Red Brain, Blue Brain: Rep. and Dems Process Risk Different
JonnyPistachio
Florida Posts: 10,219
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173131.htm
Red Brain, Blue Brain: Republicans and Democrats Process Risk Differently, Research Finds
Feb. 13, 2013 — A team of political scientists and neuroscientists has shown that liberals and conservatives use different parts of the brain when they make risky decisions, and these regions can be used to predict which political party a person prefers. The new study suggests that while genetics or parental influence may play a significant role, being a Republican or Democrat changes how the brain functions.
Dr. Darren Schreiber, a researcher in neuropolitics at the University of Exeter, has been working in collaboration with colleagues at the University of California, San Diego on research that explores the differences in the way the brain functions in American liberals and conservatives. The findings are published Feb. 13 in the journal PLOS ONE.
In a prior experiment, participants had their brain activity measured as they played a simple gambling game. Dr. Schreiber and his UC San Diego collaborators were able to look up the political party registration of the participants in public records. Using this new analysis of 82 people who performed the gambling task, the academics showed that Republicans and Democrats do not differ in the risks they take. However, there were striking differences in the participants' brain activity during the risk-taking task.
Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness. Meanwhile Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in the body's fight-or-flight system. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk.
In fact, brain activity in these two regions alone can be used to predict whether a person is a Democrat or Republican with 82.9% accuracy. By comparison, the longstanding traditional model in political science, which uses the party affiliation of a person's mother and father to predict the child's affiliation, is only accurate about 69.5% of the time. And another model based on the differences in brain structure distinguishes liberals from conservatives with only 71.6% accuracy.
The model also outperforms models based on differences in genes. Dr. Schreiber said: "Although genetics have been shown to contribute to differences in political ideology and strength of party politics, the portion of variation in political affiliation explained by activity in the amygdala and insula is significantly larger, suggesting that affiliating with a political party and engaging in a partisan environment may alter the brain, above and beyond the effect of heredity."
These results may pave the way for new research on voter behaviour, yielding better understanding of the differences in how liberals and conservatives think. According to Dr. Schreiber: "The ability to accurately predict party politics using only brain activity while gambling suggests that investigating basic neural differences between voters may provide us with more powerful insights than the traditional tools of political science."
Red Brain, Blue Brain: Republicans and Democrats Process Risk Differently, Research Finds
Feb. 13, 2013 — A team of political scientists and neuroscientists has shown that liberals and conservatives use different parts of the brain when they make risky decisions, and these regions can be used to predict which political party a person prefers. The new study suggests that while genetics or parental influence may play a significant role, being a Republican or Democrat changes how the brain functions.
Dr. Darren Schreiber, a researcher in neuropolitics at the University of Exeter, has been working in collaboration with colleagues at the University of California, San Diego on research that explores the differences in the way the brain functions in American liberals and conservatives. The findings are published Feb. 13 in the journal PLOS ONE.
In a prior experiment, participants had their brain activity measured as they played a simple gambling game. Dr. Schreiber and his UC San Diego collaborators were able to look up the political party registration of the participants in public records. Using this new analysis of 82 people who performed the gambling task, the academics showed that Republicans and Democrats do not differ in the risks they take. However, there were striking differences in the participants' brain activity during the risk-taking task.
Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, a region associated with social and self-awareness. Meanwhile Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala, a region involved in the body's fight-or-flight system. These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk.
In fact, brain activity in these two regions alone can be used to predict whether a person is a Democrat or Republican with 82.9% accuracy. By comparison, the longstanding traditional model in political science, which uses the party affiliation of a person's mother and father to predict the child's affiliation, is only accurate about 69.5% of the time. And another model based on the differences in brain structure distinguishes liberals from conservatives with only 71.6% accuracy.
The model also outperforms models based on differences in genes. Dr. Schreiber said: "Although genetics have been shown to contribute to differences in political ideology and strength of party politics, the portion of variation in political affiliation explained by activity in the amygdala and insula is significantly larger, suggesting that affiliating with a political party and engaging in a partisan environment may alter the brain, above and beyond the effect of heredity."
These results may pave the way for new research on voter behaviour, yielding better understanding of the differences in how liberals and conservatives think. According to Dr. Schreiber: "The ability to accurately predict party politics using only brain activity while gambling suggests that investigating basic neural differences between voters may provide us with more powerful insights than the traditional tools of political science."
Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
They'd have a hard time getting me to gamble and with the way I feel about it
I bet the fight or flight would be in serious overdrive if I did.
I'm way to practical and have seen way too many lives ruined by gambling.
I consider myself an Independent with mixed views on social issues
and government roles. Would that mean both sides of the brain would be getting down?
I like to watch too ... people gamble that is.
Out of how many? That's not even close to a sliver.
In terms of gambling, I never bet more than I can afford to lose.
(god I miss online poker!)
"These results may pave the way for new research on voter behaviour, yielding better understanding of the differences in how liberals and conservatives think. According to Dr. Schreiber: "The ability to accurately predict party politics using only brain activity while gambling suggests that investigating basic neural differences between voters may provide us with more powerful insights than the traditional tools of political science."
This is their justification to monitor/censor us, sort us & put us all in neat little boxes.
This is the clip from the thread "Information Overlay Technology."
"Jared Adams, a spokesman for Raytheon’s intelligence and information systems department, said in an email the The Guardian: “Riot is a big data analytics system design we are working on with industry, national labs and commercial partners to help turn massive amounts of data into useable information to help meet our nation’s rapidly changing security needs."
This is Raytheon's justification.
Conway of Arkansas has been at this since the early 90's. They've gathered such a mountain of data on us; approx 300 million Americans -- nearly every adult in this country.
Their justification? Well, their other corporate branch is about telemarketing. They want to provide enhanced abilities for our shopping ways. Of course their data base on us is for sale to anyone who wants to get to know us really well. They've made millions. It's to this end we can thank for renering our land phones nearly useless. Of course we are now getting a taste of their enhanced shopping methods via tele-targeting our cell phones.
We are the fodder for one BIG quantifying experiment & none of this is harmless to a "free" society.
No matter who pitches what justification behind any of this, it's the millions to be made that is the real driving factor.
I always find the dem/repub brain science stuff fascinating. Ive been meaning to look into good books on the subject. I recall starting to think about these things when I was a kid and me and my brother seemed to process things like this so very differently.
Have you ever read Oliver Sacks' "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat"? I practically inhaled it in a day. Simply amazing how the brain develops and adapts.
For this study, there are just so many other factors in play, as always.
Does left or right-handedness play a role? Previous head injuries? Alcohol consumption? Smog? Genetics?
Etc...
Good points Hedonist..
I actually picked up Sachs book Musicophelia a few moths back.. I started it, but didnt get too far. I was just too busy att he time and intend on getting back to it. I saw some info on his book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat", and i thought about checking it out, looks interesting for sure.. after the music one I'll get it..