Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Archer77 on January 27, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
-
Discuss. I'm curious what my Republican friends think about this.
Research suggests that conservatives are, on average, more susceptible to fear than those who identify themselves as liberals. Looking at MRIs of a large sample of young adults last year, researchers at University College London discovered that “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala” ($$). The amygdala is an ancient brain structure that’s activated during states of fear and anxiety. (The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity.)
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/republican_fear_factor_salpart/
-
I doubt this has anything to do with conservatism/liberalism I suspect there are other factors like enviroment/life experience that play more into whether a person is conservative or liberal. This is probably more of an association again due to other forces that coincides with the "findings"
-
Discuss. I'm curious what my Republican friends think about this.
Research suggests that conservatives are, on average, more susceptible to fear than those who identify themselves as liberals. Looking at MRIs of a large sample of young adults last year, researchers at University College London discovered that “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala” ($$). The amygdala is an ancient brain structure that’s activated during states of fear and anxiety. (The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity.)
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/republican_fear_factor_salpart/
The repub/conservatives here is pretty sad and scared people.
I blame on the "news" they watch. And their stupidity.
-
Without having seen or heard of the research, ...I wouldn't entirely discount it's conclusions.
When you look at the issues that rile up & activate the conservative base, it's quite plausible they respond to and are motivated by fear, as well as appear to lack the capacity to even consider complexity, much less understand it.
Just my observation. :-\
-
Stupid "study".
This comment from 2012 says it all:
Thomas J Gassett
Saturday, May 5, 2012 12:34 PM EDT
All this proves is that Leftist are ignorant tools, that should be kept in rubber rooms and safely away from children and small animals.
-
Discuss. I'm curious what my Republican friends think about this.
Research suggests that conservatives are, on average, more susceptible to fear than those who identify themselves as liberals. Looking at MRIs of a large sample of young adults last year, researchers at University College London discovered that “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala” ($$). The amygdala is an ancient brain structure that’s activated during states of fear and anxiety. (The researchers also found that “greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex” – a region in the brain that is believed to help people manage complexity.)
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/03/republican_fear_factor_salpart/
more liberal propaganda.
-
more liberal propaganda.
It;s an imaging study you nitwit, how the hell could that be propagandha. If the number of subjects was high and the power of the study good, the conclusions have merit. However, I think in this case conservative and liberal are too broad to draw sound conclusions.
-
Please.. There was also a " study " years ago that said liberalism was linked to "mental disorder"... Anyone buying into a study about politics and mental capacity just proved their merit.. On both sides ::)
-
Please.. There was also a " study " years ago that said liberalism was linked to "mental disorder"... Anyone buying into a study about politics and mental capacity just proved their merit.. On both sides ::)
Exactly.
Thank you.
-
Please.. There was also a " study " years ago that said liberalism was linked to "mental disorder"... Anyone buying into a study about politics and mental capacity just proved their merit.. On both sides ::)
I disagree, political views and brain chemistry/structural/functionality has merit. I would predict that the right have more amygdala activation while cortical activity is linked to more liberal viewpoints. They aren't reciting bills but fundamental viewpoints that are very pervasive, hence the two party system.
-
My research suggests that everyone just needs another beer.
-
I disagree, political views and brain chemistry/structural/functionality has merit. I would predict that the right have more amygdala activation while cortical activity is linked to more liberal viewpoints. They aren't reciting bills but fundamental viewpoints that are very pervasive, hence the two party system.
The more interesting question is whether the brain differences are a product of nature or nurture.
-
The more interesting question is whether the brain differences are a product of nature or nurture.
Or alcohol.
-
The more interesting question is whether the brain differences are a product of nature or nurture.
Nature is the hardware, nurture is the software.
-
Nature is the hardware, nurture is the software.
epigenetics plays a very important role and it is simply not like this. Genes can be activated or turned off via epigenetical factors. It's more fluid then this and complex.
there is obviously a limit but it's obviously from both, neither explains it wholly.
-
I disagree, political views and brain chemistry/structural/functionality has merit. I would predict that the right have more amygdala activation while cortical activity is linked to more liberal viewpoints. They aren't reciting bills but fundamental viewpoints that are very pervasive, hence the two party system.
There's no merit. Hell you couldn't even define 'fundamental views'. How many times is Romney accused of not being a 'true' republican? How often is Obama associated with socialism?
Whatever issue you pick, it's not as simple as a clear dividing line. Not to mention the inherent bias of the people judging where a certain political view falls.
-
epigenetics plays a very important role and it is simply not like this. Genes can be activated or turned off via epigenetical factors. It's more fluid then this and complex.
there is obviously a limit but it's obviously from both, neither explains it wholly.
Good answer. I agree.
-
There's no merit. Hell you couldn't even define 'fundamental views'. How many times is Romney accused of not being a 'true' republican? How often is Obama associated with socialism?
Whatever issue you pick, it's not as simple as a clear dividing line. Not to mention the inherent bias of the people judging where a certain political view falls.
There are fundamental views that each party posits. Small government, low taxes etc for the right, social/progressive movements, shared responsibility the left.
I would say it is difficult but there is a clear right and left grouping and the ideas in each group are often diametrically opposed.
-
There are fundamental views that each party posits. Small government, low taxes etc for the right, social/progressive movements, shared responsibility the left.
I would say it is difficult but there is a clear right and left grouping and the ideas in each group are often diametrically opposed.
You know what I find funny is that ppls bias comes out even when they dont try. Im not throwing you under the bus everyone does it myself included but I just find it funny.
You say the left is for shared responsibility like the right is against it. The right is very much for helping others and taking care of community. They just dont like the govt telling them who should be looked after and what their money should go to...
Left and right are essentially the same at the end of the day outside of a very small amount of issues. The difference is the right believes the individual should be the decision maker and the left believes the govt should be.
-
There are fundamental views that each party posits. Small government, low taxes etc for the right, social/progressive movements, shared responsibility the left.
I would say it is difficult but there is a clear right and left grouping and the ideas in each group are often diametrically opposed.
Yeah you can broadly generalize party views, but not you're not going to be able to reliably classify people into those groups.
That's why you're typically making an idiot of yourself and saying stupid shit about Bush. Bush was Republican...but he was a huge spender and big government dude.
Plenty of Libs on this board that have talked about the need for a smaller gov't.
No way you can classify people into these - especially given the biases of the people conducting the test - and come out with something scientifically valid with results that can be generalized.
-
Good answer. I agree.
I'm out of my element... :o
-
I'm out of my element... :o
No way, man. I enjoy your posts.
-
I guess it's akin to the white guy driving through the black neighborhood and automatically locking their car doors.
I dunno...
To be honest, I guess if you live out in the middle of nowhere and you never have to deal with people, you will be more afraid that people in general, will do something shitty to you.
It's just lack of human interaction.
I got a friend of mine who lives in what may be the least crime area of the city and he is always afraid that his SUV is going to get stolen, even though there is virtually no crime in his area at all.
-
I guess it's akin to the white guy driving through the black neighborhood and automatically locking their car doors.
I dunno...
To be honest, I guess if you live out in the middle of nowhere and you never have to deal with people, you will be more afraid that people in general, will do something shitty to you.
It's just lack of human interaction.
I got a friend of mine who lives in what may be the least crime area of the city and he is always afraid that his SUV is going to get stolen, even though there is virtually no crime in his area at all.
In part I think it's how the media portrays violence. The media makes it seem like you are more likely to be a victim of violence as you actually are.
-
Yeah you can broadly generalize party views, but not you're not going to be able to reliably classify people into those groups.
That's why you're typically making an idiot of yourself and saying stupid shit about Bush. Bush was Republican...but he was a huge spender and big government dude.
Plenty of Libs on this board that have talked about the need for a smaller gov't.
No way you can classify people into these - especially given the biases of the people conducting the test - and come out with something scientifically valid with results that can be generalized.
actions have little to do with beliefs, which is what the independent variable was. Bush was and will say he is small government, low spending, he is a liar is all.
-
No way, man. I enjoy your posts.
good to hear! 8)
-
actions have little to do with beliefs, which is what the independent variable was. Bush was and will say he is small government, low spending, he is a liar is all.
Yeah...is it starting to sink in to your tiny mind now?
How about Obama? Here's a tip since your Canadian....do a quick google and you'll find Obama pimping himself as being for small government.
Is he lying like Bush? And if government has shrunk, and he's supporting that....where does that fall into your party lines that you just listed?
Starting to catch on yet?
-
Yeah...is it starting to sink in to your tiny mind now?
How about Obama? Here's a tip since your Canadian....do a quick google and you'll find Obama pimping himself as being for small government.
Is he lying like Bush? And if government has shrunk, and he's supporting that....where does that fall into your party lines that you just listed?
Starting to catch on yet?
is what sinking in, clearly neuroscience isn't your area. You can obviously find ideological discrepancies, however, in general terms you can create a workable dichotomy of beliefs. Again actions would have no neuronal correlates, it is belief that is measured. Delusion, circumstance etc all change actions, attitudes/beliefs are generally intransigent and pervasive.
so you have social issues, regardless of actual outcome that is clear between left and right.
economic principles are for the most part different.
Nothing tiny about my mind, straight 4.0 through all of school baby boi, I can list the krebs cycle enzymes and steps the components of the mesocoticolimbic pathway, all forms of serotonergic receptors and still defeat your delusion of importance.
-
is what sinking in, clearly neuroscience isn't your area. You can obviously find ideological discrepancies, however, in general terms you can create a workable dichotomy of beliefs. Again actions would have no neuronal correlates, it is belief that is measured. Delusion, circumstance etc all change actions, attitudes/beliefs are generally intransigent and pervasive.
so you have social issues, regardless of actual outcome that is clear between left and right.
economic principles are for the most part different.
Nothing tiny about my mind, straight 4.0 through all of school baby boi, I can list the krebs cycle enzymes and steps the components of the mesocoticolimbic pathway, all forms of serotonergic receptors and still defeat your delusion of importance.
No, that's the whole point...you can only create vague and ambiguous groupings and that's gonna limit how you can generalize the test results. In fact, they'll be so vague, their applicability will pretty much reside with the test group alone.
And you're not a doctor...wannabe.
-
Of course, you are the same tool who tried to claim the phone was invented in Canada...hahahaaha
Stick with that kid.
-
No, that's the whole point...you can only create vague and ambiguous groupings and that's gonna limit how you can generalize the test results. In fact, they'll be so vague, their applicability will pretty much reside with the test group alone.
And you're not a doctor...wannabe.
What was the power of the study, tell me? they had an objective measure, with reproducibility and enough power the study is generalizable. Your half wit explanations of vagueness etc are retarded, the social constructs measured has neural correlates, a pattern emerged (science) in those calling themselves GOP or LIBERAL.
-
Nobody is calling themselves GOP ya dumb drip.
-
Nobody is calling themselves GOP ya dumb drip.
Hi Skip,
as per previous posts, you have wandered into another logical fallacy, this one is called the red herring. If you require explanation let me know, I know reading isn't your forte.
This seems to be a common issue you have, in arguments the side that is losing tends to resort to these "fallacies" as it were. You should study some logic for a while.
-
Not really, just dawned on me from the other posts you're just a kid.
-
Not really, just dawned on me from the other posts you're just a kid.
Another stupid post, you're not even defending yourself anymore, just deflecting like a bitch.
Just quit now.
-
Defend what?
All you've done is say yes you can, yes you can and call me a retard.
Facts are not your friend. Of course, we knew that, lol.
-
Defend what?
All you've done is say yes you can, yes you can and call me a retard.
Facts are not your friend. Of course, we knew that, lol.
The facts are listed, I don't need to recite them. It's quite obvious you don't understand what is going on.
That's fine, science isn't your thing.