5 Things the Science Doesn't Say About the Conservative Brain

[Brewman_Jax]

http://www.alternet.org/news/155337/5_th...ive_brain/


From the article:

Quote:Recently here at AlterNet, and around the web, there’s been a lot of discussion of the science of political ideology—basically, the differing psychological or even physiological traits that separate liberals from conservatives. (For a scientific overview, see here.) (For a scientific overview of how strongly personality in particular predicts one’s political views, see here.) The debate tends to produce an odd effect: Liberals are intrigued, but many conservatives seem to take it all as an insult--based on a major misunderstanding of what the research actually means.

It’s time to set the record straight. So herewith, we dismantle five major myths about the science of ideology, and what it has to say about conservatism.

...

The article goes into the specific points, but the short answer is that there is nothing medically wrong with conservatives. IMO, that's good because they can, and most definitely should, be taken to task for their often stupid, racist, and/or close-minded views. They should be forced to answer questions, such as:

-Why should the 1% get more tax breaks when they don't pay taxes in the first place?
-Why shouldn't the tax rate be raised on the 1% since they get a greater return on their investment?
-Why should affirmative action for college admissions be illegal for black students, yet is alright for legacy and athletic admissions?
-Why is it alright for the "job creators" to create jobs overseas and have massive layoffs in the US?
-Where are the jobs that the "jobs creators" promised if certain laws were changed?

These and other questions should be put to them. Supposedly, conservatives aren't bad people, but bad actions without malicious intent are still bad.

[Velleity]

Somewhere in my cosmology I allow for the possibility that I am somehow off and "conservatives" really aren't pathological reprobates. And too I do distinguish between conservatives and "conservatives" although not without considerable obstacles. I mean where are the conservatives and why are they allowing themselves to be almost completely obscured?

I don't have to regard "conservatives" as being somehow defective or impaired, but I have to say that the idea that they are somehow defective or impaired fits well with my perception of them. Of course so too does the idea that we are not considering a monolith here. It is a spectrum, a continuum, and I have said that on the left side of their coalition there are real conservatives who are tethered to reality and have a real contribution to make and then on the extreme right you have what I consider to be fascists, or "conservatives". The article does not address that so while I find it constructive I also find it lacking.

And finally this article does seem to feed the baby splitting tendency to find false equivalence. I am not going to say that the far left isn't also somehow defective or impaired but too I am not prepared to concede to the bald-faced lies of the extreme right just because some article claims there is some merit to conservative thought.

Maybe if they quit lying and grew some integrity I might find some respect for "conservatism" but I don't see any indication of their integrity any time soon.

[Brewman_Jax]

(05-17-2012 07:57 AM)Velleity Wrote:  Somewhere in my cosmology I allow for the possibility that I am somehow off and "conservatives" really aren't pathological reprobates. And too I do distinguish between conservatives and "conservatives" although not without considerable obstacles. I mean where are the conservatives and why are they allowing themselves to be almost completely obscured?

I don't have to regard "conservatives" as being somehow defective or impaired, but I have to say that the idea that they are somehow defective or impaired fits well with my perception of them. Of course so too does the idea that we are not considering a monolith here. It is a spectrum, a continuum, and I have said that on the left side of their coalition there are real conservatives who are tethered to reality and have a real contribution to make and then on the extreme right you have what I consider to be fascists, or "conservatives". The article does not address that so while I find it constructive I also find it lacking.

And finally this article does seem to feed the baby splitting tendency to find false equivalence. I am not going to say that the far left isn't also somehow defective or impaired but too I am not prepared to concede to the bald-faced lies of the extreme right just because some article claims there is some merit to conservative thought.

Maybe if they quit lying and grew some integrity I might find some respect for "conservatism" but I don't see any indication of their integrity any time soon.

We don't normally hold mentally ill and sick people responsible for their actions. Though it's often amusing to claim that converatives and other members of the racist rabid RW are brain damaged and there has to be something medically wrong with them in order to hold the views that they do, that isn't the case in the article.

I can see the false equivalence claim, but I see the writer saying that regardless of one's political point of view, most people are not brain damaged or mentally ill; neither are they brain damaged or mentally ill because they hold certain political points of view. Agree, just because the article claims that conservatives have some good points, it doesn't mean that they or their political philosophy have merit. A broken clock is right twice a day, but most people don't keep broken clocks around.

The worse thing about the rabid RW is their intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance, along with their lack of integrity, and that won't change anytime soon.

[Velleity]

Actually we do hold impaired people accountable to the extent they can comprehend. In this instance we're talking about sociopaths, IMHO. We don't let a sociopath off the hook simply because they are sociopathic. The impairment is a consideration but it is not an excuse for responsibility.

I am an attorney and I do a lot of guardianship work and it is my experience that even the psychiatrists don't really know a whole lot about what is or isn't going on in a disabled person's mind. The mind is extremely complex. In fact as I understand modern science we don't even even know exactly where it is that "we" reside so determining capacity in the way you suggest is subjective. In other words capacity is like the old pornography definition: you have to kind of know it when you see it.

I have some trouble, as I have suggested, drawing the line here in terms of rational conservative and diminished capacity blind ideologue. As I see it, under these circumstances I am not bound by rules of consistency or facts because we don't have enough facts and there are possibilities beyond what we consider. It's just hard to be absolutely fair under these conditions. We do the best we can.

I can see the point of the article and it is an important point, but it's too broad of a generalization. It is of limited value since the author fails to parse out the various factions and it lumps too many people, i.e. David Koch who clearly wants to rule the universe through financial domination versus my neighbor who remains a staunch "conservative" even though he's in foreclosure because he fell in with the banksters and got laid off because David Koch made more money by outsourcing my neighbor's job.