A neuroscientist explains conservatives

[JackLuis]

Negativity, anxiety and fear: A neuroscientist explains conservatives’ fear-driven political attitudes

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.

2. Conservatives are more anxious.

3. Conservatives fear new experiences.

4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and is especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. They knew if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times that it wouldn’t matter whether they really existed or not.

It's their Brainz!

 

[phrodeau]

They tend to have a wider stance, too.

 

[Hard_Rom]

I've always thought they had narrow stances from being such anal tight asses. I think they have narrow beady eyes due to their lack of vision and narrow outlook.

200k years ago that fear impulse gave you half a step lead over the complacent hippy caveman when running from a sabre-tooth.

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

This is especially apparent during natural disasters. Liberals stand with their hands out, crying on the news, and begging for assistance.

Got a link for that? One will do.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Jay's comments show how the word 'conservative' has been bastardized by the likes of Rush, O'Reilly, the Fox tabloid in general, and those draft-dodging whiners who like to talk about small government and less spending but instead crank up the debt and destroy the economy far more easily than their "liberal" counterparts.

A real conservative (cue the No Real Scotsman comparison) wouldn't be afraid of change since change, generally, brings progress. They would look forward to change with a degree of excitement, to see what happens.

Sure, change can be scary, but that adds to the excitement. What new and interesting ideas/experiences will be generated from this change?

Instead, as the article points out, we have sniveling cry babies who rail against any change because they fear it might hurt their ordered world. Go read Reagan's "Change" speech from 1964 supporting Barry Goldwater. Aside from the part about private industry always doing things better than government (Wall Street's $700 billion hand out to pay their bonuses, GM and Chrysler's near destitution, etc) his "passionate conservatism" was all about change, including not socializing medicine (you hear that Mitt Romney?)

Today's "conservative" are conservative in the sense they don't want change. Women in the workplace scare them. Women wearing pants scares them. Anyone not white scares them. Anyone who points out their insistence on the failed notion of trickle-down economics elicits nothing but contemptible rage despite every single attempt at the condition being an abject failure (hello Kansas).

It's no wonder "conservatives" are held in such low regard. They have brought it on themselves by becoming that which they hate: purveyors of big, intrusive and expensive government, handing out taxpayer money left and right while complaining this shouldn't be done.

Unfortunately this report is true and those of us who are true conservatives are the worse for it.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So being Conservative is like being Gay?

 

[1sickbastard]

A single study "proves" little, but does, however, provide some confirmation of a given hypothesis or theory.

Unfortunately, modern 'conservatism' bears little resemblance to the sort of conservatism exemplified by the likes of George Will, William F. Buckley, or even George Bush Senior.

I think the conservatives of the 50's, 60's and 70's would be horrified by the current ideology of the GOP, particularly the horseshit being spewed by the religious right and the Tea Party wackadoos.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Even defining a conservative is hard. I look back on the old days with fond remembrance. Quieter times with closer knit families that did simple things like eat together. My parents used corporal punishment and I was never hurt, harmed or emotionally scarred. I like our police and am a bit of a law and order guy. You could actually afford to raise a family on one middle class income. And not even a big salary union job either.

Canadian constitution specifies "peace, order and good government". Very conservative compared to the words of your declaration of independence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (good band too) which are quite utopian ideals. Sounds like hippy talk.

Being a pothead puts me hard in the libertarian quadrant of political surveys. No matter how I answer other questions. I'm a bleeding hard socialist liberal and a damn tree hugger. Heck I'm not even Christian. Except for hunting and club target shooting, I got no use for mass gun ownership. Hate fucking racists too.

Got no problem with us dropping smart bombs on ISIS. We had to go into Afghanistan. NATO rules, an attack against one is an attack against all. Canada lost people in the Towers collapse too. Iraq we didn't. Good thing too.

So where do I come in the political wing thing?

I will vote conservative in provincial elections. I like their pretence at least to fiscal responsibility. Never federally. I like Canada as a whole to be a bit left.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Conservatives are easy to spot. Until someone invents a better mouse trap we use what works. Bruce Jenner isn't a better mouse trap. He's an old fuck dressed like a girl. He's not new and improved. Cross dressers been around forever.

The late psychiatrist, Milton Erickson MD, said cross dressers are confused souls who cover themselves with the girlie things theyre not feeling in its natural state. Liberals believe artificial is the real McCoy. Liberals are morons or psychotic or both.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Even defining a conservative is hard. I look back on the old days with fond remembrance. Quieter times with closer knit families that did simple things like eat together. My parents used corporal punishment and I was never hurt, harmed or emotionally scarred. I like our police and am a bit of a law and order guy. You could actually afford to raise a family on one middle class income. And not even a big salary union job either.

Canadian constitution specifies "peace, order and good government". Very conservative compared to the words of your declaration of independence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (good band too) which are quite utopian ideals. Sounds like hippy talk.

Being a pothead puts me hard in the libertarian quadrant of political surveys. No matter how I answer other questions. I'm a bleeding hard socialist liberal and a damn tree hugger. Heck I'm not even Christian. Except for hunting and club target shooting, I got no use for mass gun ownership. Hate fucking racists too.

Got no problem with us dropping smart bombs on ISIS. We had to go into Afghanistan. NATO rules, an attack against one is an attack against all. Canada lost people in the Towers collapse too. Iraq we didn't. Good thing too.

So where do I come in the political wing thing?

I will vote conservative in provincial elections. I like their pretence at least to fiscal responsibility. Never federally. I like Canada as a whole to be a bit left.

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Declaration of Independence, Sparky.

 

[KingOrfeo]

FWIW, Wiki has a page on Biology and political orientation.

 

[KingOrfeo]

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" Declaration of Independence, Sparky.

Erm, yeah, that's what Hard_Rom said -- were you trying to correct him or something?

 

[PoppingTom]

Conservatives are easy to spot. Until someone invents a better mouse trap we use what works.

What the hell works?

 

[Hard_Rom]

That leaves Liberals to invent better mouse traps. They will all be live catch and release traps. And conservatives will bitch and moan and hoard old mouse traps.

I like the analogy!

 

[Aglaopheme]

The real world.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reck..._guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html

Blue State, Red Face: Guess Who Benefits More From Your Taxes?

The numbers, for decades now, have been quite clear: With some exceptions, what we regard as red states are sent a whole lot more of your hard-earned tax dollars than the traditional blue states. In effect, supposedly indolent, “tax and spend” liberals actually subsidize the individualistic, pure, and hard-working lifestyle of our conservative countrymen.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Interesting Article...especially if you read it all.

The author doesn't get to this little bit of honesty until almost the end. Interesting that the premise comes first, and the qualifications at the end. It's also "Slate." A left wing publication that his hostile to the center and the right.

I’ll be the first to admit this isn’t a black-and-white exercise. Plenty of questions need to be settled before clear judgments can be made. For instance, does an Army base and the federal money that goes into keeping it running and paying its troops count as a benefit? (It does in my book.) What about a federal prison? (Yeah, jobs and the tax revenues they generate should count there, too.) A private university that is showered with federal research dollars? (Again, yes, those funds count, too.)

But those questions get harder.

Agricultural subsidies? How do we count them—and do we subtract the tax revenues generated by the jobs the farm creates or the export earnings it provides?

And what about defense contractors? Connecticut, Washington state, and California are chock full of weapons merchants. They provide jobs, export income, and many other benefits. Should we count as a federal inflow to those states the money spent, say, on Sikorsky aircraft contracts in Connecticut? And how do we factor in the taxes those companies paid (assuming, unlike nearby General Electric, they actually paid taxes)?

This last comment sums up the author's bias nicely.

So spare me all that red state angst about the federal deficits and national debt. When you stop spending New Jersey’s money, Tex, and produce a plan to replace it with your own revenue stream, then you've earned an opinion in the matter.

A consistent theme among the left. Shut up...if you don't agree with me.

Why are you writing as if you have made some kind of telling point, when every single thing the author of that article says is right, especially including the last comment?

Why?

Is it, perhaps, something defective in the operation of your brain that is outside your conscious control, that is, some deficiency that is . . . not so much intellectual, as . . . neurological?

 

[JackLuis]

Is it, perhaps, something defective in the operation of your brain that is outside your conscious control, that is, some deficiency that is . . . not so much intellectual, as . . . neurological?

I've made my point then.