People who claim to be liberals “promote a welfare state concept that will meet the needs of all disadvantaged groups. They also wish for rapid change in the American culture to eliminate inequality”. They actually do the antithesis of this. They are not liberal at all. They enforce conformity and groupthink, selecting for useful idiots to their cause, not actually helping the disadvantaged.
Point taken and I agree. There is a gap between what the left says and what it does. Their real goal is to control society ala 1984, because they believe that “experts” can manage us to a perfect society.
“Conservatives view big government as wasteful and inefficient, and they object to the goal of equality, which, to them, is unattainable.” Our country was founded on equality and equality for all. Conservatives and all Americans believe in EQUALITY. What we do not agree on is equity for all. If a rising tide raises all boats that is equality, it does not mean we all need to end up in the same size boat..equity.
I left a short comment earlier and then deleted it. But, as a professor, I feel compelled to offer a correction of sorts. Let me say this as nicely as I can (as a caveat to other readers): The biological and evolutionary information in this essay is fundamentally incorrect. The specifics are too numerous to delineate in detail, but let me mention two. First, you cannot ascertain someone's political point of view by either their genetics or their brain structure. That's a misunderstanding of both genetics and neurobiology. Among numerous other articles, see. e.g., "ChatGPT, Lobster Gizzards, and Intelligence"
Second, regarding the evolutionary speculations about archaic humans, the author seems not to understand that there were multiple (by some accounts as many as 10) species/sub-species of humans on the planet, and those of us remaining are virtually all hybrids of at least two, in some cases three sub-species. So, the simplistic ideas about human evolution as explained in this article are uninformed at best. On this topic, I would direct you to Razib Khan's Substack, Unsupervised Learning. https://www.razibkhan.com/
I am so sorry to be negative. But, again as a professor, I think that misinformation should be corrected. Please take my comments in the helpful, constructive tone in which they were written.
Points taken, You must express what you believe. I disagree on # 1 because there is literature to support my position.
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. “Are political orientations genetically transmitted?” American Political Science Review 99, (2005): 153-167.
Kanai, R. “Political Orientations are Correlated with Brain Structures in Young Adults.” Current Biology, 21, 8, (2011): 677-80.
# 2. I am not ignoring the other Hominids. The theory is that the migration into new ecosystems generated a need to adapt to the availability of food.
I agree that evolutionary speculations are unhelpful in explaining much of anything, but a number of genetic, structural, and neurochemical factors ARE significantly correlated with political orientation. It's fair to argue that these are not necessarily determinative (responses to the environment necessarily are somewhat environment-dependent even before accounting for learned behavior), but it's also quite true that someone with only this medical information can nonetheless predict political orientation from it with significant accuracy. The article is correct about the observable average differences in certain brain structures, such as amygdala size, though it failed to discuss the neurochemical differences such as average dopamine sensitivity (which is itself linked to certain identified genetic variations).
This is a halfway decent summary, but gets quite a few things a bit off. Please be more careful when attempting science reporting.
First, the discussion of differing survival strategies does not require or benefit from highly speculative evolutionary theorizing. It's sufficient to note that this phenomena of populations benefitting from an adaptive balance of risk-taking novelty-seeking v risk-avoidant stability-seeking members is commonly observed throughout nature. There is an excellent paper on "approach v avoidance" motivation and differing liberal/conservative responses to ambiguous stimuli you could have quoted instead of this pop sci Hunter/Manager nonsense that confuses functional roles and risk tolerances.
Second, the discussion regarding brain differences was both substantially incomplete (for example, did not even mention the difference in average dopamine sensitivity, though neurochemistry is no less important than structure), somewhat misleading in parts (the description of the amygdala in particular here implies that conservatives are more fearful than liberal peers when the actual effect of the larger average amygdala is primarily that conservatives tend to be comparatively better at remembering and recognizing previously encountered threats), and completely wrong in others (the alleged conservative greater disgust sensitivity was debunked years ago: disgust sensitivity is NOT associated with political orientation when measured with an elicitor-unspecific scale).
It's good to see the topic covered as a way to point out that we do have genuine differences besides ideology and beliefs, and that those differences are actually functional and valuable at the population level, but the quality of this article is nonetheless well below the level I normally expect from this outlet. Please do better.
This was not intended to be an academic paper. Is purpose was to inform the public about the basis for differences between the left and right politics.
I didn't ask for a meta-analysis with MLA formatting, full citations, and a peer review, I simply asked that you "please be more careful when attempting science reporting". I don't consider that an unreasonable ask of any journalist covering a science topic. Do you?
I pointed out that the article contains some significant gaps and incorrect information. I will be happy to link you some of the appropriate literature if you'd like. An article intended "to inform" should be reasonably comprehensive and entirely accurate with the information it presents, should it not?
This is a generally good outlet and yourself a talented writer. I'm glad that you wrote it, but believe you could have done this better. I'm an engaged reader with a background in this field and a passion for the subject, so I commented on it. Please accept constructive criticism in the spirit in which it was intended and use it to continue improving your craft.
I feel there are many people with both conservative and liberal outlooks depending on the topic at hand. In my opinion, it's a mistake to put people in a box. People will surprise you. Hell, I surprise myself from time to time.
Tina, the behaviors I describe are more pronounced at the edges of the political spectrum. A large percentage of people operate at both sides of the middle. I do not respect those at the extremes because they willing to be trapped (as you point out) by ideology.
Interesting article, but I will never be defined by politics. I was defined by my upbringing and the foundation I was given during that time. That is where I picked up my conservative values. One thing you got wrong in the essay the difference between a democracy and our republic. The government gives freedoms in democracies. In our republic as our founders said our Creator gave us our rights and freedoms. That is where I developed my conservative values growing up as well. God created us all equal in his image. You say liberals believe in equality and conservatives don't. Democrats created the KKK. Democrats push illegal immigration which takes the low skill jobs away from low skill American workers of minorities. Democrats push DEI which is racist. Democrats push for transgender rights and walk all over women's rights. Not to mention all the women and girls that have already been molested or raped due to the equal rights they have pushed for transgenders in the name of equality. Lost scholarships girls have lost to biological men. I better stop here or I will end up writing a book.
John, my point is that our politics are defined by us not us by our politics. Conservatives have an affinity for the status quo and they respect traditions. This is inside all of us. Conservatives have never built a working political philosophy because they didn’t need to. The left built their ideology around equality because that’s what they believe. The problem with their approach is that socialism cannot work.
Point:
People who claim to be liberals “promote a welfare state concept that will meet the needs of all disadvantaged groups. They also wish for rapid change in the American culture to eliminate inequality”. They actually do the antithesis of this. They are not liberal at all. They enforce conformity and groupthink, selecting for useful idiots to their cause, not actually helping the disadvantaged.
Point taken and I agree. There is a gap between what the left says and what it does. Their real goal is to control society ala 1984, because they believe that “experts” can manage us to a perfect society.
“Conservatives view big government as wasteful and inefficient, and they object to the goal of equality, which, to them, is unattainable.” Our country was founded on equality and equality for all. Conservatives and all Americans believe in EQUALITY. What we do not agree on is equity for all. If a rising tide raises all boats that is equality, it does not mean we all need to end up in the same size boat..equity.
Yes, you are correct. Its equity the left seeks.
I left a short comment earlier and then deleted it. But, as a professor, I feel compelled to offer a correction of sorts. Let me say this as nicely as I can (as a caveat to other readers): The biological and evolutionary information in this essay is fundamentally incorrect. The specifics are too numerous to delineate in detail, but let me mention two. First, you cannot ascertain someone's political point of view by either their genetics or their brain structure. That's a misunderstanding of both genetics and neurobiology. Among numerous other articles, see. e.g., "ChatGPT, Lobster Gizzards, and Intelligence"
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/chatgpt-lobster-gizzards-and-intelligence
Second, regarding the evolutionary speculations about archaic humans, the author seems not to understand that there were multiple (by some accounts as many as 10) species/sub-species of humans on the planet, and those of us remaining are virtually all hybrids of at least two, in some cases three sub-species. So, the simplistic ideas about human evolution as explained in this article are uninformed at best. On this topic, I would direct you to Razib Khan's Substack, Unsupervised Learning. https://www.razibkhan.com/
I am so sorry to be negative. But, again as a professor, I think that misinformation should be corrected. Please take my comments in the helpful, constructive tone in which they were written.
Points taken, You must express what you believe. I disagree on # 1 because there is literature to support my position.
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. “Are political orientations genetically transmitted?” American Political Science Review 99, (2005): 153-167.
Kanai, R. “Political Orientations are Correlated with Brain Structures in Young Adults.” Current Biology, 21, 8, (2011): 677-80.
# 2. I am not ignoring the other Hominids. The theory is that the migration into new ecosystems generated a need to adapt to the availability of food.
I agree that evolutionary speculations are unhelpful in explaining much of anything, but a number of genetic, structural, and neurochemical factors ARE significantly correlated with political orientation. It's fair to argue that these are not necessarily determinative (responses to the environment necessarily are somewhat environment-dependent even before accounting for learned behavior), but it's also quite true that someone with only this medical information can nonetheless predict political orientation from it with significant accuracy. The article is correct about the observable average differences in certain brain structures, such as amygdala size, though it failed to discuss the neurochemical differences such as average dopamine sensitivity (which is itself linked to certain identified genetic variations).
For example, see
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3092984/
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16030051
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm#:~:text=Liberals%20may%20owe%20their%20political%20outlook%20partly,by%20a%20dopamine%20receptor%20gene%20called%20DRD4.
This is a halfway decent summary, but gets quite a few things a bit off. Please be more careful when attempting science reporting.
First, the discussion of differing survival strategies does not require or benefit from highly speculative evolutionary theorizing. It's sufficient to note that this phenomena of populations benefitting from an adaptive balance of risk-taking novelty-seeking v risk-avoidant stability-seeking members is commonly observed throughout nature. There is an excellent paper on "approach v avoidance" motivation and differing liberal/conservative responses to ambiguous stimuli you could have quoted instead of this pop sci Hunter/Manager nonsense that confuses functional roles and risk tolerances.
Second, the discussion regarding brain differences was both substantially incomplete (for example, did not even mention the difference in average dopamine sensitivity, though neurochemistry is no less important than structure), somewhat misleading in parts (the description of the amygdala in particular here implies that conservatives are more fearful than liberal peers when the actual effect of the larger average amygdala is primarily that conservatives tend to be comparatively better at remembering and recognizing previously encountered threats), and completely wrong in others (the alleged conservative greater disgust sensitivity was debunked years ago: disgust sensitivity is NOT associated with political orientation when measured with an elicitor-unspecific scale).
It's good to see the topic covered as a way to point out that we do have genuine differences besides ideology and beliefs, and that those differences are actually functional and valuable at the population level, but the quality of this article is nonetheless well below the level I normally expect from this outlet. Please do better.
This was not intended to be an academic paper. Is purpose was to inform the public about the basis for differences between the left and right politics.
I didn't ask for a meta-analysis with MLA formatting, full citations, and a peer review, I simply asked that you "please be more careful when attempting science reporting". I don't consider that an unreasonable ask of any journalist covering a science topic. Do you?
I pointed out that the article contains some significant gaps and incorrect information. I will be happy to link you some of the appropriate literature if you'd like. An article intended "to inform" should be reasonably comprehensive and entirely accurate with the information it presents, should it not?
This is a generally good outlet and yourself a talented writer. I'm glad that you wrote it, but believe you could have done this better. I'm an engaged reader with a background in this field and a passion for the subject, so I commented on it. Please accept constructive criticism in the spirit in which it was intended and use it to continue improving your craft.
accepted
I feel there are many people with both conservative and liberal outlooks depending on the topic at hand. In my opinion, it's a mistake to put people in a box. People will surprise you. Hell, I surprise myself from time to time.
Tina, the behaviors I describe are more pronounced at the edges of the political spectrum. A large percentage of people operate at both sides of the middle. I do not respect those at the extremes because they willing to be trapped (as you point out) by ideology.
Interesting article, but I will never be defined by politics. I was defined by my upbringing and the foundation I was given during that time. That is where I picked up my conservative values. One thing you got wrong in the essay the difference between a democracy and our republic. The government gives freedoms in democracies. In our republic as our founders said our Creator gave us our rights and freedoms. That is where I developed my conservative values growing up as well. God created us all equal in his image. You say liberals believe in equality and conservatives don't. Democrats created the KKK. Democrats push illegal immigration which takes the low skill jobs away from low skill American workers of minorities. Democrats push DEI which is racist. Democrats push for transgender rights and walk all over women's rights. Not to mention all the women and girls that have already been molested or raped due to the equal rights they have pushed for transgenders in the name of equality. Lost scholarships girls have lost to biological men. I better stop here or I will end up writing a book.
John, my point is that our politics are defined by us not us by our politics. Conservatives have an affinity for the status quo and they respect traditions. This is inside all of us. Conservatives have never built a working political philosophy because they didn’t need to. The left built their ideology around equality because that’s what they believe. The problem with their approach is that socialism cannot work.