Brain differences in political orientation

[jillio]

I was just reading some research on specific brain areas involved in a particular disorder and came across something I found very interesting. This supports what many of us have been saying regarding the right's tendency to respond from an emotional perspective and the left's tendency to respond from a logical perspective.

A widely publicized study by the University College London demonstrated a correlation between larger development of the ACC and left political orientation versus larger development of the amygdala in right political orientation.

The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) has been shown to be involved in rational cognitive function and empathy, while the amygdala is involved in the processing and expression of emotion. The greater volume found in the ACC in the left orientation would be responsible for the logical, emapthic responses, and the greater volume in the amygdala would be responsible for the more emotional, less empathic responses seen in the right orientation.

There you go folks. Biological, neurological differences in the brain between different political orientations have been found and confirmed.

Here is the citation for the actual article:

Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., Rees, G. (7 April 2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology Abstract.

 

[posts from hell]

The catch is?

 

[Beowulf]

I posted something similar a few months ago. Apparently the right are much more susceptible to fear.

 

[Steinhauer]

Rather, the adult drive toward omnipotent control of others, in any arena whatever, is rooted in fears of separation, abandonment loss or abuse--the residual effects of early attachment gone wrong. The need to dominate others arises from the tyrant’s need for absolute assurance that the catastrophic loss of dependency or the pain of abuse so devastating to him in his earliest years will not be repeated. In his determination to control the world, he constantly defends himself against what Karen Horney aptly described as the most basic of human fears: being alone and helpless in a dangerous, indifferent world, the nightmare of the abandoned, terrified child. Persons plagued with such fears easily conclude that it is in their greatest interest to dominate others, or to imagine that they can, and to set about achieving that goal through the manipulation of government power.

These abilities contribute to what is commonly called character, which term also implies dispositions to behave with honesty, integrity, responsibility, self-direction and dependability in interactions with others. Among other things, persons with good character typically keep promises and honor contracts, respect the sovereignty of other persons and their ownership of property, and in so far as possible, take responsibility for themselves by providing for their own needs and the needs of those to whom they have assumed some voluntary obligation. Persons with character do not make legally enforceable claims on the time, effort or material assets of other persons. They do not feel entitled to be subsidized by persons with whom they have no prior personal relationship or contractual duty.

More specifically, the usurpation of fundamental economic, social and political functions by the collectivist state alters the climate of individual development in the society, frustrates the achievement of adult competence, and leads to increasing numbers of citizens who choose to remain pathologically dependent on the state, childlike in their submission to its authority, and stunted in their character development. Under the modern liberal agenda, the people fail to develop normal capacities for adult autonomy, self-reliance and local community responsibility that are the necessary foundations for both individual happiness and social order.

A given individual’s personality and character, as noted throughout this work, are reflected in his enduring patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating. Comparable patterns describe a given society’s overall “personality” or character: its dominant rules for living and modes of relating expressed in laws, traditions and customs; its political principles and modes of government; its morals, ethics and religions. A society’s character is reflected in whether its people are governed by justice and the rule of law grounded in individual liberty rights or by a socialist state’s entitlement to the lives and labors of its citizens.

In terminating the infant’s parasitism in his mother’s womb, birth permanently removes all guarantees of material security for the remainder of his life. It is a politically momentous fact that the infant is now a separate and highly vulnerable entity that has been transported from the limited but guaranteed environment of the womb to the unlimited and contingent environment of the outside world. This most basic existential condition, one that lasts life-long for everyone, generates much of modern political conflict.

The core of the child's psyche, forged in his immature brain, becomes empowered or impoverished by interactions with the primary figures who nurture him or neglect him, protect him or traumatize him. In particular, his capacities for love and hate, affection and indifference, cooperation and opposition--all the qualities that define his humanness and enable him to participate in the human community--arise in his early interpersonal experience, first with his mother and later with others. They prepare him, or fail to prepare him, to live in freedom and harmony with others.

The most important caretaker in the infant’s world is his mother. It is her task to provide him with the mental and emotional foundations on which to become an autonomous, economically productive, self-reliant and socially cooperative adult who plays by the rules and respects the rights of others. This is the intuitively evident endpoint of her efforts. Equally evident is the failed outcome at the other extreme: an economically and socially dependent adult child who claims to be victimized, blames others for his failures, seeks parental surrogates, attempts to manipulate the political system, and feels entitled to coerce goods and services from others while ignoring their rights to refuse his demands. Between these extremes lie an essentially infinite number of combinations of socially adaptive and maladaptive tendencies that impact on social processes.

The end of infancy at about fifteen months of age begins the era of autonomy, the second of Erickson’s developmental phases. The foundations of self-governing, the literal meaning of autonomy, are laid down in this period along with the foundations of mutuality, an equally important achievement on the road to adult competence. Capacities for autonomy and mutuality form the twin pillars of adult participation in a free society: self-reliance, self-direction, and self-regulation are implicit in the idea of autonomy; capacities for voluntary exchange, sharing and altruism are implicit in the idea of mutuality. Both concepts reflect the bipolar nature of man as independent actor and joint collaborator. The toddler-age child’s early interactions with his caretakers determine whether these critical achievements have their proper beginnings in his formative years.

"The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness"
Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D.

That strategy works both ways.

 

[jillio]

The catch is?

No catch. Just explains the behaviors we see in the two camps. One is logical and empathic, the other is emotional and reactive. The explantion, partially, is the different sizes in particular areas of the brain that control those functions.

 

[jillio]

I posted something similar a few months ago. Apparently the right are much more susceptible to fear.

That would be consistent with a greater volume in the amygdala and lesser volume in the anterior cingulate cortex. I'll have to search for your post.

 

[jillio]

"The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness"
Lyle H. Rossiter Jr., M.D.

That strategy works both ways.

Not the same thing. I am referring to actual biological differences in brain area size as confirmed through fMRI. You are using psychoanalytic hypothesis.:roll:

But we now know why it is that you can't determine the difference.

 

[Beach girl]

Readers might find this discussion interesting:

The Neurocritic: Liberals Are Conflicted and Conservatives Are Afraid

"Feilden then asks a question that is unanswerable from studying brain structure in adults: "Are political beliefs learnt, the product of experiences in our environment, or 'hard wired' in the brain?" Since a comparison of n=1 liberal versus n=1 conservative is not scientifically valid, Rees went back to a database of MRI scans from UCL students and asked these participants about their political beliefs. Feilden then discussed the results before the paper had been formally submitted for publication [according to the journal website, the paper was received by Current Biology on 11 January, 2011]. Briefly, he said that the gray matter of the anterior cingulate cortex was thicker among the liberal or left wing participants while the amygdala was much larger in those who identified as conservative or right wing.

"But is it cause and effect?" asks an interviewer. Rightfully so. Correlation does not equal causation. Then there's the claim that the structural brain variation means the political differences are "hard wired". The observed anatomical differences prove no such thing. Any experience will change the brain in some way, and repeated patterns of behavior, whether it's learning to juggle or voting conservative due to a certain set of core beliefs, can alter the brain..."
...

"Although liberals did indeed show larger ERN waves than conservatives when making mistakes, so do individuals with clinical diagnoses such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (Gehring et al., 2000) or major depressive disorder (Chiu & Deldin, 2007). So we can't dismiss the possibility that the liberals might have been more depressed or obsessive compulsive than the conservatives."

 

[Steinhauer]

Not the same thing. I am referring to actual biological differences in brain area size as confirmed through fMRI. You are using psychoanalytic hypothesis.:roll:

But we now know why it is that you can't determine the difference.

I can determine the difference between a psychologist pretending she is a medical doctor and a medical doctor authoring a book about psychology.

I also vaguely remember you stating that a lack of fear is a sign of a mental disorder.

 

[jillio]

Readers might find this discussion interesting:

The Neurocritic: Liberals Are Conflicted and Conservatives Are Afraid

"Feilden then asks a question that is unanswerable from studying brain structure in adults: "Are political beliefs learnt, the product of experiences in our environment, or 'hard wired' in the brain?" Since a comparison of n=1 liberal versus n=1 conservative is not scientifically valid, Rees went back to a database of MRI scans from UCL students and asked these participants about their political beliefs. Feilden then discussed the results before the paper had been formally submitted for publication [according to the journal website, the paper was received by Current Biology on 11 January, 2011]. Briefly, he said that the gray matter of the anterior cingulate cortex was thicker among the liberal or left wing participants while the amygdala was much larger in those who identified as conservative or right wing.

"But is it cause and effect?" asks an interviewer. Rightfully so. Correlation does not equal causation. Then there's the claim that the structural brain variation means the political differences are "hard wired". The observed anatomical differences prove no such thing. Any experience will change the brain in some way, and repeated patterns of behavior, whether it's learning to juggle or voting conservative due to a certain set of core beliefs, can alter the brain..."
...

"Although liberals did indeed show larger ERN waves than conservatives when making mistakes, so do individuals with clinical diagnoses such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (Gehring et al., 2000) or major depressive disorder (Chiu & Deldin, 2007). So we can't dismiss the possibility that the liberals might have been more depressed or obsessive compulsive than the conservatives."

I did not address whether it was cause and effect. I simply stated that the brain differences exist. Given the plasticity of the brain and the effects of experience on development, then of course it could be that the political orientation creates the conditions that allow for lesser volume in one area and more in another. It could also be that the differences are there to begin with and are responsible for the propensity to think in a particular manner. The reference to DSM diagnosis is a bit over the edge. This isn't about pathology of disorders. It is about cognitive function based on biological neuronal correlates in the brain.

The point is, the brain differences are there.

 

[jillio]

I can determine the difference between a psychologist pretending she is a medical doctor and a medical doctor authoring a book about psychology.

I also vaguely remember you stating that a lack of fear is a sign of a mental disorder.

Quite obviously, you can't. This is within the expertise of cogntive, clinical, and neurobiological psychology.

Again, as ususal, you are misquoting.

 

[TWA]

Responses to this news:


Liberals: Well, given the empirical evidence and sound scientific reasoning in this report, the conclusion makes a lot of sense. How about that?

Conservatives: How dare they! this is obviously a ploy of socialists trying to destroy America!!!!!

 

[Beowulf]

That would be consistent with a greater volume in the amygdala and lesser volume in the anterior cingulate cortex. I'll have to search for your post.

I thought I made a thread about it, but apparently not. I couldn't find it anywhere and didn't feel like going through my thousands of posts. Oh well.

 

[Beowulf]

Interesting. I can see the differences in my own family. My mother is a fearless liberal and my father was an emotional conservative.

 

[jillio]

Responses to this news:


Liberals: Well, given the empirical evidence and sound scientific reasoning in this report, the conclusion makes a lot of sense. How about that?

Conservatives: How dare they! this is obviously a ploy of socialists trying to destroy America!!!!!

And there it is in a nutshell. The behaviors being exhibited are supportive of the findings.

 

[jillio]

Interesting. I can see the differences in my own family. My mother is a fearless liberal and my father was an emotional conservative.

It really is pretty amazing when you think about the number of examples we all know that support this evidence.

 

[jillio]

I thought I made a thread about it, but apparently not. I couldn't find it anywhere and didn't feel like going through my thousands of posts. Oh well.

Obviously, you had read something about it, though, and it stuck with you.

 

[deafskeptic]

I posted something similar a few months ago. Apparently the right are much more susceptible to fear.

I've thought this for a long time..

Great minds think alike.

 

[deafskeptic]

It really is pretty amazing when you think about the number of examples we all know that support this evidence.

Here's an anecdote for ya: RW members of my own family seem to be a lot more fearful than the liberals in my family: they're afraid of commies, taxes, government, arabs and disorder.

 

[deafskeptic]

Obviously, you had read something about it, though, and it stuck with you.

Maybe that is why FDR's quote "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" has been such an inspiring and comforting quote for so long.