Neuroscience and Party
A literature review and summary of the state of research by Andrea Kuszewski.
From the conclusions section:
When we speak of “liberal and conservative thinking styles” the most important thing to keep in mind: we are talking about group differences, not individual differences. The people that fit into this two-category model described here are generally the most active and hard core members of the parties. This doesn’t account for moderates, nor does it take into account extreme fanatics of both wings, where we start to see mental instability confounding the group traits. Both sides have a little extremity and their fair share of imbalanced individuals in the fringes, so don’t assume any one party is immune.
Additionally, this “liberal/conservative thinking style” division doesn’t account for those types of individuals mentioned up there in point number 2. Some people are just really complex. Maybe they are highly emotionally sensitive and have a large amygdala, but also have a prominent ACC and prefer novelty and ambiguity. Those people exist, and I know some of them personally. The really complex people never fit neatly into models like these. Furthermore, I hypothesize that those complex people are more likely to be the ones to switch parties at some point. Because they have the traits that make them receptive to both kinds of arguments—logical and emotional—it might take one particular issue that strikes a chord that swings them one way or another.
Assuming all her assumptions are correct, it would be interesting to see how Erik tests out should he undergo the same study designs. Heck, 3/4 of the League are probably neurologically bipolar.
“This doesn’t account for moderates, nor does it take into account extreme fanatics of both wings, where we start to see mental instability confounding the group traits. Both sides have a little extremity and their fair share of imbalanced individuals in the fringes, so don’t assume any one party is immune.”
So I’m pretty big on the neurodiversity movement and I’m putting even more cards in that basket if she’s saying here that active members of political parties are “mentally stable”.
Also, this is about group identification, right? It seems like she forgets the total and complete arbitrarity of our current political bipolarity. I’m curious how Whigs and Tories, Trotskyites and Stalinists, Blues and Greens, Maoists and Chiang Kai-Shekians might fit in. Because I’d propose without looking at any neuroimaging studies that party allegiance boils down to nothing more than how one defines his in-group.Report
I think signaling is a big part of it. It also doesn’t account for results from traditional psychology, like the sunk cost fallacy.
If the mind is predisposed to reject data confounding emotionally held beliefs, how does that fit in this model? Maybe it does, but there’s some work to do there: does enlarged amygdala accelerate this process? Does having an active anterior cingulate cortex dampen the effect, or make it worse?
‘Cause I gotta say, your boilerplate liberal doesn’t seem to be swayed much by data when it contradicts their stance on something any more than your boilerplate conservative.Report