So one conservative neurosurgeon says to the other, "Didja hear why liberals have to work so much harder to win at politics?"
"Why, no, I haven't," says the other conservative neurosurgeon.
"Ha! It's because they have to compensate for having smaller amygdalae!" And they both laugh heartily as they stroll down the hospital corridor.
******************
The above joke doesn't make any sense to the reader right now, of course, but in the light of current research it makes perfect sense. First, let's show the research:
1. Scientists at University College London found that "people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions. On the other hand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life."
Salon.com points out that the researchers were unable to determine if cerebral physiology drives politics or if political beliefs change the brain, but a joint study by Harvard and University of California San Diego indicated that people with [a so-called "liberal gene"] who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average. They reported that it is the crucial interaction of two factors—the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence—that is associated with being more liberal. This held true independent of ethnicity, culture, sex, or age. This might explain in a physiological sense the tendency for urban populations to be more liberal than their rural counterparts.
2. Amygdalae play a very important (though not crucial) role in the processing of emotions, particularly that of fear. In fact, a smaller amygdala volume tends to be associated with decreased fearfulness and enlarged amygdala volume with increased fearfulness. The study shows that there is a direct relationship between amygdala volume and fearfulness in healthy girls, which is particularly robust in girls who have direct family members who suffered from depression.
3. Researchers from Northeastern University and at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have found that part of the brain called the amygdala, a word derived from the Greek for almond, is larger in more sociable people than in those who lead less gregarious lives. The finding, which held for men and women of all ages, is the first to show a link between the size of [the amygdala] and the number and complexity of a person's relationships.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
Interesting. I've always had an irrational fear of public speaking, perhaps this could partly explain it. It's been one of those thorn in the side personal issues that has hurt me in trying to reach my full potential.
"This might explain in a physiological sense the tendency for urban populations to be more liberal than their rural counterparts."
Simply living in proximity to other people doesn't increase the scope and number of relationships. There's alot more anonymity in the city and less social pressure in many ways.
I'll tell you my theory on the differences... different realities. Urban people vote there reality, rural people vote their reality. It's not the same thing yet we only get one broad brush federal government to work with. City problems are largely not country problems and vice versa. For example we hear class warfare stuff and don't understand. Maybe in the city where the rich live in the towers and go to exclusive private schools while the poor live in ghettos locked in by the thin blue line and and encirclement of middle class gated communities it makes more sense. In the country there's one school (without metal detectors no doubt) and one set of teachers and everybody, rich or middle or poor, goes to it. Rich old farmers live right next door to their worker's trailers and the kids play together. Cost of living is lower so government welfare benefits go alot farther and so on.
2 - Dan(Miller)
Speaking of brains, some very prestigious scientists recently examined a "liberal" brain. When they examined the right side, they found nothing right. When they examined the left side, they found nothing left.
Dan(Miller)
3 - The Craven Mevyn
...as the left innervates the right and vice versa (braineologically speaking, that is) shouldn't that read
Speaking of brains, some very prestigious scientists recently examined a "liberal" brain. When they examined the right side, they found nothing left. When they examined the left side, they found nothing right.
...?
4 - Baronius
No mention of the higher rates of depression and suicide among liberals? No mention of psychological studies showing liberals' difficulty in committing to a relationship? No mention of eye-movement studies showing that liberals are more easily manipulated by others?
5 - roger nowosielski
I wonder what's the payoff, Glenn, that liberals are superior human beings? It beats me why anyone should want to claim such a thing.
It's too much of "my daddy can beat your daddy" kind of boat, real juvenile.
6 - roger nowosielski
... boast ...
7 - The Craven Mevyn
...payoff?
acme amygdala enhancers for the lonely and retarders...'for that liberated feeling'
we simply need a bit of investment capital
8 - roger nowosielski
You're on a roll today, Mavyn Raven.
9 - Glenn Contrarian
To all -
It might surprise you all to learn that I didn't really write the article to change any conservatives' minds; indeed, the article itself explains a physiological basis for the conservative prejudice against any science that challenges their worldview.
I wrote it more for the few remaining BC liberals to let them know what they're up against against.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Doug -
Thank you for your serious reply - I do appreciate that.
When it comes to rich-poor class separation, there's at least as much in the country as in the city - and I should know! I grew up in the MS Delta where to this day you will find largely segregated schools because any white family that can afford to do so sends their kids to one of the local private schools...and these private schools almost always completely white even though the area has the largest proportion of blacks in America. (note: in the eighth grade I attended an all-white private school, and the next year (since we couldn't afford the private school) I attended a public school with 480 students...about 20 of whom were white. That was the year 'Roots' came out.)
Furthermore, look back at the article, about carrying that 'liberal gene' and being exposed to more 'social norms and lifestyles'. Living in the city exposes one to FAR more social norms and lifestyles than one can possibly encounter in the country.
On your point about living anonymously in the city, yes, living in the city can be a very lonely place - but even living so anonymously one is still exposed to a far greater number of social norms and lifestyles...
...and the countryside can be a very lonely place, too. I've been there, done that, and got the t-shirt.
Again, though, thank you for the serious reply.
11 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
No mention of the higher rates of depression and suicide among liberals? No mention of psychological studies showing liberals' difficulty in committing to a relationship? No mention of eye-movement studies showing that liberals are more easily manipulated by others?
That's interesting, and I haven't heard of them. I'd appreciate it if you would post your references.
Baronius, remember that I'm a pretty objective person. Show me research, good stats, provable facts, and I'm happy to read it even if I don't like what it says...
...and again, that's backed up by the research in the article - liberals don't mind accepting science which challenges their worldview, whereas conservatives have a real problem with it (witness the 'religious right' that insists that the world is 6000 years old and everyone is descended from Noah who lived about 4000 years ago).
12 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
I wonder what's the payoff, Glenn, that liberals are superior human beings? It beats me why anyone should want to claim such a thing.
Why does there have to be a 'payoff', Roger? Some of us want to know WHY we are the way we are...and that's what the article is about.
And FYI, I wouldn't want a world without conservatives - you of all people should know that I'm not going off on some kind of eugenics rant! Have you not seen me post on many occasions, "moderation in all things"?
Roger, you'd find many, many conservatives who would wish all liberals would go away - or maybe keep a few around to laugh at. Right? Right.
But as for myself, conservatives preserve tradition and culture, and to a lesser extent family values, societal cohesion, and the manners that provide the lubrication of the engine of society. A world without conservatives would be a world that didn't understand where it came from or what its purpose was...just as a world without liberals would be a world that couldn't see where it was going, much less how to get there.
Frankly, I'm surprised at you, Roger - I thought you understood me better than that!
13 - Dr Dreadful
A highly fascinating, entertaining and well put together article, Glenn. I was looking forward to the comments even before I finished reading. I'm fairly sure we'll get some fireworks, although the fuse hasn't quite been lit yet.
I'm not sure about there being much of a genetic basis for one's political views. They're more a product of upbringing and environment. We tend to at least start out with similar opinions to our parents. What happens then depends on where our lives take us.
There's also the well-known phenomenon that people tend to become more conservative as they get older. That's simply biological: older organisms are less active and adaptable than younger ones, and therefore less comfortable with change. You and I are exceptions in that our views have travelled in the opposite direction. (Mine have now settled more or less in the centre, which I find to be an eminently sensible position.)
As you point out, the brain also changes in response to environmental stimuli. This ability decreases with age, which goes some way to explaining why once the average person has settled into a particular political outlook in middle age, they rarely change it again.
You're a particularly unusual case, Glenn, in that not only did you grow up in a conservative environment (the deep South), you also spent most of your career in one (the military). So where your current liberal stance comes from I'm not sure. You seem to be one of those rare birds who has intellectualized your way to your political views.
14 - Dr Dreadful
And @ #2:
Dan is on top form today, I see. :-)
15 - Cannonshop
Dunno, I doubt that wanting to make other people pay the price for your moral stance is a function of intelligence.
but...
Maybe I'm wrong-maybe the sociopaths ARE smarter. Maybe it IS smarter to demand others sacrifice for your gain, whether material, moral, or emotional. Maybe, Violating your OATHS to preserve your retirement, dereliction of duty to preserve your career, and being a slick operator is a sign of a bigger brain-or maybe it's just a sign that there's something wrong. Hey, Glenn, how MANY rape cases did you cover up while you were assigned as first-responder in the Navy?
*(Maybe there's a reason that, while others were on-call in the three days after 9/11, the bright southern guy didn't have to worry about the phone ringing?)
16 - roger nowosielski
@13, last paragraph:
Shall we say the same of Truman Capote, Thomas Wolfe, William Faulkner, Flannery O'Connor . . .
17 - Baronius
"Baronius, remember that I'm a pretty objective person. Show me research, good stats, provable facts, and I'm happy to read it even if I don't like what it says..."
I've found you to be quite the opposite, almost a caricature of the opposite, and every time I call you on it you ignore me. But this article is a good place to start. There's been similar work done on the General Social Survey by others. It's actually based on survey data, not the kind of "red states have higher divorce rates" stuff that doesn't prove anything.
18 - Dr Dreadful
@ #15:
There's that American has-to-be-either-one-thing-or-the-other mindset again...
19 - Irene Athena
@17 is it just my computer, or did that link not work because a ?PageNr=1 got pasted to the end of the html?
20 - Baronius
Jonathan Haidt is doing some interesting writing on the subject of left/right morality. Like a lot of researchers, he can't quite bring himself to say that liberals have commitment issues, but he's willing to say that conservatives are strong on loyalty and commitment.
This article talks about eye movement and liberal thinking. Like most of this stuff, it casts it in "why are conservatives different" terminology. Haidt wrote an article for The Edge that complains about such bias (even though it's filled with it).
Personally, I think that evolutionary biologists are overstating their case for the physiological origin of political thought. If you take this stuff too seriously you'd have to believe that Glenn suffered a reverse-Grinch conversion, with his amygdalas shrinking three sizes in a moment.
21 - Baronius
It's not just your computer. Sorry.
22 - Baronius
Not only did I mess up the link, this is the article I meant to link to.
23 - Doug Hunter
#18
I think humans are just hardwired that way... or perhaps nature is. Binary systema are about the simplest way we can understand to transmit information. Yin and yang, day and night, male and female, up and down, good and evil, democrat and republican, liberal and conservative.
#5
Per his own description, Glenn is the product of an upbringing in an area of racist garbage in the armpit of the United States. He rightly saw the evils of that and got away as fast and as far as he could. Congratulations to him as that's a hard thing to do. Unfortunately, part of the baggage is that he sees all of us non-liberals as those same people from his youth in the delta. I've seen it happen the other way as well, my wife and her family are from Camden, NJ a longtime posterchild for violence and blight. They escaped to more rural (and likely more conservative/republican areas) outside the city, found out that not all white conservatives hate minorities, and experienced the opposite of the Glenn effect.
24 - roger nowosielski
Excellent description, Doug; Glenn's adoption of liberalism was a reaction rather than resulting from an embrace. Which is why Dreadful make a good point about his intellectualizing his way into it.
25 - Irene Athena
But THREE is hardwired into the US governmental system: Executive-legislative-judicial branches.
So why do so many here feel so committed to the One-Two, Left-Right, Conservative-Liberal model?
TWO is useful for transmitting info about decisions that have to be made in a hurry: Friend-or-foe? Flight-or-Fight? Claw-or-Fang?
But when a group of people becomes a community, committed to one another (loving, even?), they have the luxury of throwing fear aside and working with the balance that is naturally inherent in THREENESS. The stability of a stool, and the stability of a society, is lost when the third leg is kicked out and there are only two legs to stand on.
When we move from two to three, we move from "just surviving" to building a culture and a hope that there will be an intact world for new generations to enjoy it: Left-CommonGround-Right, PolarSingularity-EverythingElse-PolarSingularity, mother-father-child, beginning-middle-end, Past-Present-Future....