Brain differences in political orientation

[Reba]

There you go. Especially when it comes to using a religious foundation for their social consciousness. The Catholic religion has always been opposed to the death penalty, for example. However, look at some of the more fundamentalists sects in the wide world of Christianity. They are in support of the death penalty. One involves an emotional response and no logical thought, the other requires that good old liberal logic.

Supporting the death penalty is not an emotional response, so that's not a very good example of the differences.

The Episcopalians as a whole are supportive of gay rights and have ordained a gay bishop. The more fundamentalist sects of Christianity are vehemently opposed to gay rights, and some will not even allow a woman to preach.

How's that a difference of logic vs. emotions?

But once again, the conservatives are taking what began as a political thread and confusing it with a religious thread. And that is just more support for that particular cogntive style.

I keep asking about the political differences of the brain in the international arena. Is that too emotional a question for a logical reply?

 

[Reba]

I have answered that twice. Neither. And I have also explained the reasons that it would not be all of one or the other. That is where your dichotomous thinking is getting in the way of understanding. Conservative and liberal thought processes are not unique to a 2 party political system. They can be found, and are found, outside a 2 party political system. It has just been applied, for our purposes in the United States, to that political system that can be found here. This research was done in London. A different political system than our own. Yet the concept of conservative political orientation and liberal political orientation can still be applied.

So, in a country where the great majority of the citizens support Communism, would that be the liberal logical brain influence, or the conservative emotional brain influence? How is it possible that one kind of brain is so predominant in a country to almost the exclusion of the other kind?

Or are you saying that even in Communist N. Korea or China, they are divided by liberal and conservative in more balanced numbers than their party affiliation would indicate?

 

[jillio]

Supporting the death penalty is not an emotional response, so that's not a very good example of the differences.

Support of the death penalty is very much an emotional response. The numbers don't provide any logical support for the death penalty.

Support for the death penalty is founded in an emotional reaction to crime and an irrational and disproportionate fear of the criminal.

How's that a difference of logic vs. emotions?
It is very clear how that is a diffference of logic vs. emotions. And also evidence of the greater degree of empathic understanding in the more liberal thinker.

I keep asking about the political differences of the brain in the international arena. Is that too emotional a question for a logical reply?

And I have answered it each time you have asked it. I don't know if you simply do not understand the answer, or if you are not getting the answer you want so you continue to ask the question hoping the answer will be different the next time.

BTW, your last question in this post: there is that emotional response pattern again. You are unable to discuss the answers that have been provided for you each time you have asked the questions. So instead of considering that there may be points you need to consider that don't necessarily line up with your conservative views, you get sarcastic and emotional. But it's okay. We see it happen all the time in the political threads from the conservatives.

 

[jillio]

So, in a country where the great majority of the citizens support Communism, would that be the liberal logical brain influence, or the conservative emotional brain influence? How is it possible that one kind of brain is so predominant in a country to almost the exclusion of the other kind?

Or are you saying that even in Communist N. Korea or China, they are divided by liberal and conservative in more balanced numbers than their party affiliation would indicate?

Reba, scroll back. I have answered these questions several times already. Your questions in this post are based on your incorrect assumptions and that all or nothing thinking that keeps you from comprehending every thing in between. All you have to do is read the answers and apply them. Perhaps they aren't the answers you want, but they are the answers to your questions all the same.

 

[Reba]

And I have answered it each time you have asked it. I don't know if you simply do not understand the answer, or if you are not getting the answer you want so you continue to ask the question hoping the answer will be different the next time.

Interesting how you can avoid answering a question by putting the onus on the questioner.

BTW, your last question in this post: there is that emotional response pattern again. You are unable to discuss the answers that have been provided for you each time you have asked the questions. So instead of considering that there may be points you need to consider that don't necessarily line up with your conservative views, you get sarcastic and emotional. But it's okay. We see it happen all the time in the political threads from the conservatives.

There you go, trying to push those buttons again. It doesn't work on me.

 

[deafskeptic]

Supporting the death penalty is not an emotional response, so that's not a very good example of the differences.

The response that I have seen regarding death penalty as it applies to the mentally retarded and the mentally ill in another thread suggest otherwise.

A lot of people got rather emotional at the idea that a mentally challenged or a mentally ill person could harm them and they did not think those people should be exempt from the death penalty even though those offenders may not have understood the conquenses of their actions.

How's that a difference of logic vs. emotions?

it was noticable.

 

[jillio]

Interesting how you can avoid answering a question by putting the onus on the questioner.



There you go, trying to push those buttons again. It doesn't work on me.

I haven't avoided anything. I have answered your questions several times. You keep asking the same questions. They have already been answered. You are attempting to distort the situation simply because you are not getting the answer you want, whatever that may be, or because you do not understand the answers you were given. That is not my fault. And here we go with your emotiional responses again. Trying to lay blame somewhere so you won't have to accept responsibility for your own behavior.

I'm not pushing any buttons at all, other than the enter button on my keyboard. But obviously, you are feeling threatened and responding from an emotional perspective anyway.

I'm going to log off and give you time to mull over the answers and see if you can continue this discussion at a later time without all of the accusations and blame shifting.

 

[jillio]

The response that I have seen regarding death penalty as it applies to the mentally retarded and the mentally ill in another thread suggest otherwise.

A lot of people got rather emotional at the idea that a mentally challenged or a mentally ill person could harm them and they did not think those people should be exempt from the death penalty even though those offenders may not have understood the conquenses of their actions.

it was noticable.

Exactly. Support for the death penalty is borne of unreasonable and emotionally charged fear. It is obvious in the responses when asked, 'Why do you support the death penalty?" Never any statistics or research to back up their support...just emotionally laden claims of the risk of a criminal getting out and doing it to them. And no matter how many times one points out the unreasonableness of that fear with actual fact, they continue to hold onto it and use it as the foudation of their reasoning.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Speaking of being "dichotomous"... :roll:

I would consider a Catholic who goes to Mass every week a fundamentalist Catholic. Devout, consistent, and yes, conservative, probably, in many ways. But according to the percentages, quite likely to be "liberal," politically.

Hmmm..I wouldn't go that far - my stepmom is Catholic and goes to church every Sunday but I would hardly call her fundamentalist or even conservative. She has old fashioned values but very open and accepting of others.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Now, back to my question about the brain and political orientation.

In totalitarian or one-party countries, would those members be all emotional or all logical?

In one party countries, the people don't have a choice in who their leaders are so it's irrelevant if they're all emotional or all logical.

Let's take Poland for example - the people did not really support Communism - but they had to or risk being imprisoned. My father told me that it took years after the end of the Communist regime before Polish people stopped being afraid to talk to strangers - during the regime, everyone was afraid of someone else reporting them.

Also, in Iraq, people did not support Saddam at all but had to put posters of him in their schools, homes, business, or risk being imprisoned or even worse, shot. My father was once at a meeting with Saddam and other MPs and diplomats and one of Saddam's aides had said something that offended Saddam. Saddam had him taken out of the room. A few minutes later, my father heard a gunshot. He looked at Saddam who smiled.

You'd be very hard pressed to find the populations actually supporting and endorsing their one party politics when they are within the privacy of their homes and they can trust you not to betray them when they speak openly and honestly.

 

[rolling7]

This junk science needs to go no further than do a study between OWS and the people of Iran/Iraq. On one side you have free thinkers...some violent, some abhor violent...some for free love, some for chastity...etc....but all mixed in one large melting pot. On the other side you have "brainwashed" thinkers....divided by gender....all of the same sexual morals.......all violent to a common cause....etc.

My point would be to discredit this junk science because political alignment due to chemical reaction within the brain is simply at best. The brain allows for many possibilities, just as a computer, and with additional input of knowledge can change course. This gives rise to the expression: People can change.
On the other hand, people can be brainwashed through controlled knowledge input, either willingly or unwillingly, either consciously or sub-consciously.
Therefore, these studies of chemical reaction of the brain are at best left in the labs, they are not applicable to real life.

 

[saywhatkid]

My leaning has changed over the years. I was far left for my first 30 years, now much closer to center. I think the leaning has as much to do with the candidates of the party you align with, along with where things are in the USA. I prefer a mix of platforms.

Does this mean I am brain dead?

 

[DeafCaroline]

This junk science needs to go no further than do a study between OWS and the people of Iran/Iraq. On one side you have free thinkers...some violent, some abhor violent...some for free love, some for chastity...etc....but all mixed in one large melting pot. On the other side you have "brainwashed" thinkers....divided by gender....all of the same sexual morals.......all violent to a common cause....etc.

My point would be to discredit this junk science because political alignment due to chemical reaction within the brain is simply at best. The brain allows for many possibilities, just as a computer, and with additional input of knowledge can change course. This gives rise to the expression: People can change.
On the other hand, people can be brainwashed through controlled knowledge input, either willingly or unwillingly, either consciously or sub-consciously.
Therefore, these studies of chemical reaction of the brain are at best left in the labs, they are not applicable to real life.

I can assure you that indeed not all Iranians are violent to a common cause. Far from the truth. Don't use the current leader as a representative of his populace otherwise that's like saying Obama represents who you are and what you believe.

 

[rolling7]

My leaning has changed over the years. I was far left for my first 30 years, now much closer to center. I think the leaning has as much to do with the candidates of the party you align with, along with where things are in the USA. I prefer a mix of platforms.

Does this mean I am brain dead?

No, it means you are brain alive.

Good for you!

 

[rolling7]

I can assure you that indeed not all Iranians are violent to a common cause. Far from the truth. Don't use the current leader as a representative of his populace otherwise that's like saying Obama represents who you are and what you believe.

Your point is well taken but still not without error. Here in America there is a carefree percent that believe in the right to bear arms and willing to fight to death to prevent our country from becoming like Iran/Iraq. We do not live in fear, not like you explain the people of Poland. Where you look at America when you see the protection of the President from protestors on the street, you can be sure those protesting will not be shot, as opposed to the example your Dad gave you.
I will agree with you there are Arab/Muslim freethinkers but they don't live in Iran/Iraq.

 

[Jiro]

Your point is well taken but still not without error. Here in America there is a carefree percent that believe in the right to bear arms and willing to fight to death to prevent our country from becoming like Iran/Iraq. We do not live in fear, not like you explain the people of Poland. Where you look at America when you see the protection of the President from protestors on the street, you can be sure those protesting will not be shot, as opposed to the example your Dad gave you.
I will agree with you there are Arab/Muslim freethinkers but they don't live in Iran/Iraq.

yes they do.

they're vital source of intel for us

 

[Daredevel7]

I think people are taking this article a little TOO seriously, as if tendencies completely define one's political thinking.

The question about the 1 party or multiple party system assumes that people's tendencies completely define the party system. If people think either left or right, then it must mean that their government MUST have a left/right party system. Seems a little too clear cut to me.

A tendency is a tendency, it is not written in stone. It can STILL be influenced by external factors. It's like showing a study that women tend to save more money than men. Then people going into an uproar going "NO! My wife is always spending my money!" "That's not true! I save more money than my sister!" and so on. Of course, there are many exceptions, a tendency doesn't have to be the sole way to define a person. Some tendencies are "stronger" than others. For example, a person who tends to think logically are much more likely to have a career that is logical based. Same with a person who tends to think visually/creatively. They will more likely to have a job that demands their creativity.

But, of course.. not always.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

Exactly. Support for the death penalty is borne of unreasonable and emotionally charged fear. It is obvious in the responses when asked, 'Why do you support the death penalty?" Never any statistics or research to back up their support...just emotionally laden claims of the risk of a criminal getting out and doing it to them. And no matter how many times one points out the unreasonableness of that fear with actual fact, they continue to hold onto it and use it as the foudation of their reasoning.

Wrong! If there is 100 % certainty a person is guilty of committing a horrible crime I feel they should get the death sentence right away to save the tax payers money! I am sick of seeing people committing crimes that end up costing us all money. What about serial killers they kill again and again.

 

[Reba]

... And here we go with your emotiional responses again. Trying to lay blame somewhere so you won't have to accept responsibility for your own behavior.

I'm not pushing any buttons at all, other than the enter button on my keyboard. But obviously, you are feeling threatened and responding from an emotional perspective anyway.

You are so predictable.

No, I don't feel threatened in the least.

I'm going to log off and give you time to mull over the answers and see if you can continue this discussion at a later time without all of the accusations and blame shifting.

Please, don't log off on my account.

 

[Reba]

In one party countries, the people don't have a choice in who their leaders are so it's irrelevant if they're all emotional or all logical.

Let's take Poland for example - the people did not really support Communism - but they had to or risk being imprisoned. My father told me that it took years after the end of the Communist regime before Polish people stopped being afraid to talk to strangers - during the regime, everyone was afraid of someone else reporting them.

Also, in Iraq, people did not support Saddam at all but had to put posters of him in their schools, homes, business, or risk being imprisoned or even worse, shot. My father was once at a meeting with Saddam and other MPs and diplomats and one of Saddam's aides had said something that offended Saddam. Saddam had him taken out of the room. A few minutes later, my father heard a gunshot. He looked at Saddam who smiled.

You'd be very hard pressed to find the populations actually supporting and endorsing their one party politics when they are within the privacy of their homes and they can trust you not to betray them when they speak openly and honestly.

Good points.