http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12614-political-affiliation-could-be-all-in-the-brain-.html Brain recordings taken using electroencephalogram (EEG) technology showed that liberals had twice as much activity in a deep region called the anterior cingulate cortex. This area of the brain is thought to act as a mental brake by helping the mind recognize "no-go" situations where it must refrain from the usual course of action. ...He adds, however, that the new finding that conservatives stick with habit is still interesting given that previous studies have found they are more likely to resist change than their liberal counterparts.
....although, couldn't the high liberal activity in that area also indicate a limitation in accepting novelty, or thinking flexibly? Let's not do the "my brain is better than your brain" thingy. I dislike a lot of conservative thinking, but I'm not prepared to say I'm a better human. Same goes for religous types.
No, because it means instead of instantly reacting to stimuli, they tend to question their response more.
Faulty analogy - more electrical activity in a specific area of the brain is not the same thing as "thinking more."
Would you consider a lack of electrical activity as an indication that the person was still thinking? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, but barring the possibility that conservatives are zombies, the results can be interpreted multiple ways.
So there is no linear association between amount of electrical activity and amount of thinking? One does not expect to see more electrical activity in a part of the brain that is stimulated as compared to one that is not? And magnitude of electrical activity does not correlate to extent of stimulation?
The brain acivity was a second, explanatory finding - the "liberals" made more correct responses, and made them faster, to the rare situations, while matching the normal response in the common situation. The conclusion was that the "liberals" were less rigidly conditioned by repetition, more easily capable of altering their response to the altered stimulus. The brain activity measurements were an attempt to explain that. On average. Myself, I wonder how they handled the self-classified "liberal" and "conservative" crowd in the first place - did they control for education? IQ? Age? I would also like to see some data for a situation in which solid conditioning or ability to ignore distraction was an advantage.
Nice title. I don't care if this study doesn't mean much, I'm going to spread this as much as possible.
I was able to find a test that seems very similar, if anyone is interested. Note: if anyone accuses me of believing in the claims in the test's prelude... well, I won't like it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://cognitivelabs.com/brainage_part3.htm
Seems to make sense...although I'm ultra-conservative and think a lot more than most... More studies have to be done though... My personal take on this whole liberal conservative thing is that it mostly has to do with how you were raised...I'm sure you spidergoat, a radical liberal communist socialist, who believes the government should take care of everyone and pay for everything, regulate human activity, have free welfare, free medicare, ban guns, etc..also have liberal parents...right?
How so? Remember that liberals are more likely to let you be as you are. It's conservatives who want to "cure" homosexuality, for instance, and who draw more frequent correlations to extremist groups that prefer eugenic outcomes (e.g. racism, ethnic separatism, &c.). What is the eugenic about the study outcome? The abstract from the related paper:
Define "thinking." Problem solving? Intuition? What is "amount of thinking" anyway? A person who knows what 2*45 is by memorization won't need to think about it, but a person who doesn't know the answer will. One will think about it longer, but that doesn't mean that either is smarter. I don't think it's so cut and dry that you can reduce thought to "electrical activity in the brain."
It implies intellectual disfunction on the part of conservatives. Usually that's taken to be "right-winger" in my experience, so it's a little...maybe not dangerous, but unappealing. If it were true it would be "evidence" that conservatives are "sick", which is not really an acceptable societal stance. Once upon a time - and even today - it was vogue to think that homosexuality was a "disease" that could be "cured". Didn't follow the latter part of your second sentence. Liberals might let conservatives be as they are...and then again they might not. 'Liberal' is highly identified with 'left', yet there are a lot of 'old guard' and 'new guard' types that are every bit as conservative in their thinking as the classical right winger. I'm maybe a bit hesitant to start trumpeting this as necessarily a good finding. I don't have much use for rightist politics, except when they coincide with socialist aims, but I'm loathe to lean so readily into biological disenfranchisement.