[MD] Is ideological thinking hard wired?

[david buchanan]

Khaled Alkotob quoted a news article:

..."The work grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that 
political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of 
thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that
conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of 
ambiguity and less open to new experiences."

dmb says:
I have a copy of that 2003 review around here somewhere. Please notice what 
was reviewed in 2003; "decades of previous research". That's a mighty heap 
of data. Its not the kind of thing one should toss aside just for the sake 
of civility. I mean, ignoring a pile of facts that big is something only a 
conservative could do.

The article said:
Some of the traits associated with right-wingers in that review were 
decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression, tolerance of inequality, 
and lack of complexity in their thinking. That — along with the fact that it 
lumped Ronald Reagan and other political conservatives in with Adolf Hitler 
— evoked outrage from conservative pundits. The editors of The New Atlantis 
magazine called the study “a powerful example of the misuse of science and 
the arrogance of expertise.’’ Other critics noted angrily that taxpayers 
footed the bill for the research through $1.2 million in federal grants.

dmb says:
That's hilarious. The conservative pundits and critics responded with 
outrage, insult and anger, as if to prove the review's characterization of 
conservatives as fearful, aggressive and simplistic. Only a conservative 
could fail to see the irony in that. (But if you laughed out loud you're 
probably a Marxist.) And the similarities between german fascists and 
american conservatives like Reagan isn't as crazy as it might seem. (Nobody 
was saying that the gipper was a genocidal anti-semite.) The thought-style 
of the fascist mind is common as the rain and has taken root in various 
places and times. Don't let the absence of gas chambers fool you. There are 
lesser forms of fearful aggression. Just ask an Iraqi.

The article said:
In an interview last week, Tetlock said he would be cautious about drawing 
conclusions from neurological studies like Amodio’s. Using that kind of 
evidence, he said, “it’s hard to distinguish between someone who’s rigid and 
someone who’s principled.’’ For example, he said, “Take (President) Bush and 
Iraq: Is that rigid, or is it principled? The psychological data won’t 
resolve that. It’s a political value judgment that hinges on the extent to 
which we share his priorities.’’

dmb says:
Again, this is hilarous. The psychological data can't resolve it? Its a 
value judgement? Tetlock is off his rocker here. A principled person will do 
what seems right even in the face of popular opinion, peer pressure or 
temptation to the contrary. But Bush does what seems right in the face of 
contrary facts and science and, not least of all, in the face of 
constitutional principles to the contrary. A political value judgement, my 
ass! Just look at the results of his "stay-the-course" policies in Iraq. Its 
a moral, financial, geopolitical, and military disaster. And its the wrong 
war in the wrong country for reason the was wrong too. How wrong can a guy 
get before we question his principles, for christ's sake? This guy is 
totally epic in his wrongness. His policies don't work and are an obvious 
failure but he just keeps on going because his thought style is such that 
he's impervious to the facts. I saw an ad today placed by The Union of 
Concerned Scientists, for example. It said 13 Nobel laureates and 100s of 
science academy members have already signed a petition in protest of bush's 
"unprecedented attack" upon and "abuse of science". What sort of person 
would draw such a complaint?

The article said:
Mark Pollock, associate professor of communication at Loyola University, 
said ...“A higher tolerance of ambiguity and complexity is typical of people 
who are liberal,’’ he said. “That’s not a surprise. It does, however, 
suggest there may be a hereditary and neurological basis for that. It also 
might suggest there’s less likelihood of people shifting their political 
ideology if it’s hard-wired in there.’’

dmb says:
I don't know if the logic is sound here. Self-described liberals show fewer 
mistakes and they show higher levels of functioning in the associated areas 
of the brain. Basically, the liberals are working harder mentally and they 
do so right at that point where conservatives fall back on habit and make 
their mistakes. (On those less common occasions) We can see a correlation 
between brain activity and the level of attention or concentration required 
to avoid making the mistake. Okay. But how does it follow that the 
conservative is "hard-wired" to have a lazy brain? Yes, its true that we now 
have hard scientific data to support the view that conservatives are 
lame-brained but what reason do we have to think this is a feature of the 
brain itself. What about a little exercise and discipline? Who ever said 
laziness and sloth were genetic? Why should we assume that deficit can't 
remedied or changed?

I'm not so sure Pollack is right to argue that Conservatives are genetically 
and inherently lame-brained.

And what do you call a conservative that's been cured of his lazy brain?

A liberal.

Thanks.
dmb

P.S. This post is dedicated to Arlo and his dear fiend Platt.

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft® Office Live! 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0930003811mrt/direct/01/