a little healthy skepticism...

[acroyear]

...shows the hype to be another case of bad science reporting by the popular press (L.A. Times) than really ground-breaking science

Cognitive Daily: The claim: Politically liberal brains are better at handling change:

A recent report in Nature Neuroscience has gotten a lot of press. The headlines proclaim that "left-wing" brains are different from "right wing" brains. Are our brains literally hard-wired to be conservative or liberal? The article in the L.A. Times sure seems to suggest it:

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

Really? Could one study of 43 college students actually tell us all that? [...study description and demo...]

In other words, liberals are more likely than conservatives to have a strong response in the area of the brain used to inhibit responses at the time when they are supposed to inhibit response. So is this why Bush invaded Iraq and Kerry flip-flopped? Actually, Frank Sulloway, who made that claim, wasn't involved in the project. When the L.A. Times reporter finally interviewed Amodio, his response was much more guarded. According to the article, he "cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better."

The study results are actually quite modest -- the researchers claim to be the first to find a relationship between political differences and "a basic neuro-cognitive mechanism for self-regulation." However, these results are supported by a wide range of behavioral data which does support the idea that conservatives are less willing to accept complex arguments or shades of meaning compared to liberals.

So it fits in with larger studies on liberal/conservative differences but really didn't tell us anything new, and certainly doesn't tell us what this Sulloway chap concluded.  Hurray for the "liberal" media actually acting like the right-wing accuses and coming up smelling like a skunk for it.

To actually think that Bush won't give up the Iraq war because he's "conservative" is mind-numbingly simple-minded and petty.  Anybody who has actually looked at the situation objectively knows that it is a very tough call on how much worse the chaos will get (it WILL get worse, both sides know that) and more importantly how much it will bleed into other states and/or give those neighboring states the opportunity to expand, especially Iran and Syria.  Then there's the concern for terrorist groups to set up camp there in the middle of nowhere as they had in Afghanistan before. 

Finally, there's oil in there, remember???  There are serious economic concerns for those allied with big oil and imperial-style exploitation for profit.  Gas prices jumped 80 cents 17 years ago, and jumped $1.50 4 years ago over the mere *idea* of instability in Iraq production.  To basically shut Iraq's pumps off entirely?

So really, it has everything to do with economics, internal political and business allies, and yes the concern for terrorism (terrorism was the huge white lie that got us into the mess, but it really is the reality keeping us there), but it is only a little bit about trying to save face with Bush's public persona to his right-wing base that "He's a decider" and "not a flip-flopper" (which is, of course, bullshit as he's flopped on a HUGE number of things over the years only nobody's bothered to really pick up on it and run with it for reasons we'll never understand).

Wanting to save face is hardly a liberal vs conservative "difference".

Trust me, I'm not defending the guy.  I just want to objectively point out that this Sulloway chap is full of shit.

Comments

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

I suspect the actual scientific article is fairly well written, and suggests insteresting insights into the workings of the human mind. Unfortunately, there are always people (media, politicians, bosses, etc.) who are more than eager to twist the science into propoganda. I'll see if I can find a copy of the journal article, see what it really says.