Author talks about some real studies but obviously doesn’t even fully understand the vocabulary they’re using,noet alone what the studies mean…
Like, everyone should read more academic studies, but you really need to understand them before you start trying to explain them to other people.
If you try this article and are interested, just read the actual research about differences in brains and even more importantly, how these changes are not innate and are capable of changing into someone’s 60s.
Whatever parts of the brain we use most, is what gets developed.
Conservatives are always in fear, they develop larger and more active amygdalas.
Liberals spend more time thinking of others and how things effect them. They get more developed parts around the prefrontal cortex.
Like, the author rambles a bit about how liberals are more quick to show disgust via facial reactions. That’s just because they’re better at at imagining how a hypothetical would effect someone else
If you say “diarrhea sandwich” to a conservative, it’s just two words. Say it to a liberal, and their brain pulls up an image, maybe even smells, maybe it even makes you think what it would taste like.
Conservatives don’t have to repress that reaction, because it’s not happening to them.
Tell both groups “you have to eat a shit sandwich” and the conservatives now have their amygdala lighting up, and the liberals respond the same.
That’s literally why conservatives infamously only care when something is going to effect them. They don’t care about general concepts, just when it’s going to effect them
But again, we can change how they think, even when they’re past retirement age.
One of the big issues with this discussion is defining “normal” brains.
The approach I took was based on what I imagine to be the average of human beings across cultures (ie neutral/objective) and from earlier times, ie pre 1960’s, comparing to now.
This opens two questions: are liberals the “different” ones? Or are conservatives the “different” ones? And how do we even define these two labels? “Conservative” is a broad camp for my purposes. Anyone defined as enemy (which includes many heterodox and classical liberal folk) and “muh fascist” could be in there. The ACP could also be there.
Now the thing is I’ve become quite convinced that an average party leader in China for example has a similar neurology to a right-wing American, despite the “Communist” label.
So if we accept that axiom, we have to ask why we assume that American liberalism is the default, especially given that every metric of well being has declined since that era, our civil society is so bad (and monopolized by NGO’s) we can’t even have a massive war with Iran with serious protests or riots.
One of the big issues with this discussion is defining “normal” brains.
That’s not hard…
Because “normal” is a very wide range.
Like a “normal” IQ isn’t exactly 100 for all 12ish subtests, it’s 85-115 for the average of a bunch of stuff.
As my biopsych professor used to say before literally every class:
I’m going to say “normal” a lot, “normal” is the statistical average of everyone. If anyone was ever “normal” for every neurotransmitter and physical structure in the brain, they would be the most unique person on the planet, because there is no “normal”.
Meaning, most people fall into the “normal” range, that’s the only reason we call it “normal”.
It’s not guidelines people have to fit into, it’s just lines drawn around where most people fall on a graph.
I’m defining normal by generic universal terms, ie usable across civilizations in the world today, while you’re defining it limited to “within liberal democracy” parameters
Hypothetically speaking if liberal democracy regimes did some arbitrary bullshit, like mandated everyone chop off their pinky fingers at birth, that would become normal from our POV, it would only seem strange when travelling abroad that the majority of the world doesn’t live like that, that we aren’t special or more advanced for doing it
The point is that our definitions of politics are so arbitrary and insane that they aren’t useable outside the Western limited hangout
Western establishment left Opensociety’s media rag had articles arguing that every single party in Russia for example, even the Soviets themselves, were “right wing”
Notions of right and left have been muddled througout Russian history. The Soviet Communists professed left-wing slogans, but practised right-wing ideologies, embracing a neo-feudalist and unfree order. Russia’s politicians continue that duality today. For Poel Karp, what Russia desperately needs is a return to the original values of the political left.
Author talks about some real studies but obviously doesn’t even fully understand the vocabulary they’re using,noet alone what the studies mean…
Like, everyone should read more academic studies, but you really need to understand them before you start trying to explain them to other people.
If you try this article and are interested, just read the actual research about differences in brains and even more importantly, how these changes are not innate and are capable of changing into someone’s 60s.
Whatever parts of the brain we use most, is what gets developed.
Conservatives are always in fear, they develop larger and more active amygdalas.
Liberals spend more time thinking of others and how things effect them. They get more developed parts around the prefrontal cortex.
Like, the author rambles a bit about how liberals are more quick to show disgust via facial reactions. That’s just because they’re better at at imagining how a hypothetical would effect someone else
If you say “diarrhea sandwich” to a conservative, it’s just two words. Say it to a liberal, and their brain pulls up an image, maybe even smells, maybe it even makes you think what it would taste like.
Conservatives don’t have to repress that reaction, because it’s not happening to them.
Tell both groups “you have to eat a shit sandwich” and the conservatives now have their amygdala lighting up, and the liberals respond the same.
That’s literally why conservatives infamously only care when something is going to effect them. They don’t care about general concepts, just when it’s going to effect them
But again, we can change how they think, even when they’re past retirement age.
One of the big issues with this discussion is defining “normal” brains.
The approach I took was based on what I imagine to be the average of human beings across cultures (ie neutral/objective) and from earlier times, ie pre 1960’s, comparing to now.
This opens two questions: are liberals the “different” ones? Or are conservatives the “different” ones? And how do we even define these two labels? “Conservative” is a broad camp for my purposes. Anyone defined as enemy (which includes many heterodox and classical liberal folk) and “muh fascist” could be in there. The ACP could also be there.
Now the thing is I’ve become quite convinced that an average party leader in China for example has a similar neurology to a right-wing American, despite the “Communist” label.
So if we accept that axiom, we have to ask why we assume that American liberalism is the default, especially given that every metric of well being has declined since that era, our civil society is so bad (and monopolized by NGO’s) we can’t even have a massive war with Iran with serious protests or riots.
That’s not hard…
Because “normal” is a very wide range.
Like a “normal” IQ isn’t exactly 100 for all 12ish subtests, it’s 85-115 for the average of a bunch of stuff.
As my biopsych professor used to say before literally every class:
Meaning, most people fall into the “normal” range, that’s the only reason we call it “normal”.
It’s not guidelines people have to fit into, it’s just lines drawn around where most people fall on a graph.
Ok but you’re overlooking something
I’m defining normal by generic universal terms, ie usable across civilizations in the world today, while you’re defining it limited to “within liberal democracy” parameters
Hypothetically speaking if liberal democracy regimes did some arbitrary bullshit, like mandated everyone chop off their pinky fingers at birth, that would become normal from our POV, it would only seem strange when travelling abroad that the majority of the world doesn’t live like that, that we aren’t special or more advanced for doing it
The point is that our definitions of politics are so arbitrary and insane that they aren’t useable outside the Western limited hangout
Western establishment left Opensociety’s media rag had articles arguing that every single party in Russia for example, even the Soviets themselves, were “right wing”
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/russian-politics-right-confusion/