[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2013-June-21, 11:22, said:

I dont think anyone was "born with conservative inclinations"

What we think and what the evidence shows may not always agree.

Quote

In the 16 peer-reviewed scientific studies, researchers found that liberals and conservatives have different brain structures, different physiological responses to stimuli, and activate different neural mechanisms when confronted with similar situations

source: http://2012election....sourceID=004818

[kenberg]

I was looking at number 16 on Winston's link.

Quote

"Conservatives slept somewhat more soundly, with fewer remembered dreams. Liberals were more restless in their sleep and had a more active and varied dream life. In contrast to a previous study, liberals reported a somewhat greater proportion of bad dreams and nightmares. Consistent with earlier research, the dreams of conservatives were more mundane, whereas the dreams of liberals were more bizarre...

Conservative men sleep a bit longer, with better quality sleep; they recall the fewest dreams, but have the most lucid awareness. Liberal women have the worst quality sleep, recall the greatest number and variety of dreams, and have the most dream references to homosexuality."

Boy, I need to change my voting habits. Maybe once a year or so I can recall that I had a dream about something or other, some boring topic that I recall through a haze. The rest of the time I would say that I don't dream except my understanding is that we all dream, we just don't remember.

When I was very young, five or so, I had highly active dreams but they are long gone. Well, they say you become more conservative as you get older so maybe dumping my dream life is the way this tendency came out with me.

My thoughts about social science research are not very favorable. No doubt social scientists can explain this with an MRI of my brain. Maybe they are right. I don't care. And I doubt it.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-21, 12:19, said:

What we think and what the evidence shows may not always agree.
source: http://2012election....sourceID=004818

Tht doesn't mean they were born that way. Studies have also shown that learning to play a musical instrument changes brain structure.

I'd be more impressed if they'd discovered genes that are more frequent in one party or another.

[barmar]

barmar, on 2013-June-15, 11:41, said:

People often think about things in terms of false dichotomies

billw55, on 2013-June-16, 09:58, said:

fixed

Well, that's the point. It psychologically easier to think in terms of dichotomies, so we see dichotomies even when things are more complex. They're psychological equivalents of optical illusions.

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2013-June-23, 20:34, said:

Tht doesn't mean they were born that way. Studies have also shown that learning to play a musical instrument changes brain structure.

I'd be more impressed if they'd discovered genes that are more frequent in one party or another.

The genes for dark skin are more frequent in democrat voters And it used to be that the Y-chromosomes were weakly associated with voting for the communist party in Denmark. Not sure if it is still the case. But in any case, conservatives and christian democrats tend to have shorter telomeres.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2013-June-24, 02:52, said:

The genes for dark skin are more frequent in democrat voters And it used to be that the Y-chromosomes were weakly associated with voting for the communist party in Denmark. Not sure if it is still the case. But in any case, conservatives and christian democrats tend to have shorter telomeres.

With apologies to Barbie: "Genetics is hard!"

[onoway]

barmar, on 2013-June-23, 20:37, said:

Well, that's the point. It psychologically easier to think in terms of dichotomies, so we see dichotomies even when things are more complex. They're psychological equivalents of optical illusions.

+1 wonderful turn of phrase.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2013-June-23, 20:34, said:

Tht doesn't mean they were born that way. Studies have also shown that learning to play a musical instrument changes brain structure.

I'd be more impressed if they'd discovered genes that are more frequent in one party or another.

Maybe this helps?

Quote

For many years, psychologists and sociologists asked what kind of psychological or environmental factors influence the
political orientation of individuals [1]. Although political attitudes are commonly assumed to have solely environmental
causes, recent studies have begun to identify biological influences on an individual’s political orientation. For example,
a twin study shows that a substantial amount of the variability in political ideology reflects genetic influences [2]

Current Biology 21, 677–680, April 26, 2011 ª2011 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-24, 13:26, said:

Maybe this helps?

Yes, it does.

[ArtK78]

I sense a $1 bet approaching.

[Winstonm]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-24, 15:14, said:

I sense a $1 bet approaching.

Bring a nickel, tap your feet

[kenberg]

I might run a poll sometime on how people come to, or think that they come to, their various political and social views. For myself, I am quite certain that to the extent that my views are rational at all, they are strongly based on my own experience and experiences that people I trust describe to me. I rarely pay much attention to what has been published in a journal, at least to in regard to any important social and political issues. this approach seems to work for me, so I am not much inclined to change it.

This doesn't mean that I ignore the social sciences, but my level of trust in them is far lower than my trust in the physical sciences.

Also, and I guess I often react fairly strongly here, I dislike anything that smacks of saying that people who disagree with me have some sort of psychological problem. Of course some of you psychos need a lobotomy, but let's keep it quiet.

To put it another way, it may or may not be true that we make our own destiny, but it's a good idea to approach life that way. I apologize if this is all trivial and preachy.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2013-June-24, 17:49, said:

I might run a poll sometime on how people come to, or think that they come to, their various political and social views. For myself, I am quite certain that to the extent that my views are rational at all, they are strongly based on my own experience and experiences that people I trust describe to me. I rarely pay much attention to what has been published in a journal, at least to in regard to any important social and political issues. this approach seems to work for me, so I am not much inclined to change it.

This doesn't mean that I ignore the social sciences, but my level of trust in them is far lower than my trust in the physical sciences.

Also, and I guess I often react fairly strongly here, I dislike anything that smacks of saying that people who disagree with me have some sort of psychological problem. Of course some of you psychos need a lobotomy, but let's keep it quiet.

To put it another way, it may or may not be true that we make our own destiny, but it's a good idea to approach life that way. I apologize if this is all trivial and preachy.

I agree that the social sciences are not as robust as the physical ones, but I still find it interesting to read about the theoretical whys of the way people think and act - and I try to look for the best evidence I can for my opinions. In my own case, my thinking has changed over the years from being a staunch Republican supporter in 1994 to beomg considered more or a progressive now - and I credit the change to altering my methods of choice - in other words, I now try to see what the evidence suggests before forming an opinion instead of relying on a narrative that may or may not fit all the facts.

I also think it is best to live life as you suggest, but I do find it interesting that neuroscience is finding small hints that we are less free thinking than we might like to believe.

[onoway]

seems most times as though people don't vote FOR so much as they vote AGAINST. Obama won the first time on a platform of change, and for sure people were voting for him. However it seemed as though a significant number of people voted for him just because the vision of McCain and Palin was too much to contemplate. Much the same scenario this last time.

We have had much the same scenario but with multiple parties it makes it a bit harder. Voters split the votes against so Harper slid up through the middle with a majority like the weasel he is (imo).

We seem to be coming to the point of people trying to figure out who has the best chance of beating whoever we don't like, and voting for that person rather than voting for someone we feel will represent us. Something I hear over and over in random discussions, "they're all the same anyway".

That may be why Ron Paul resonated with so many people, maybe they felt finally someone actually did reflect and represent them. And why so many voted against his candidacy, they thought he might and couldn't face what that might mean either.

[mike777]

granted there seems to be strong evidence that republican party and much as democratic party want economic power in the same few, very few hands as political party.

fwiw unions such as afl/cio were famously against this.

it does appear that public unions want this so thay can be a strong influence. It does appear the same can be said as big/huge corporations.

Put the power of politics and economics in a few same hands..then influence them.
Of course only for the greater good.

[ArtK78]

onoway, on 2013-June-24, 21:18, said:

seems most times as though people don't vote FOR so much as they vote AGAINST. Obama won the first time on a platform of change, and for sure people were voting for him. However it seemed as though a significant number of people voted for him just because the vision of McCain and Palin was too much to contemplate. Much the same scenario this last time.

We have had much the same scenario but with multiple parties it makes it a bit harder. Voters split the votes against so Harper slid up through the middle with a majority like the weasel he is (imo).

We seem to be coming to the point of people trying to figure out who has the best chance of beating whoever we don't like, and voting for that person rather than voting for someone we feel will represent us. Something I hear over and over in random discussions, "they're all the same anyway".

That may be why Ron Paul resonated with so many people, maybe they felt finally someone actually did reflect and represent them. And why so many voted against his candidacy, they thought he might and couldn't face what that might mean either.

People voted against Ron Paul? I don't know that I would take it that far. Most people who don't agree and support Ron Paul tend to ignore him. And, for now at least, that is sufficient.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-June-24, 23:03, said:

granted there seems to be strong evidence that republican party and much as democratic party want economic power in the same few, very few hands as political party.

fwiw unions such as afl/cio were famously against this.

it does appear that public unions want this so thay can be a strong influence. It does appear the same can be said as big/huge corporations.

Put the power of politics and economics in a few same hands..then influence them.
Of course only for the greater good.

Freedom for wolves means death to lambs.