Is there a difference between liberal and conservative brains?

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom
Thom's picture

A newly published study coming out of the University College London in the UK suggests there may be clear differences in brain structure between liberals and conservatives.  The part of the brain known as the amygdala – which is primarily responsible for reacting with fear and other more primitive emotions – was observed to be larger in people who identify with more conservative beliefs.  At the same time – conservatives appeared to have a smaller portion of the brain known as the anterior cingulate – the part that is responsible for optimistic thinking.  These results may explain why conservatives tend to put more of an emphasis on national security issues - and are more motivated by fear-driven arguments regarding terrorism.  They also seem to align their beliefs with “worst case scenarios” – like Medicare is a train wreck! Social Security is bankrupt! It's why they freak out instead of wanting to work to these programs better.  But the study does provide some insight into how to argue with a conservative – you just have to scare him!

Comments

pict
pict's picture
It sure has seemed to me

It sure has seemed to me lately that there must be some essential difference. People I lke and respect mouth political ideas that I think are simply idiotic. And they think the same about me. I had wondered if maybe at a crucial point in the brain's development (like at about age 12, when we are just forging abstract reasoning ability) conservatives had been exposed to s omething like Ayn Rand that permanently twisted their thought processes. Or maybe at age 12 I was twisted by the golden rule.

Anyway, good point about making our point with them by scaring them. Now, how to make them worry that failing to provide a safety net might take their guns away.

DRC
DRC's picture
The idea that patterns of

The idea that patterns of thinking and attitudes influence the structure of our brains has a good data base.  The Power of Positive Thinking may be more than Norman Vincent Peale ever appreciated.  It is more than getting the best out of each life circumstance by thinking the best.  It is about growing up and dealing with the realities of life in a journey of spiritual maturity.  

Anger is an interesting phenomenon, as is hate.  The course of self-destruction is set by both, yet both are necessary, transformed, to fuel the moral passions for healing and restorative justice.  Anger must be focused and responsive instead of reactive and out of control rage.  Rather than being angry people, we must be loving people whose anger is about injustice and harm; but whose response is about restoration rather than retribution.  

And the issue of "hate" has to be refined from the projection of disgust, including a lot of one's own dark side, to the "righteousness" that transcends self to identify with "the least of these."  It is deeper than hating the sin while loving the sinner because that formula is trite.  It is about having a basic identity opposition to the culture of death and violence.

We cannot fall into the trap of hating others.  As MLK taught us, that only leads to our own bitterness.  Compassion for others does not make their sins less harmful to others, so our response to defend the victims is resolute.  It is our lack of demonization of the enemy that  matters.  This is about us, not them.

When and if we can have a national rehab discussion, the issue of personal gun ownership may be a point of contact for therapy.  The emotional symbolism and shaky thinking add up to the kind of issue where meaning lost in the larger pathology is sought in the available.  Whatever "taking their guns away" really means, being reassured that there is a good future will work best if they get to be participants instead of patients.  We are also participants and not the therapists.

pjsemail1
pjsemail1's picture
The study out University

The study out University College London in the UK and the guest Brenden Nyhan reinforces my believe that talking to people who are totally committed to their believes is like arguing with a block of wood, the wood wins every time. That's why I'll either mute or change the channel until the next segment starts (the beauty of schedule). The guest who come on to defend the conservative point of view will never change no matter how good a debater one thinks they are.  The DNA in wood will always be wood.   

DRC
DRC's picture
In the present context, the

In the present context, the power establishment is wrapped in conservative rhetoric and dogma.  The Liberal critics have a number of lines of attack, and some are better than others, largely due to similar convictions that cannot be shaken by fact.  While the larger context puts conservatives in the position of defending established ideology and allows others to expand their line of thinking, it is not always so.  Defending Liberal Establishments can be embarrassing too.

I am not a huge fan of Thom's regular debating foils.  While I do agree that having conservatives state their own nonsense instead of me having to describe it or attribute it to them, these guests get repetitive and boring for that.  I can believe that it is not easy to find decent radio interviews from the Right.  Thom has had some real bullies and goons on, and they are a big turn-off.  That may be why the domesticated regulars keep coming back.

It does seem clear to me that conservatives are not very good about thinking about the future.  The personality issues of facing time and place do apply.  If you hate the time you live in, you don't exactly grab it and live it with gusto.  You don't have to like the shape the world is in to engage in healing it.  Conservatives seem to me to either argue for accepting an inhuman world or for "reforms" that don't work.

captbebops
captbebops's picture
What happens if the amygdala

What happens if the amygdala is clicked forward? ;-)

 

Choco
Choco's picture
I've posted this before but

I've posted this before but since Thom is brining it up again I'll repost.

 


    

 

Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history.  Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values.  The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess.  In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."

"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science.  "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals.  Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk.  Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.  So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.  Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena.  "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa.  This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.  "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history.  Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were.  In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate.  So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women.  And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity.  Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

Choco
Choco's picture
How to spot a baby

How to spot a baby conservative

KID POLITICS | Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional. Future liberals, on the other hand ...

Mar. 19, 2006. 10:45 AM

KURT KLEINER

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

 

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.

A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective.

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash. The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias.

Jost welcomed the new study, saying it lends support to his conclusions. But Jeff Greenberg, a social psychologist at the University of Arizona who was critical of Jost's study, was less impressed.

`I found (the Jack Block study) to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best'

Jeff Greenberg
University of Arizona

"I found it to be biased, shoddy work, poor science at best," he said of the Block study. He thinks insecure, defensive, rigid people can as easily gravitate to left-wing ideologies as right-wing ones. He suspects that in Communist China, those kinds of people would likely become fervid party members.

The results do raise some obvious questions. Are nursery school teachers in the conservative heartland cursed with classes filled with little proto-conservative whiners?

Or does an insecure little boy raised in Idaho or Alberta surrounded by conservatives turn instead to liberalism?

Or do the whiny kids grow up conservative along with the majority of their more confident peers, while only the kids with poor impulse control turn liberal?

Part of the answer is that personality is not the only factor that determines political leanings. For instance, there was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

For conservatives whose feelings are still hurt, there is a more flattering way for them to look at the results. Even if they really did tend to be insecure complainers as kids, they might simply have recognized that the world is a scary, unfair place.

Their grown-up conclusion that the safest thing is to stick to tradition could well be the right one. As for their "rigidity," maybe that's just moral certainty.

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?

It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.

Kurt Kleiner is a Toronto-based freelance science writer.

 

Choco
Choco's picture
Liberals More Likely Than

Liberals More Likely Than Conservatives to Break From Habitual Responses, NYU Psychology Study FindsMonday, Sep 10, 2007

N-15, 2007-08

Liberals are more likely than are conservatives to respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses, according to a new study by researchers at New York University and UCLA. The findings, which show that self-rated liberalism is associated with the type of brain activity involved in regulating conflict between a habitual tendency and an alternative response, appear in the online edition of the journal Nature Neuroscience.

Previous studies have found that conservatives tend to be more persistent in their judgments and decision-making, while liberals are more likely to be open to new experiences. These differences are related to a process known as conflict monitoring-a mechanism for detecting when a habitual response is not appropriate for a new situation.

NYU’s David Amodio, a professor of psychology and the study’s lead author, and his colleagues recorded electrical activity from the brain using electroencephalograms (EEGs) in people who rated themselves as either conservative or liberal. During these recordings, subjects had to press a button when they saw a cue, which was presented often enough that the button-press became habitual. However, subjects occasionally saw another, infrequent cue signaling them to withhold their habitual button press. When such response inhibition was required, liberals had significantly greater neural activity originating in the anterior cingulate cortex, a portion of the brain known to be involved in conflict monitoring. Liberals were also more likely to withhold their habitual response when they saw the infrequent cue.

The findings support previous suggestions that political orientation may in part reflect differences in cognitive mechanisms.

 

 

The Cognitive Styles of Liberals and Conservatives

January 13, 2008 — ronbrown

 

I just picked the January edition of Scientific American: Mind and over the next week or so will be reviewing many of the articles here. This a review #1. And it’s a short review for a short article by Siri Carpenter.

In Left Brains vs. Right Brains, Carpenter discusses a difference in cognitive style between self-identified liberals and conservatives observed in a number of studies. Research indicates that liberals are more tolerant of ambiguity than conservatives, who prefer more structure. Off the top of my head I can link this to a number of social observations. Firstly, conservatives seem to be more likely to be religious (religions provide structure and ambiguity resolution) and more perturbed by nontraditional behaviours. Then there’s the observation that people tend to become more liberal during their university years. This makes sense as they are learning that the more they know, the less they know. They learn that the world isn’t cut and dry. As a group, conservatives are less likely to attend university—conservatism is well-represented among populations that cannot afford to attend university, and then of course there is the staggering proportion of the far right in America that have a very negative view of liberal education.

Of course, I am not speaking of all conservatives here. There are socially liberal economically conservative persons (libertarians) who simply believe that they should not be forced to support others and believe that people should be able to live their lives as they see fit so long as they are not harming others (and this, too, is a tricky subject, but I’ll leave that for another time). They seem quite comfortable with notions of ambiguity and fluidity as opposed to rigidity in structure.

I should also point out that this article makes no suggestion of innate differences. In fact, there is every reason to believe that these differences are the product of differential socialization. I believe I recall from my studies of child development that liberalism tends to be promoted by child rearing in which the child is allowed to and encouraged to “talk back”, to offer their sides of situations and negotiate rewards, punishments and rules. And unsurprisingly this style of child rearing is relatively common in liberal families. On the other hand, more authoritarian style parenting—”these are the rules!”, “don’t talk back!”, etc.—is more common among conservative families. It’s pretty clear that if either of these parenting styles is more likely to promote tolerance of ambiguity, it is the liberal style.

Research in ambiguity tolerance in liberal versus conservative populations have demonstrated that tasks requiring conflict monitoring trigger more activity in the anterior cingulate cortex of liberals than conservatives. This brain region has been found to detect and respond to conflicting information.

 

Sunday, February 18, 2007Lifestyles, Child Rearing Differ Based on Politics by Dr. Alan Singer

Red States have higher divorce rates? Blue states have smaller families? Read on if that sounds intriguing.....

Consider two unusual political trends relating to marriage and children. Red states have higher divorce rates than democratic states and blue states have smaller families than republicans. What's behind these trends?

Divorce first: Wouldn't you think that California, the "left" side of the country with its free-spirited open-mindedness and "splitsville" movie stars, has a high divorce rate? Conversely, shouldn't Bible belt states like Arkansas and Mississippi, with their family values, have low divorce rates? Wrong on both accounts.

California has one of the lowest divorce rates and Mississippi and Arkansas two of the highest (Census Bureau). Pam Belluck of the New York Times observed: "The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the Upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate (5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people) was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry and the Kennedys."

"The higher the educational level, higher the occupational level, higher the income, the less likely you are to divorce," said William V. D'Antonio, a sociologist at the Catholic University of America, noting that Massachusetts has the highest rate of high school and college completion. Kids who drop out of high school and get married very quickly suffer from the strains of not being emotionally mature and not having the income to help weather the difficulties of marriage," Belluck wrote.

I ran this question by several experts in the field. Dr. David Popenoe, of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, reiterated, "The more educated people found in the blue states have lower divorce rates and also lower fertility rates; for less educated people, it is the reverse."

Dr. William Doherty, professor of family social science at the University of Minnesota suggests, "The main issue for republicans and conservatives and evangelical Christians is that the discrepancy between their self-appraisals as the family values folks and the fact that being in those groups does not seem to convey any benefits for marital stability."
My thinking is that divorce is not an exclusively conservative nemesis and democrats have no reason to be smug. With the U.S. divorce rate hovering at 50 percent, we all have reason for serious concern.

"Larger social forces that fragment our marriages have far greater power than the teachings of conservative (or liberal) faith communities," Doherty said.
Atlanta psychiatrist Frank Pittman, from his 47 years of treating marriages, explains: "We know that Southern Baptists have the highest rate of divorce of any Christian group, perhaps because they believe that lusting in your heart is as big a deal as doing it in public. The more conservative that people are, the less tolerant they are of human frailties, their own or those of others."

Pittman concludes, "Marriage, to last, requires two imperfect people with compassion for one another's struggles and conservatives can't always do that."
Liberal baby blues is a different matter. David Brooks of the New York Times observed that birthrates are falling in Western Europe and many regions of the United States. People are marrying later and having fewer children. "You can see surprising political correlations," he said. "Bush (in 2004) carried the 19 states with the highest fertility rates. Kerry won the 16 states with the lowest rates."

Arthur Brooks of the Wall Street Journal emphasized, "Liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result."

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had between them 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a fertility gap of 41 percent.
What are some factors that influence family size? Philip Longman of USA Today shed some light on this: "In the USA, 47 percent of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27 percent of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.'

Religious observance is a good predictor of ideal family size as well as income, education and family-of-origin family size. Should liberals try to persuade each other to have more children for the sake of their ideology? Procreate for the cause? I don't think so. Many governments enduring declines in fertility institute pronatalist policies. Incentives may include child allowances, birth grants and paid maternity leave, and are meant to increase family size. While these policies do not guarantee that family size will increase, they are a guarantee of treating families in a manner that makes child-rearing less of a financial burden, which is a welcome benefit. Governments often want to increase family size to ensure that there are enough soldiers for a formidable army and enough workers to pay taxes for programs that sustain the elderly such as Social Security. I don't see families having significantly more children for the sake of the Motherland or for an ideology such as liberalism.

From my two decades of research in family size and more practically speaking, as the father of four children, I can say with full confidence: The primary reason a couple should have a (another) child is because they want to love, cherish and care for that child, not for the sake of any cause or ideology.

Dr. Alan Singer is a marriage therapist in Highland Park and can be reached at DrAlanSinger@aol.com

_____________________________________________________________________

Smart Kids Grow Up To Be Liberal

Children who show innate intelligence tend to hold liberal social beliefs as adults, suggests British research.

A sample of 7,070 Britons born in 1970 were measured for general intelligence (g) at age ten and surveyed on their social attitudes at age 30. Statistical analysis showed a strong correlation between high intelligence and being "antiracist, pro-working women, socially liberal, and trusting in the democratic political system" as adults.

Not surprisingly, educational quality did play a part in this relationship, but did not fully account for the correlation. Social class, however, did not appear to mediate social beliefs.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

March 20, 2006Whiners grow up to be conservative, study claims

A new study reports that whiny kids are more likely to become conservative:

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.
At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals. The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.But the new results are worth a look. In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings — the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings.A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective. [Kansas City Star]

 

 

 

Mr.Burns
Mr.Burns's picture
  At the same time –

  At the same time – conservatives appeared to have a smaller portion of the brain known as the anterior cingulate – the part that is responsible for optimistic thinking.  

From my observations the doom and gloom seems to primarily come from the left, just read these forums. Every thread gets derailed by either the "Banksters are out to get us" guy or the "Bush was behind 9/11 to build a pipeline in Afghanistan" guy.

 

  They also seem to align their beliefs with “worst case scenarios” – like Medicare is a train wreck! Social Security is bankrupt! It's why they freak out instead of wanting to work to these programs better.

The demographics are what they are. It is not a scenario, it is a reality.Do you think the demographics are wrong?

 

Rodriguez
Rodriguez's picture
I disagree, but I've noticed

I disagree,

but I've noticed that every single bully seems to be a conservative.

Other thing I've noticed, seems like conservatives spend a hell lot of time watching movies and I bet that's where they get their Worldview..... Bad people look dark with black features and brown eyes and the hero white person with blue eyes kill everybody and is held as a hero even though he killed at least a dozen innocent people.

stwo
stwo's picture
removed

removed

Choco
Choco's picture
Mr.Burns wrote:   At the same

Mr.Burns wrote:

  At the same time – conservatives appeared to have a smaller portion of the brain known as the anterior cingulate – the part that is responsible for optimistic thinking.  

From my observations the doom and gloom seems to primarily come from the left, just read these forums. Every thread gets derailed by either the "Banksters are out to get us" guy or the "Bush was behind 9/11 to build a pipeline in Afghanistan" guy.

 

   

The fact of the matter is, the Banksters are out to get us, or at least every last dime. They are international economic royalists and have no use for national sovereignity anywhere. If you care to investigate, you will find Youtube videos where Bush, Rockefeller, Brezinski, Kissinger, Clinton and even Obama et al are all pushing for a "New World Order," their words not mine.

Cheney and the NeoCons and Oil Tycoons along with CIA and Mossad pulled off 9/11 not only to control the pipelines from the Caspian, but to also restart the opium production and to establish a very large and significant military presence throughout the Middle East. The evidence for this is overwhelming as is the evidence that these New World Order types are and have been in control of our media. This is another fact. The villification of the world of Islam is very similar to the villification of the Jews by the Roman Church and Nazi Germany and the villification of the American Natives by the expansive railroad tycoons and European immigrants to the New World.

Anybody that knows how to conduct thourough research can find plenty of evidence to support this.

Here is a link to Obama's choice to replace Larry Summers as National Economic Council Director, Roger Altman, a member of Bilderberger Group, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations. Obama is surrounded by Goldman Sachs, Federal Reserve, Bilderbergers, Trilaterals and CFR. All international economic royalists, the same guys who gave us NAFTA, GATT, WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU and are pushing hard for a North American Union.

http://www.infowars.com/trading-places-obama-considers-bilderberger-altman-to-replace-summers/

Art
Art's picture
Quote:From my observations

Quote:
From my observations the doom and gloom seems to primarily come from the left, just read these forums.
Seems to me that "doom and gloom" is an appropriate response when you are facing genuine doom and gloom.

Paleo-con
Art wrote: Quote:From my

Art wrote:

Quote:
From my observations the doom and gloom seems to primarily come from the left, just read these forums.
Seems to me that "doom and gloom" is an appropriate response when you are facing genuine doom and gloom.

This points to a primary difference in the way the liberal and conservative brain are wired.  The left on this site are all about doom and gloom.  Almost every post is full of angst, hand wringing, and anger.  Attempts by some liberals on this site to be positive have been met with a great deal of hostility by their peers; even accusations of being undercover trolls.

Anyway, yes, the left thinks the appropriate response to genuine doom and gloom is more doom and gloom.  On the other hand, the right thinks the appropriate response to doom and gloom is optimism and action.

Art
Art's picture
Quote: On the other hand, the

Quote:
 On the other hand, the right thinks the appropriate response to doom and gloom is optimism and action.
That makes perfect sense with a slight revision.
Quote:
 On the other hand, the right thinks the appropriate response to the doom and gloom aimed  at the left is optimism and more of the kind of action that causes gloom and doom for the left.

Elbridge
Elbridge's picture
I've always loved Choco's

I've always loved Choco's lib/con posts.   They crack me up. 

captbebops
captbebops's picture
Quote: Choco wrote: The

Quote:
Choco wrote:

The villification of the world of Islam is very similar to the villification of the Jews by the Roman Church and Nazi Germany and the villification of the American Natives by the expansive railroad tycoons and European immigrants to the New World.

The vilification of Islam is due to them banning usury practices.  The banksters just can't stand that!  And they probably fear the rest of the world will think it is a damn good idea especially after the banking debacle.

As for "gloom and doom", you either look at the world realistically or idealistically.   I prefer reality to living in a dream world.  I have too many zombies in the community living in a dream world.  They don't like me so much when I bum them out with reality and it snaps them out of the kid's soccer and American Idol world view.  Great fun to so though.

 

 

Choco
Choco's picture
Elbridge wrote: I've always

Elbridge wrote:

I've always loved Choco's lib/con posts.   They crack me up. 

Huh?

Choco
Choco's picture
captbebops wrote: The

captbebops wrote:

The vilification of Islam is due to them banning usury practices.  The banksters just can't stand that!  And they probably fear the rest of the world will think it is a damn good idea especially after the banking debacle.

I don't doubt there is something to what you say, Captain. The Zakat is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. It's about sharing your wealth and acts of charity. Not the things the greed is good crowd wants to hear.

Quote:
Zakāt

Main article: Zakat

Zakāt or alms-giving is the practice of charitable giving by Muslims based on accumulated wealth, and is obligatory for all who are able to do so. It is considered to be a personal responsibility for Muslims to ease economic hardship for others and eliminate inequality.[22] Zakat consists of spending 2.5% of one's wealth for the benefit of the poor or needy, including slaves, debtors and travelers. A Muslim may also donate more as an act of voluntary charity (sadaqah), rather than to achieve additional divine reward.[23] There are two main types of Zakat. First, there is the kajj, which is a fixed amount based on the cost of food that is paid during the month of Ramadan by the head of a family for himself and his dependents. Second, there is the Zakat on wealth, which covers money made in business, savings, income, and so on.[24] In current usage Zakat is treated as a 2.5% collection on most valuables and savings held for a full lunar year, as long as the total value is more than a basic minimum known as nisab (3 ounces (85.05 g)). As of 2 July 2010, nisab is approximately $3,275 or an equivalent amount in any other currency.[25] Many Shi'ites are expected to pay an additional amount in the form of a khums tax, which they consider to be a separate ritual practice.[26]

There are four principles that should be followed when giving the Zakat:

  1. The giver must declare to God his intention to give the Zakat.
  2. The Zakat must be paid on the day that it is due. If one fails to pay the Zakat, people think he is refusing to fulfill God's wishes.
  3. Payment must be in kind. This means if one is wealthy then he needs to pay 2.5% of his income. If he does not have much money, he needs to pay in a different way such as good deeds and good behavior toward others.
  4. The Zakat must be distributed in the community from which it was taken.[27]
Elbridge
Elbridge's picture
Choco wrote: Elbridge

Choco wrote:

Elbridge wrote:

I've always loved Choco's lib/con posts.   They crack me up. 

Huh?

I am starting to beleive you keep these articles on your desktop for easy access.  How many thread over the years have there been about Liberals being <fill in the blank> than conservatives?

The Whiny Kids growing conservative story has been making the rounds lately.

 

I think this take care of that particular story.

http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2006/03/social_science_.html

 

Carry on....

 

LeMoyne
LeMoyne's picture
Elbridge thanks for the

Elbridge thanks for the laugh.  Your self-admitted shrink-wrapped  debunking is a real hoot.

The debunking fail starts and ends with the argument that you can't trust an online article that doesn't give a link to the original article.  In a few minutes searching for Journal of Research in Personality in PubMed (a free online service of the US government) I found the abstract for

Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later

Available online 25 October 2005.

Journal of Research in Personality
Volume 40, Issue 5, October 2006, Pages 734-749
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc.
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

This Journal of Research in Personality is an Elsevier publication and they don't give it away online - the PDF is available for purchase at the abstract links above and maybe for free through your local university library.  But pease note: Elsevier says the article was available online a full year before its print publication date. 

Personally, I give less than zero weight to the arguments of people who post online reviews of online reviews of science journal publications and primarily cast dark suspicions on both the review and the original reference for lack of links instead of spending a few minutes searching for the journal through PubMed.  Talk about a knee-jerk fear reaction on the part of a conservative.... and yes, suspicion is fear reaction.  Some skepticism is understandable but to project fraud on others while committing it - again the conservative Big Lie technique.  It is a total debunking fail to actually do what it is you are trying to debunk as a bad theory - HA!  Or rather ....  hahahahahahahahahahahaha.  Thanks again.

 

MA'AT
MA&#039;AT's picture
Paleo-con wrote: Art

Paleo-con wrote:

Art wrote:

Quote:
From my observations the doom and gloom seems to primarily come from the left, just read these forums.
Seems to me that "doom and gloom" is an appropriate response when you are facing genuine doom and gloom.

This points to a primary difference in the way the liberal and conservative brain are wired.  The left on this site are all about doom and gloom.  Almost every post is full of angst, hand wringing, and anger.  Attempts by some liberals on this site to be positive have been met with a great deal of hostility by their peers; even accusations of being undercover trolls.

Anyway, yes, the left thinks the appropriate response to genuine doom and gloom is more doom and gloom.  On the other hand, the right thinks the appropriate response to doom and gloom is optimism and action.

What planet are you on?

The liberals on this site have always been of the opinion that a solution can be found and it will be found by cooperation. They /we often disagree about the details but we have conversations about constructive solutions. But more importantly we recognise the situation based on the facts.

If there is doom and gloom we recognise it and deal with it head on.

The conservatives on the other hand seem to agree on one main theme, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN SUCKER! Their only suggestion for a solution to the doom and gloom is to deny that it exists and make up a fantasy world that fits their desires and not the facts.

The Liberal VS. Conservative brain difference has been noted as far back as the time of Freud and his nephew Edward Bernays

The conservatives actively deny this physiological side of themselves while the liberals tend to embrace it and try to understand it.

The perfect example of this is the debate over global climate change. The liberals embrace the science and the conservatives deny it.

In the same way liberals embrace government as a positive force and conservatives view it as a destructive force.

Liberals believe in social justice and conservatives in brute force.

liberals believe we can govern as a community and conservatives believe we must be controlled and directed by powerful leaders.

It is really very simple when you think of it. The conservatives betray themselves as blind followers with their every action. They are the most devout religious zealots and the most obedient soldiers. The ones that will follow any order given to them by a perceived superior.

The liberal is always seeking the team environment where consensus rules.

This is undeniable logic and works in every situation. It is just the way we are made.

So what is the solution? Forced cross breeding of conservatives and liberals? Or an inevitable armageddon between the two philosophies?

Every war and injustice that man has seen has been brought on by the conservitives desire for control.

Every revolt has been a fight agains greed and the thirst for power and control.

It is very simple. You can deny it but it is true.

  

LeMoyne
LeMoyne's picture
But wait! There is more

But wait! There is more !!

ShrinkWrapped: Social Science Mis-Reporting and the Value of Skepticism wrote:
I cannot tell if the error is Kleiner's or Block's but it is a fundamental error to assume that a political liberal is more or less rigid than a political conservative; if anything, adaptability and the creation and adoption of new ideas is much more prevalent on the Conservative side of the political divide than the Liberal side.

Yup, that is a direct quote (emphasis theirs).  To paraphrase: it is a fundamental error to make the assumption that I make right here and now.  Or, as the article itself says quoting Pauli: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."   to which I add a clarification: it is ludicrous! As I said 'less than zero weight'  roflmao - hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha