• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conservative Brain vs. Liberal Brain - Study

Fear is a good thing... it gets things done, it gives incentive to plan for the future, lets you make intelligent decisions.

excessive fear and excessive optimism are both a bad thing...
 
It makes perfect sense that liberals tend to call conservatives trepidus/xenophobic/worrying..... and Conservatives tend to accuse Liberals of lack of seeing unintended consequences/future repercussions
 
SecularSapience said:
So, you don't think the study was exaggerated or biased, but it was completely and entirely fabricated?
Click to expand...

First you identify the "proper" results (findings), then you determine what evidence you need to "prove" the "proper" results of the "study," then you create the study.

I've seen similarly written studies from the other side of the spectrum, making "liberal brains" look needy and scared, that are just as specious as this one, IMHO.
 
Sorry, I should have waited to post everything in one, but I wanted to get early thoughts in before posting more...

The woman characterized the amygdala for her own ego points..... Here are the actual facts about that part of the brain...

It is Primarily responsible for assigning emotional significance to encountered perceptions. In other words, reviews sense data and assigns emotional importance- i.e. particular threats. It produces discomfort until the threat is dealt with, it is NOT the fight or flight "panic" fear. Like when you get a bad feeling about something... that nagging feeling when you aren't doing your homework.

It also plays a part in Facial recognition, reading the emotions in facial expressions.

In Humans, the size of the Amygdala varies a lot throughout the population, quite more significantly than most body parts.

If someone has a abnormally small Amygdala they get symptoms such as : avoidance of eye contact, inability to perceive and process threats.

People who have a poorly/low functioning Amygdala get symptoms such as: Novelty seeking, Overeating, repetitive threat exposure, Docility, Increase sexual Drive, Lack of Empathy

Predator species tend to have much larger amygdalas than other species, mostly because the amount predators have to plan and perceive threats for the present and future.

People who have larger social groups tend to have larger amygdalas, they tend to have large complex social lives.




SO there are the facts, instead of just trying to label one aspect and not giving the big picture... I think the study is legitimate and it also makes sense.
 
celticwar17 said:
Sorry, I should have waited to post everything in one, but I wanted to get early thoughts in before posting more...

The woman characterized the amygdala for her own ego points..... Here are the actual facts about that part of the brain...

It is Primarily responsible for assigning emotional significance to encountered perceptions. In other words, reviews sense data and assigns emotional importance- i.e. particular threats. It produces discomfort until the threat is dealt with, it is NOT the fight or flight "panic" fear. Like when you get a bad feeling about something... that nagging feeling when you aren't doing your homework.

It also plays a part in Facial recognition, reading the emotions in facial expressions.

In Humans, the size of the Amygdala varies a lot throughout the population, quite more significantly than most body parts.

If someone has a abnormally small Amygdala they get symptoms such as : avoidance of eye contact, inability to perceive and process threats.

People who have a poorly/low functioning Amygdala get symptoms such as: Novelty seeking, Overeating, repetitive threat exposure, Docility, Increase sexual Drive, Lack of Empathy

Predator species tend to have much larger amygdalas than other species, mostly because the amount predators have to plan and perceive threats for the present and future.

People who have larger social groups tend to have larger amygdalas, they tend to have large complex social lives.




SO there are the facts, instead of just trying to label one aspect and not giving the big picture... I think the study is legitimate and it also makes sense.
Click to expand...

I didn't know about 80% of that. Much appreciated for the insight. As much **** as I talk about Fox for their obvious bias, I kinda' got naive here and auto-trusted what was said. I am definitely interested in seeing some more research into this -- it might just be me, but I find it fascinating.
 
celticwar17 said:
Sorry, I should have waited to post everything in one, but I wanted to get early thoughts in before posting more...

The woman characterized the amygdala for her own ego points..... Here are the actual facts about that part of the brain...

It is Primarily responsible for assigning emotional significance to encountered perceptions. In other words, reviews sense data and assigns emotional importance- i.e. particular threats. It produces discomfort until the threat is dealt with, it is NOT the fight or flight "panic" fear. Like when you get a bad feeling about something... that nagging feeling when you aren't doing your homework.

It also plays a part in Facial recognition, reading the emotions in facial expressions.

In Humans, the size of the Amygdala varies a lot throughout the population, quite more significantly than most body parts.

If someone has a abnormally small Amygdala they get symptoms such as : avoidance of eye contact, inability to perceive and process threats.

People who have a poorly/low functioning Amygdala get symptoms such as: Novelty seeking, Overeating, repetitive threat exposure, Docility, Increase sexual Drive, Lack of Empathy

Predator species tend to have much larger amygdalas than other species, mostly because the amount predators have to plan and perceive threats for the present and future.

People who have larger social groups tend to have larger amygdalas, they tend to have large complex social lives.




SO there are the facts, instead of just trying to label one aspect and not giving the big picture... I think the study is legitimate and it also makes sense.
Click to expand...

Well.......... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...08/the-amygdala-is-not-the-brains-fear-center

"The conclusion that the amygdala is the brain’s fear center wrongly assumes that the feelings of “fear” and the responses elicited by threats are products of the same brain system. While amygdala circuits are directly responsible for behavioral/physiological responses elicited by threats, they are not directly responsible for feelings of “fear.”"

And to the point... "Postscript: Be suspicious of any statement that says a brain area is a center responsible for some function. The notion of functions being products of brain areas or centers is left over from the days when most evidence about brain function was based on the effects of brain lesions localized to specific areas. Today, we think of functions as products of systems rather than of areas. Neurons in areas contribute because they are part of a system. The amygdala, for example, contributes to threat detection because it is part of a threat detection system. And just because the amygdala contributes to threat detection does not mean that threat detection is the only function to which it contributes. Amygdala neurons, for example, are also components of systems that process the significance of stimuli related to eating, drinking, sex, and addictive drugs."
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Well.......... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...08/the-amygdala-is-not-the-brains-fear-center

"The conclusion that the amygdala is the brain’s fear center wrongly assumes that the feelings of “fear” and the responses elicited by threats are products of the same brain system. While amygdala circuits are directly responsible for behavioral/physiological responses elicited by threats, they are not directly responsible for feelings of “fear.”"

And to the point... "Postscript: Be suspicious of any statement that says a brain area is a center responsible for some function. The notion of functions being products of brain areas or centers is left over from the days when most evidence about brain function was based on the effects of brain lesions localized to specific areas. Today, we think of functions as products of systems rather than of areas. Neurons in areas contribute because they are part of a system. The amygdala, for example, contributes to threat detection because it is part of a threat detection system. And just because the amygdala contributes to threat detection does not mean that threat detection is the only function to which it contributes. Amygdala neurons, for example, are also components of systems that process the significance of stimuli related to eating, drinking, sex, and addictive drugs."
Click to expand...

WHich is actually what I explained.... it's not the "fear" you normally think... the amygdala can trigger the Fight or Flight part of the brain, but it isn't THE fight or flight part of the brain...
 
Casper said:
Not a true study or even scientific in nature. Amusing at best, more likely misleading especially for the weak minded, should be interesting to see the posts here and see who are in the later category.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing weak-minded about being fascinated by this area of research. One of the hosts in the video clearly states that he's "dubious" of the whole study for a number of reasons. Now, I would agree that it would be pretty weak-minded if one were to watch the video and go spouting off about how this is "proof that conservatives are thick-headed idiots."
 
SecularSapience said:
There's absolutely nothing weak-minded about being fascinated by this area of research. One of the hosts in the video clearly states that he's "dubious" of the whole study for a number of reasons. Now, I would agree that it would be pretty weak-minded if one were to watch the video and go spouting off about how this is "proof that conservatives are thick-headed idiots."
Click to expand...
Wait for it..................
 
SecularSapience said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIHRGUMr3Ak

I'm not sure if this is the proper location for this topic, but I am interested in thoughts regarding this finding.
Click to expand...

When I was younger, I was definitely a Liberal.

Now I am a fiscal Conservative, although I hold the political lean in favor of almost all Liberal ideas AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY TAX EXPENDITURES.

I am also fiscally Conservative in my private life and endorse the notion that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it does not injure others on any level. Again, self reliance is the cornerstone of the freedoms that I endorse.

Would the parts of the brain that are larger or smaller be larger or smaller in me than others?

The definition of Liberal and Conservative seem to vary by both those who self identify and those who condemn or assess. In the case of this video, the assessment seems to be more of a condemnation.

Also, do those parts of the brain change in size as one ages? Why would the attitudes I have change if the brain's components' sizes don't change if this study is anything besides crap?
 
Last edited:
So the video starts off with calling conservatives primitive and lacking courage. (large amygdalas, which is responsible for fear and other primitive emotions ... smaller anterior something-or-other, which is responsible for courage and optimism).

I'm already skeptical, one minute in. Particularly with the smug look on this broad's face after she read that.
 
I don't understand why anyone would waste money on this kind of research. We have a fairly good understanding of what conservatism is and what kinds of people are attracted to it. What value is there in knowing what their brain looks like?

Brain imaging may one day revolutionize psychiatry. I look forward to the day that we can treat: psychopathy, pedophilia, schizophrenia, and other major disorders by directly targeting the regions of the brain that lead to these issues. But what point is there in using brain imaging to show us things we already have a good understanding of and are within the spectrum of normal thought patterns?
 
Critter7r said:
So the video starts off with calling conservatives primitive and lacking courage. (large amygdalas, which is responsible for fear and other primitive emotions ... smaller anterior something-or-other, which is responsible for courage and optimism).

I'm already skeptical, one minute in. Particularly with the smug look on this broad's face after she read that.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the reaction of this broad to being called a broad?
 
code1211 said:
Can you imagine the reaction of this broad to being called a broad?
Click to expand...

The snub was intentionally subtle.

FWIW, Urban Dictionary has a good definition of "broad", and it's not an insult by any stretch : Word for a woman. Less respectable than lady but much more respectable than bitch.
 
Yeeessss, conservatives are idiots, says a young girl who can't pronounce the areas of the brain she's attempting to describe.
 
Seems to me liberals have some knowledge but not much wisdom, and for some reason they can't see very far down the road to see the havoc their policies cause. Two examples:

I remember when the liberals went to place a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich"). What happened was the rich quit buying yachts so the yacht manufactures lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy, again.

Another prime example: The do-gooders in San Francisco decided to give $400 'welfare' checks to homeless people. Help the poor, right? Well, next thing you know every bum in America (criminals too) began showing up in San Fran for a free ride. Crime goes up, bums are everywhere hitting on regular folks for money, etc., and the police tell the libs they have to stop the madness, which they eventually did. Another liberal disaster...
 
"Its not that liberals are ignorant - its just the everything they know is wrong" - The Gipper.

Also, a common characteristic of the garden variety liberal is the need to be well thought of by others. It leads to adherence to GroupThink - the hallmark of liberal thought.
 
Logicman said:
Seems to me liberals have some knowledge but not much wisdom, and for some reason they can't see very far down the road to see the havoc their policies cause. Two examples:

I remember when the liberals went to place a 10% luxury tax on yacht sales ("get the rich"). What happened was the rich quit buying yachts so the yacht manufactures lost all kinds of money and the little guy who helped build the yachts got laid off. So it wasn't "get the rich," it was the liberals screwing the little guy, again.

Another prime example: The do-gooders in San Francisco decided to give $400 'welfare' checks to homeless people. Help the poor, right? Well, next thing you know every bum in America (criminals too) began showing up in San Fran for a free ride. Crime goes up, bums are everywhere hitting on regular folks for money, etc., and the police tell the libs they have to stop the madness, which they eventually did. Another liberal disaster...
Click to expand...

The rich did not stop buying yachts.

They bought them outside of the US.

One of the many problems with government is that it populated with idiots who think they are smarter than anyone else.

They aren't. "The Rich" did not get to be rich because they were outsmarted by snot nosed, impudent, know nothing, inexperienced fools posturing for the camera. They got to be rich because they know how things work and how to get things done.

Raise the cost of something I want. No problem! I'll buy it somewhere else.

Doesn't take a genius to figure this out. It somehow escaped the range of knowledge present in DC. Idiots!

The real problem with expanding government is that the same idiots who can't effectively operate the government today will impact more and more people with their inept stupidity by increasing its size.

The best argument in favor of a smaller government is a bigger government.
 
TobyOne said:
"Its not that liberals are ignorant - its just the everything they know is wrong" - The Gipper.

Also, a common characteristic of the garden variety liberal is the need to be well thought of by others. It leads to adherence to GroupThink - the hallmark of liberal thought.
Click to expand...

How ironic, since you are doing 'group think' in that statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom