Republicans have bad brains

Republicans have bad brains?


Sunday, May 6, 2012


"They do that because they were born that way."

If you say that about homosexuals, you are tolerant and realistic. If
you say it about blacks, you are racist (unless you're black
yourself). If you say it about women, you may or may not be sexist,
depending on who is manning (er, womanning) the feminist battle
stations. If you say it about men, you just might be a writer for
Esquire. But if you say it about conservatives, you're a scientist.

Over the past decade, a new fad has taken hold among academics and
liberal journalists: call it the new science of conservative
phrenology. No, it doesn't actually involve using calipers to
determine intelligence based on the size and shape of people's heads.
The measuring devices are better — MRIs and gene sequencers — but the
conclusions are worse. The gist is this: Conservatives and liberals
don't just have different world views or ideas, they have different
brains; the right and left are just hard-wired to think differently.

Author Chris Mooney compiles much of this research for his new book
The Republican Brain, which purports to show that conservatives are,
literally by nature, more closed-minded and resistant to change and
facts. His evidence includes the fact that conservatives are less
likely to buy into global warming, allegedly proving they are not only
"anti-science" but innately anti-fact, as well. "Politicized wrongness
today," he writes "is clustered among Republicans, conservatives and
especially Tea Partiers."

That's an entirely understandable view for Mooney to hold. He's a
soaked-to-the-bone liberal partisan. But he crosses the line into
pseudoscientific hogwash by trying to explain every political
disagreement as a symptom of bad brains. For instance, Mooney claims
Republicans have trouble processing reality because Republicans think
"ObamaCare" will raise the deficit. No really, stop laughing.

Of course, Mooney believes he's simply going where the science leads.
Consider that one of the more famous studies was conducted by liberal
researchers at University of California-Los Angeles and New York
University and published in Nature Neuroscience. Subjects were asked
to spot the letters M or W on a screen for a fraction of a second. It
turns out that self-described liberals did somewhat better on the test
than the conservatives.

What does that mean? Well, according to the researchers, it means:
"Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity
and novelty." Liberals are also "more likely than are conservatives to
respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses," NYU
says.

Translation: Conservatives literally aren't smart enough to be
spell-checkers at an M&M factory because they won't be able to
understand quickly enough that the occasional W is just an upside down
M.

The data might be correct, but as with Mooney, the conclusions are
beyond absurd. London's Guardian newspaper responded to the study by
declaring, "Scientists have found that the brains of people calling
themselves liberals are more able to handle conflicting and unexpected
information." The Los Angeles Times announced in an editorial that the
study "suggests that liberals are more adaptable than conservatives"
and "might be better judges of the facts."

Huh? The test didn't measure "informational complexity." It measured
informational simplicity. As Slate's science columnist William Saletan
notes, the study actually excludes complexity and ambiguity. It
measured response times to a rudimentary visual acuity test. Almost by
definition, conscious thought isn't part of the equation. My hunch is
that Socrates would do very poorly hunting and pecking for Ms and Ws
on a screen, too.

Now it's probably true that, on average, there are subtle differences
between conservatives and liberals when it comes to cognition. But you
don't have to be "anti-science" to see how the scientists are wildly
overreaching from the data. Indeed, there's a huge definitional
problem. Conservatives resist growth of the state, but that's not the
same thing as resisting change. After all, capitalism is among the
most powerful agents of change in human history, and conservatives are
the ones defending it. Meanwhile, liberals are downright reactionary
about preserving the Great Society and New Deal.

A famous study asserts that communist revolutionaries Joseph Stalin
and Fidel Castro were political conservatives because they resisted
change once in power. If your algorithmic whirligig spits out the
finding that Stalin, the global leader of communism for two decades,
and Castro, the global dashboard saint of recrudescent left-wing
asininity, are "politically conservative" it's time to take the gadget
out to a field and smash it with baseball bats like the printer in the
movie "Office Space."

Mooney, who recently explained in a speech that he has given up on the
Enlightenment view that we're all open to reason, doesn't seem to
realize where he's heading with this nonsense. Never mind that this
approach is inherently undemocratic and opens the door to "genetic"
explanations for everybody's political views — blacks, women, gays,
etc. — it is also self-serving bigotry that allows liberals to justify
their own closed-mindedness on the grounds that Republicans aren't
even worth listening to. After all, they're just born that way.


More:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120506/GJOPINION_0102/705069937/-1/FOSOPINION

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy



--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.