am inclined to think there is some genetic basis.
Maybe you could have been a "conservative" in a "liberal" family instead?

[brian holt]

DJM..."Funny thing is that is not the way I recall the world simulation went at all....the high authoritarians did destroy it in record time (in fact twice) but the low authoritarians worked together"

Right...and it's worth pointing out that this experiment didn't use people who thought themselves to be 'moderately' liberal or conservative--the study used 'extreme' versions of those calling themselves liberal/conservative.

Any conclusions should extend no further to those types.

[M. Easterbrook]

My father,Charelson Heston, others also seem to get conservative with age, perhaps as their alheimer's disease progress.
The conservative/liberal letters to the editor are distinct in their thoughtfullness, writing style, and emotion.
Conservatives also quote the conservative commercials without much thought.
During the Bush/Gore Florida vote problem. Gore was a "cry baby" for going to the Florida Court, but Bush was not a Supreme baby for going to the US Supreme court.