Liberals have more tolerance to uncertainty (bigger anterior cingulate cortex), and conservatives have more sensitivity to fear (bigger right amygdala).

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2012 5:36 PM GMT
    Differences in Conservative and Liberal Brains. This article is backed by scientific studies that are attached if you are interested in reading those studies.

    http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

    So, in other words, conservatives have a bigger part of the brain that is evolutionarily primitive, and liberals have a bigger part of the brain that is evolutionarily more advanced. I wonder if this is a trend that will eventually separate out humans into two separate species as men and women marry each other for similar values. What do you think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2012 5:45 PM GMT
    So it seems that "conservative" [wedge social issues aside] tendencies [while more evolutionarily primitive] inevitably tend to preserve civilizations and their
    identity while "liberal"[modern usage of the word] tendencies lean more towards a lack of emphasis on distinction of identity and hence greater chance of nationalistic collapse due to a higher level of open-mindedness (generally stemming from greater raw "intelligence") and overall lack of desire for competitive tribalism. So out of all the smart people in the world or a particular civilization (certainly a minority), the conservative ones are a minority within a minority (majority of intelligent people are liberal) but seem to be able to bridge the gap in that they are able to think beyond the philosophically intellectual aspects and realize the overall realistic picture (primitive survival of the fittest ideas that kick in when we are usually in times of crisis like, "feed and help my own family before yours", "take it for us before they get it", etc) and therefore decide to be "conservative" despite their general tendency to understand the beauty, compassionate longing for a John Lennon world, but ultimate idealism, naivety and decay of the liberal way.

    I would assume that, in times of crisis and shortage of food, someone with a liberal mind would be probably be more apt to share food with neighbors or other anonymous people even though they increase the chances of the food running out and everyone dying -- more tolerance for uncertainty. A conservative, being more fearful of food running out and dying would probably only share the food with people they consider most or more important depending on the severity of the situation ( "their family" or "their people"). Ultimately the conservative side is probably the selfish side but the most likely to survive. In a famine I'd probably rather find a liberal who has some extra food to share than a conservative, lol! Extremes of too much "conservatism" or too much "liberalism" isn't good. We need a balance of both -- but I say, slightly more emphasis on survival rather than extinction. Although, extinction is probably a lot less stressful! lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2012 5:57 PM GMT
    "12. When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary."

    Very important point right there! Liberals tend to oppose "necessary" gut reactions for survival, hence they will always end up being less likely to survive the evolutionary process.

    Ultimately, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that fear usually leads to greater survival than openness to uncertainty.

    I actually prefer the liberal thinking, I just know that it tends towards collapse if there isn't enough conservatism to keep things in tact.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 02, 2012 9:06 PM GMT
    Anyone want to challenge my assessment?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 8:36 AM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidAnyone want to challenge my assessment?


    Apparently not. I would like to but I have a life outside of RJ, believe it or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 12:21 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles saidSo it seems that "conservative" [wedge social issues aside] tendencies [while more evolutionarily primitive] inevitably tend to preserve civilizations and their
    identity while "liberal"[modern usage of the word] tendencies lean more towards a lack of emphasis on distinction of identity and hence greater chance of nationalistic collapse due to a higher level of open-mindedness (generally stemming from greater raw "intelligence") and overall lack of desire for competitive tribalism. So out of all the smart people in the world or a particular civilization (certainly a minority), the conservative ones are a minority within a minority (majority of intelligent people are liberal) but seem to be able to bridge the gap in that they are able to think beyond the philosophically intellectual aspects and realize the overall realistic picture (primitive survival of the fittest ideas that kick in when we are usually in times of crisis like, "feed and help my own family before yours", "take it for us before they get it", etc) and therefore decide to be "conservative" despite their general tendency to understand the beauty, compassionate longing for a John Lennon world, but ultimate idealism, naivety and decay of the liberal way.

    I would assume that, in times of crisis and shortage of food, someone with a liberal mind would be probably be more apt to share food with neighbors or other anonymous people even though they increase the chances of the food running out and everyone dying -- more tolerance for uncertainty. A conservative, being more fearful of food running out and dying would probably only share the food with people they consider most or more important depending on the severity of the situation ( "their family" or "their people"). Ultimately the conservative side is probably the selfish side but the most likely to survive. In a famine I'd probably rather find a liberal who has some extra food to share than a conservative, lol! Extremes of too much "conservatism" or too much "liberalism" isn't good. We need a balance of both -- but I say, slightly more emphasis on survival rather than extinction. Although, extinction is probably a lot less stressful! lol



    PURE CONVOLUTION !

    mock, The above paragraphs are one tangled mess.

    Consider rereading the article and then composing your conclusions in bullet-points. You might be able to see where you are contradicting yourself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 12:34 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]mocktwinkles said[/cite]"12. When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary."

    Very important point right there! Liberals tend to oppose "necessary" gut reactions for survival, hence they will always end up being less likely to survive the evolutionary process. "

    mock, Reread #12.

    I'll paraphrase it for you:

    Liberals tend to be flexible when new conditions demand it for the sake of survival (or simply a more favorable outcome).

    Conservatives tend NOT to be flexible in their responses------even when "it is necessary".


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 2:24 PM GMT
    Conservatives oppose Darwin, believing instead in Creationism, in which the only determinant of species survival or extinction is the will of God.

    Therefore a Conservative would be resistant to the implication contained in any study that would suggest they are more at risk of extinction in a changing world. For a key tenet of Darwinism is that a species that fails to adapt to a changing environment is more liable to extinction. And what this study proposes is that Conservatives would oppose changes to their circumstances, rather than adapting to them, thereby making them at risk for extinction.

    Of course humans have the greatest ability to influence their own environment, among all the species on Earth. It should therefore not come as a surprise that Conservatives respond to change by attempting to prevent it, rather than adapting to it, as a Liberal might.

    Unfortunately that has the effect of stifling human intellectual development, which is what made us human in the first place, not the hand of God. It is no coincidence that Conservatives are criticized for having minds that still function in the Middle Ages, and want to replace discovery with faith in past unalterable and unchallengeable beliefs. No science, no advances, no new learning, only support for the things that affirm and reinforce what they already think they know.

    And that definition of a Conservative is what this study appears to confirm on a physiological level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 3:19 PM GMT
    JockTheVote said[quote][cite]mocktwinkles said[/cite]"12. When faced with a conflict, liberals are more likely than conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary."

    Very important point right there! Liberals tend to oppose "necessary" gut reactions for survival, hence they will always end up being less likely to survive the evolutionary process. "

    mock, Reread #12.

    I'll paraphrase it for you:

    Liberals tend to be flexible when new conditions demand it for the sake of survival (or simply a more favorable outcome).

    Conservatives tend NOT to be flexible in their responses------even when "it is necessary".




    That's not what the article concluded though. I merely repeated what it said. It used the term "necessary".

    Think about it, talking logic or common sense or even intellectually to a cannibal who has a spear looking to kill you is not likely going to save your life. Liberal ideas are less likely to survive evolution because they tend to believe that everyone else is going to be able to think about something as rationally as you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 3:20 PM GMT
    ART_DECO saidConservatives oppose Darwin, believing instead in Creationism, in which the only determinant of species survival or extinction is the will of God.

    Therefore a Conservative would be resistant to the implication contained in any study that would suggest they are more at risk of extinction in a changing world. For a key tenet of Darwinism is that a species that fails to adapt to a changing environment is more liable to extinction. And what this study proposes is that Conservatives would oppose changes to their circumstances, rather than adapting to them, thereby making them at risk for extinction.

    Of course humans have the greatest ability to influence their own environment, among all the species on Earth. It should therefore not come as a surprise that Conservatives respond to change by attempting to prevent it, rather than adapting to it, as a Liberal might.

    Unfortunately that has the effect of stifling human intellectual development, which is what made us human in the first place, not the hand of God. It is no coincidence that Conservatives are criticized for having minds that still function in the Middle Ages, and want to replace discovery with faith in past unalterable and unchallengeable beliefs. No science, no advances, no new learning, only support for the things that affirm and reinforce what they already think they know.

    And that definition of a Conservative is what this study appears to confirm on a physiological level.


    Religion is another layer that has nothing to do with the "conservatism" being discussed. I'm talking atheist Ayn Rand conservatism. S.E Cupp is an atheist but also a conservative. Christianity is based on far more liberal ideas that "conservatism" is. The only way conservatives are able to win the Christian vote is by mixing Ayn Rand with Jesus.

    It some times baffles me why most atheists are not conservatives, but then again, maybe they are mainly thinking about the social issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 3:33 PM GMT
    JockTheVote said
    mocktwinkles saidSo it seems that "conservative" [wedge social issues aside] tendencies [while more evolutionarily primitive] inevitably tend to preserve civilizations and their
    identity while "liberal"[modern usage of the word] tendencies lean more towards a lack of emphasis on distinction of identity and hence greater chance of nationalistic collapse due to a higher level of open-mindedness (generally stemming from greater raw "intelligence") and overall lack of desire for competitive tribalism. So out of all the smart people in the world or a particular civilization (certainly a minority), the conservative ones are a minority within a minority (majority of intelligent people are liberal) but seem to be able to bridge the gap in that they are able to think beyond the philosophically intellectual aspects and realize the overall realistic picture (primitive survival of the fittest ideas that kick in when we are usually in times of crisis like, "feed and help my own family before yours", "take it for us before they get it", etc) and therefore decide to be "conservative" despite their general tendency to understand the beauty, compassionate longing for a John Lennon world, but ultimate idealism, naivety and decay of the liberal way.

    I would assume that, in times of crisis and shortage of food, someone with a liberal mind would be probably be more apt to share food with neighbors or other anonymous people even though they increase the chances of the food running out and everyone dying -- more tolerance for uncertainty. A conservative, being more fearful of food running out and dying would probably only share the food with people they consider most or more important depending on the severity of the situation ( "their family" or "their people"). Ultimately the conservative side is probably the selfish side but the most likely to survive. In a famine I'd probably rather find a liberal who has some extra food to share than a conservative, lol! Extremes of too much "conservatism" or too much "liberalism" isn't good. We need a balance of both -- but I say, slightly more emphasis on survival rather than extinction. Although, extinction is probably a lot less stressful! lol



    PURE CONVOLUTION !

    mock, The above paragraphs are one tangled mess.

    Consider rereading the article and then composing your conclusions in bullet-points. You might be able to see where you are contradicting yourself.


    If you'd like to point out where I'm contradicting myself, why don't don't you do it?

    I'll try to elucidate my points in an extremely simple format, just for you:

    1. Most smart people tend to be liberal -- of course that doesn't even mean that most liberal people are at all smart.
    2. Liberal ideas, while generally requiring more intellect are evolutionarily inferior for survival because they are morel likely to be so open minded that they discard ideals which form a cohesive nationalistic unit of "people" (think of concepts such as "protect our lands from those people and keep our nation and people strong and proud of who we are" -- liberals don't think that way at all). A liberal would be likely to say "we need to help all of the disenfranchised people of the world and make sure they have clean water". A conservative would be more likely to say "We need to worry about our own situation first and the challenges we face otherwise we won't be able to help anyone else!".
    3. Conservative ideas, while more primitive, tend to forge new civilizations, hold civilizations and nations together through a distinctive separate identity, nationalism and degrees of tribalism. These are ingredients that liberals completely disdain. They would prefer the world without borders and everyone with love in their hearts for learning about how other cultures are "maybe doing it better". A liberal would be more likely to say something like, "they have a better system than we do" than "we are the best nation and people in the world". Put those ideas on a grand scale and ask yourself which one fosters competitiveness and which one fosters defeat.
    4. While most smart people tend to be liberals, the minority of very intelligent conservatives (a minority within a minority), while completely able to understand and even prefer the liberal point of view (they just know it's idealism), realize the survival implications and ultimately the naivety and decay of the liberal way because of oversight -- oversight of those instinctive ideas which usually manifest themselves in times of distress or when an economy collapses.

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 03, 2012 3:47 PM GMT
    MocktwinkleIt some times baffles me why most atheists are not conservatives, but then again, maybe they are mainly thinking about the social issues.


    Yes, I think it is partly social issues. Honestly, the only thing I find more annoying than Bible preachers are Ayn Rand preachers. She was a shitty person who wrote shitty books (except for We The Living, which is great). Her arguement that selfishness is a virtue falls flat. Atlas Shrugged is the Bible for sociopaths. icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 03, 2012 3:50 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    MocktwinkleIt some times baffles me why most atheists are not conservatives, but then again, maybe they are mainly thinking about the social issues.


    Yes, I think it is partly social issues. Honestly, the only thing I find more annoying than Bible preachers are Ayn Rand preachers. She was a shitty person who wrote shitty books (except for We The Living, which is great). Her arguement that selfishness is a virtue falls flat. Atlas Shrugged is the Bible for sociopaths. icon_evil.gif


    Read my bullet points. In the end, conservatism tends to win over liberalism in terms of survival.

    The only reason why religion thrives in conservatism better than liberalism is because it's just another reason to have a "division", an "us vs them" scenario.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Oct 03, 2012 4:05 PM GMT
    mocktwinkles said
    HottJoe said
    MocktwinkleIt some times baffles me why most atheists are not conservatives, but then again, maybe they are mainly thinking about the social issues.


    Yes, I think it is partly social issues. Honestly, the only thing I find more annoying than Bible preachers are Ayn Rand preachers. She was a shitty person who wrote shitty books (except for We The Living, which is great). Her arguement that selfishness is a virtue falls flat. Atlas Shrugged is the Bible for sociopaths. icon_evil.gif


    Read my bullet points. In the end, conservatism tends to win over liberalism in terms of survival.

    The only reason why religion thrives in conservatism better than liberalism is because it's just another reason to have a "division", an "us vs them" scenario.


    I read them, and I think the "minority of highly intelligent conservatives" which you speak of are walking a fine line between using logic and behaving like sociopaths. Sure, they can solve some problems, but the trouble is, if you view people as mathematical equations and start crunching numbers, you only create more problems, when the people who are inevitably disenfranchised cry for revolution. Liberals try to take the higher groung by tackling the same issues with a combination of logic and empathy. It's definitely a tall order to be a liberal, because it forces you to think in terms of fairness and equality, and it priorotizes those values over the almighty dollar, which btw Ayn Rand considered to be her flag.