It looks that way, according to a study published this week in Nature Neuroscience. In a rapid response test"”you press a button if you're given one signal, but not if you're given a different signal"”the authors found that conservatives were "more likely to make errors of commission," whereas "stronger liberalism was correlated with greater accuracy." They concluded that "a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change."
Does this mean liberal brains are fitter? Apparently. "Liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty," the authors wrote. New York University, which helped fund the study, concluded, "Liberals are more likely than are conservatives to respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses." The study's lead author, NYU professor David Amodio, told London's Daily Telegraph that "liberals tended to be more sensitive and responsive to information that might conflict with their habitual way of thinking."
Habitual way of thinking. Informational complexity. Need to change. Those are sweeping terms. They imply that conservatives, on average, are adaptively weaker at thinking, not just button-pushing. And that implication has permeated the press. The Los Angeles Times told readers that the study "suggests that liberals are more adaptable than conservatives" and "might be better judges of the facts." Agence France Presse reported that conservatives in the study "were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits 'despite signals that this ... should be changed.' " The Guardian asserted, "Scientists have found that the brains of people calling themselves liberals are more able to handle conflicting and unexpected information."
The Los Angeles Times told readers that the study "suggests that liberals are more adaptable than conservatives" and "might be better judges of the facts."
...or more gullible and can be led to believe anything.
I think this study clearly justifies a constitutional amendment that conservative votes only count 3/5 of a vote and liberal votes count for 7/5 of a vote.
I have a metaphysical objection to this study. It would appear to maintain that thinking -- rationally selecting a conservative position versus a liberal position -- is a matter of biology, a stronger/quicker/nimbler brain. This proposition makes a mush out of the very concept of rational thought, the performing of syllogisms. Thus, the outcome of Pythagoras' theorem depends upon the relative athleticism of one's brain -- a 4.4 40-yard dash brain being able to complete the theorem, the slow-poke 5.2 40-yard dash brain failing to complete the theorem. So with the proofs of Euclidean geometry and mathematics generally: the Arnold bulked brain able to adroitly lift the proofs of Euler and others, the 90-LBS weakling brain having sand kicked on it, as it were, and befuddled by the simple syllogism "Man is a bipod, I am a man, hence I am a bipod."
Therefore, while coming at this backwards, from a metaphysical position, I reject the study as necessarily flawed. I need not identify the flaw, I only need point to the absurd conclusion that its results lead to. Reductio ad Absurdum. Thinking and judgment are not determined by physical characteristics of the brain or even the speed of syllogisms or other activities.
I need not identify the flaw, I only need point to the absurd conclusion that its results lead to.
Even if that conclusion is correct, but is still one you don't agree with. "I disagree, therefore the conclusion is absurd." Typical conservative mantra?
If you'll read what the study REALLY said, you'll find that the findings had absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence. It says "a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change." Conservatives resist change in their patterns. That is something that is already well documented and needed no further study.
But someone said it was about intelligence, therefore you assumed it was about intelligence without looking at what was actually said or, if you did look, your mind fooled you into thinking that was what it said. Therefore, your response is rendered absurd. That is another thing that has been abundantly proven to be a conservative flaw to anyone who has kept an open mind during this election cycle. An inaccuracy is stated by a leader or one of the surrogates, it is believed and then followers repeat and repeat the inaccuracy without regard to the actual facts. By that method, it soon spreads throughout the flock and the original verbage is completely forgotten and replaced by the innacurate wording.
In that regard, yes, liberals do seem to be more intelligent than conservatives because they seem to be more questioning of their leaders and, thus, somewhat less susceptible to that particular phenomenon.
I need not identify the flaw, I only need point to the absurd conclusion that its results lead to.
Even if that conclusion is correct, but is still one you don't agree with. "I disagree, therefore the conclusion is absurd." Typical conservative mantra?
If you'll read what the study REALLY said, you'll find that the findings had absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence. It says "a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change." Conservatives resist change in their patterns. That is something that is already well documented and needed no further study.
But someone said it was about intelligence, therefore you assumed it was about intelligence without looking at what was actually said or, if you did look, your mind fooled you into thinking that was what it said. Therefore, your response is rendered absurd. That is another thing that has been abundantly proven to be a conservative flaw to anyone who has kept an open mind during this election cycle. An inaccuracy is stated by a leader or one of the surrogates, it is believed and then followers repeat and repeat the inaccuracy without regard to the actual facts. By that method, it soon spreads throughout the flock and the original verbage is completely forgotten and replaced by the innacurate wording.
In that regard, yes, liberals do seem to be more intelligent than conservatives because they seem to be more questioning of their leaders and, thus, somewhat less susceptible to that particular phenomenon.
I think what we're seeing here is that liberals take their inconsistent political philosophy leading to a complete lack of relevance way too seriously.
What this study does not show is that we need to become more aggressive in efforts to crush Marxism, an utterly disgusting manifestation of liberalism which is resurgent in Russia and is expanding like a repulsive cancerous growth here in our country.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
I think it shows that conservatives are more prone to think about things a little more deeply before making a decision, rather than just giving a knee-jerk reaction.
Liberals Smarter ThanConservatives
