[abe]

Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs

PARIS (AFP) - The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.

Aristotle may have been more on the mark than he realised when he said that man is by nature a political animal.

Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits.

Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.

Intrigued by these correlations, New York University political scientist David Amodio and colleagues decided to find out if the brains of liberals and conservatives reacted differently to the same stimuli.

Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs - Yahoo! News

You all laughed at my Fuzzy brain assertions.

You can't laugh now.

[Dakarʒ]

How is this not political?

[sek929]

Adapting easily to unexpected circumstances seems like the biggest pro you can have.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Adapting easily to unexpected circumstances seems like the biggest pro you can have.

Other than expecting (and meticulously planning for) all circumstances?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

How is this not political?

The researchers didn't do an opinion poll, they did a scientific brain function survey.

Duh!

[sek929]

How can you plan for the unexpected? Planning for something means you are expecting it.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by abe 

The researchers didn't do an opinion poll, they did a scientific brain function survey.

Duh!

And they summed up the results by political bias.

[abe]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Adapting easily to unexpected circumstances seems like the biggest pro you can have.

I have known people who easily adapted to unexpected circumstances because they were on PCP and they remained placid as the police came in and hauled them away. I've known drunks who easily adapted to being robbed. I've known children who chose to go with an abusive adult because they adapted easily to unexpected circumstances.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

How can you plan for the unexpected? Planning for something means you are expecting it.

The answer to the question in the first sentence is in the second sentence.

[abe]

Originally Posted by sek929 

How can you plan for the unexpected? Planning for something means you are expecting it.

And that is the point. People with the other kind of hard-wiring can recognize the possibility of something happening ahead of time and make allowances for it.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The answer to the question in the first sentence is in the second sentence.

Nice!

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by abe 

I have known people who easily adapted to unexpected circumstances because they were on PCP and they remained placid as the police came in and hauled them away. I've known drunks who easily adapted to being robbed. I've known children who chose to go with an abusive adult because they adapted easily to unexpected circumstances.

Do you even have a point?

[abe]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Do you even have a point?

I thought you'd connect the dots.

Originally Posted by sek929

Adapting easily to unexpected circumstances seems like the biggest pro you can have.

Originally Posted by abe

I have known people who easily adapted to unexpected circumstances because they were on PCP and they remained placid as the police came in and hauled them away. I've known drunks who easily adapted to being robbed. I've known children who chose to go with an abusive adult because they adapted easily to unexpected circumstances.

Therefore adapting easily to unexpected circumstances isn't necessarily the greatest quality to possess if it only allows you to adjust to whatever bad thing that might otherwise have been prevented.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Other than expecting (and meticulously planning for) all circumstances?

Well then they wouldn't be unexpected circumstances, now would they?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe 

I have known people who easily adapted to unexpected circumstances because they were on PCP and they remained placid as the police came in and hauled them away. I've known drunks who easily adapted to being robbed. I've known children who chose to go with an abusive adult because they adapted easily to unexpected circumstances.

I know people who have gotten hit by trains because they refused to change course. So what? In general, being able to handle a new situation is better than not being able to handle it.

[turtle777]

Abe should be banninated from the Lounge for that stunt.

-t

[turtle777]

Although, thinking of it, we can now bash him all we want w/o him being able to respond. NICE

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by abe 

Therefore adapting easily to unexpected circumstances isn't necessarily the greatest quality to possess if it only allows you to adjust to whatever bad thing that might otherwise have been prevented.

If you anticipate something bad, then aren't you in the bad circumstance of having that bad thing looming before you? And isn't avoiding that thing an adaptation to your newly discovered bad circumstance? Unless you are somehow in the situation that you'll never encounter a bad circumstance ever, then it's impossible that you already foresee every bad circumstance that you'll ever be in. Once you discover that you can anticipate something bad in the future, you've just stumbled into an unexpected bad circumstance and you have to adapt to avoid the full force of its badness.

Preventing bad things from happening doesn't mean that you aren't in a bad spot now, it just means that you're adapting to your bad spot to prevent it from becoming even worse.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Well then they wouldn't be unexpected circumstances, now would they?

There are no unexpected circumstances. Only those which you forgot to prepare for.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by abe 

Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs



Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs - Yahoo! News

You all laughed at my Fuzzy brain assertions.

You can't laugh now.

The article doesn't contain enough information to form an opinion or say anything really. More neural activity in liberals: until you can scientifically answer why you don't have anything.

I really hate American politics. Both sides are equally ridiculous but only pay attention to what the "wrong" party is doing.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There are no unexpected circumstances. Only those which you forgot to prepare for.

I'm sure that looks good on a bumper sticker but in reality you cannot feasibly prepare for every possible scenario.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'm sure that looks good on a bumper sticker but in reality you cannot feasibly prepare for every possible scenario.

Uhm, you can. You just have to limit the number of possible scenarios.

E.g. Lock yourself up in a manhole. There is only limited scenarios from there on...

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

I planned for you to post that.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Adapting easily to unexpected circumstances seems like the biggest pro you can have.

That's true even in the study itself:

Two different letters were flashed on the screen for only a few milliseconds. If an M appeared, participants had to press a button in front of them. If a W appeared, participants were told to remain still.

"Eighty percent of the time, the letter M appeared," Amodio said. "The stimulus was so frequent that individuals were just sitting there pressing a button. This behavior became habitual."

Because the letter W appeared only sporadically, it was unexpected and surprised the participants. It took a great deal of mental effort to not press the button — allowing researchers to look at how well the subjects dealt with conflicting information and how quickly they could switch their response patterns.

What researchers found was that liberals were better at processing this conflicting information. The liberals were about 10 percent more likely to hold back from an incorrect response than their conservative counterparts.

Conservatives, on the other hand, were more likely to stay the course. They kept pressing the button even when the letter W flashed on the screen.

They pressed 'M' even if a 'W' appeared. They stayed the course. Maybe they even decided to surge on the M key.

[besson3c]

I don't see how this study is at all actionable or useful.

Firstly, most people are not left or right wing clichés, but fall somewhere in the middle.

Secondly, this "tend to" language should not be used to establish generalizations, because there are tons of exceptions. You could use similar language with artists, athletes, or any other area of study. We've already known that there are certain left and right brain activities and classifications of people, how is this information new?

Thirdly, how is this useful or worthy of discussion? What is there that can be said?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

There are no unexpected circumstances. Only those which you forgot to prepare for.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't see how this study is at all actionable or useful.

Firstly, most people are not left or right wing clichés, but fall somewhere in the middle.

Secondly, this "tend to" language should not be used to establish generalizations, because there are tons of exceptions. You could use similar language with artists, athletes, or any other area of study. We've already known that there are certain left and right brain activities and classifications of people, how is this information new?

Thirdly, how is this useful or worthy of discussion? What is there that can be said?

I agree.

Further, I suspect this "study" is nothing more than a fabrication, or a randomly generated anomaly that can be produced with any set of subjects. No proof, just a hunch based on having seen similar tripe before, especially when claiming something as vague as what's really a "liberal" or a "conservative" test group.

Studies show people wearing red shirts are more likely to do something differently than people wearing blue shirts. What does it mean? Don't wear a yellow shirt.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I agree.

Further, I suspect this "study" is nothing more than a fabrication, or a randomly generated anomaly that can be produced with any set of subjects. No proof, just a hunch based on having seen similar tripe before, especially when claiming something as vague as what's really a "liberal" or a "conservative" test group.

Studies show people wearing red shirts are more likely to do something differently than people wearing blue shirts. What does it mean? Don't wear a yellow shirt.

Yeah, you're right, all "research" and "studies" are probably just falsified lies or random nonsense.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Yeah, you're right, all "research" and "studies" are probably just falsified lies or random nonsense.

Aww, poor BRussell. Hey, don't let me rain on your parade. I'm sure you need a study and a group-think "one size fits all" label to validate your life and beliefs for you. Yes, liberals are teh smart- a study said so! (But the real question is, is there any other proof?)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Yes, liberals are teh smart- a study said so! (But the real question is, is there any other proof?)

The fact that a conservative posted about the study in a boastful manner?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The fact that a conservative posted about the study in a boastful manner?

Proves nothing about liberals.

And seriously, virtually anything to do with intellect generally proves you woefully unarmed. And it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Aww, poor BRussell. Hey, don't let me rain on your parade. I'm sure you need a study and a group-think "one size fits all" label to validate your life and beliefs for you. Yes, liberals are teh smart- a study said so! (But the real question is, is there any other proof?)

I'm a cognitive psychologist, and my work is doing research kind of like this (not on politics), reviewing it, writing about it, teaching it, etc. So when people say that this kind of thing is meaningless or random BS, obviously it raises some defenses.

In addition, I find the idea that you can try to get specific about the personalities and mentalities of liberals and conservatives kind of fascinating. I don't understand the view that it's stupid and pointless - but then again, that's because my career is devoted to the idea that this kind of approach to things is important and interesting, so...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I'm a cognitive psychologist, and my work is doing research kind of like this (not on politics), reviewing it, writing about it, teaching it, etc. So when people say that this kind of thing is meaningless or random BS, obviously it raises some defenses.

I suspect it's meaningless, based on past experience and just plain old fashioned logic that comes from knowing that real people aren't clichés, as besson3c pointed out.

Just look at the details- 43 test subjects. (By the way, does an odd number make any difference when testing two groups? How were the 'sides' divvied up?)

Who are these people? What age range? From where? How diverse is each group? What real-world extrapolation of the population do these 43 people really represent? What the hell makes any of them actually a "liberal" or a "conservative", and whose definition of either of those terms is being used?

Where are the follow-up studies with 43 or however many other groups of people that verify the results of the first study? What measures were taken to assure no other factors played a role in the results, other than what the researchers were looking for? (All we know is that everyone was right handed.)

Right off the bat, it's premature to announce any finding as significant, if it can't be reliably reproduced, and is actually the result of what you're looking at, not something else you're not even considering, or just a random occurrence that could swing either way. Without really clearing false positives, it may as well be testing groups based on any old meaningless criteria, like their shirt or eye color. (Maybe the younger subjects did something differently than the older subjects, or those that have a better diet did something differently than those that have a poor diet, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....) How does anyone know what if any false positives were taken into consideration?

Rather than jumping in and claiming a bunch of meaningless tripe over the results of a single test with 43 unknown people, it seems the far more logical response to ask relevant questions and have a healthy skepticism. But then, that's actually behaving like an individual.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Proves nothing about liberals.

And seriously, virtually anything to do with intellect generally proves you woefully unarmed. And it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

Gee, you see something lacking in the logic of that statement? Somebody less hotheaded might be led to conclude I was being facetious.

How about you think for half a second next time before spilling your bile all over this place, 'kay? The Internet Tough Guy shtick really doesn't make you any more persuasive.

[besson3c]

To clarify my position: I'm not saying the data is entirely useless... I'm saying it is not grounds for making simplistic and concrete generalizations from. What this sounds like is that some media outlet took a complex study and whittled it down to simplistic bite-sized chunks for us, like the media often does.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Studies show people wearing red shirts are more likely to do something differently than people wearing blue shirts.

Fail to come back from the planet in one piece?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I suspect it's meaningless, based on past experience and just plain old fashioned logic that comes from knowing that real people aren't clichés, as besson3c pointed out.

Just look at the details- 43 test subjects. (By the way, does an odd number make any difference when testing two groups? How were the 'sides' divvied up?)

Who are these people? What age range? From where? How diverse is each group? What real-world extrapolation of the population do these 43 people really represent? What the hell makes any of them actually a "liberal" or a "conservative", and whose definition of either of those terms is being used?

Where are the follow-up studies with 43 or however many other groups of people that verify the results of the first study? What measures were taken to assure no other factors played a role in the results, other than what the researchers were looking for? (All we know is that everyone was right handed.)

Right off the bat, it's premature to announce any finding as significant, if it can't be reliably reproduced, and is actually the result of what you're looking at, not something else you're not even considering, or just a random occurrence that could swing either way. Without really clearing false positives, it may as well be testing groups based on any old meaningless criteria, like their shirt or eye color. (Maybe the younger subjects did something differently than the older subjects, or those that have a better diet did something differently than those that have a poor diet, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....) How does anyone know what if any false positives were taken into consideration?

Rather than jumping in and claiming a bunch of meaningless tripe over the results of a single test with 43 unknown people, it seems the far more logical response to ask relevant questions and have a healthy skepticism. But then, that's actually behaving like an individual.

Here's the study. Your talk about "false positives" really doesn't make any sense, and I'm not interested in doing a peer review for MacNN, especially since this paper was already accepted for publication by one of the most prestigious scientific journals and I have several reviews on my desk right now that I need to do. But knock yourself out.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Wow from that figure it sure looks like only 7 of the subjects rated themselves to be more on the conservative side. Who wants to bet that almost all the subjects were graduate students too. Color me skeptical.

[Atheist]

I would the suggest the study says more about the people that want to believe it than about the study itself.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Here's the study. Your talk about "false positives" really doesn't make any sense,

By false positive, I simply mean you attribute some result to something you're looking for IE: "subject did thus and such because they were a liberal..." when really your "positive" result had absolutely nothing to do with the person being a liberal or conservative, but something else entirely (probably sheer chance, or any reason you simply haven't bothered to look at).

If the concept is too hard for you to grasp, then I fail to see how you're really any kind of "researcher". Or perhaps you're the kind that just jumps to a conclusion from the start, and then only looks for confirmation of your preconception, while purposefully ignoring every other possibility. Perhaps that's typical, I dunno.

Also, I can't seem to read your link now, but were there really only 7 people identified as conservatives? If so, sounds like something from the Michael Moore school of "research"!

[Chuckit]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, it does look like there were almost four times as many liberals as conservatives. I'm not a statistician, but wouldn't that mean the margin of error for conservatives is considerably greater?

[trumptman]

I want to award the trophy for largest logical leap ever to this study. Forty-three people and their ability to recognize and react to two letters has now been extended to the philosophy, political motivations, and actions and reaction for all of humankind.

I can't imagine a larger leap even being possible.

Nick

[Wiskedjak]

And abe keeps on pressing 'M' as more and more 'W's appear

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

By false positive, I simply mean you attribute some result to something you're looking for IE: "subject did thus and such because they were a liberal..." when really your "positive" result had absolutely nothing to do with the person being a liberal or conservative, but something else entirely (probably sheer chance, or any reason you simply haven't bothered to look at).

If the concept is too hard for you to grasp, then I fail to see how you're really any kind of "researcher". Or perhaps you're the kind that just jumps to a conclusion from the start, and then only looks for confirmation of your preconception, while purposefully ignoring every other possibility. Perhaps that's typical, I dunno.

Wow you've got brass ones. You make long posts about "false positives" in a study in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals, when it's so apparent to anyone who's ever had a basic experimental design class that you have no idea what false positives are or what experimental design is about, and had never even thought about it until that post, and then you're insulting me for not knowing what it is that you're talking about. Truly amazing.

What it seems you're trying to talk about is an extraneous or confounding factor, not a false positive. A false positive is a term from signal detection theory, referring to the claimed detection of a stimulus when the stimulus is not actually present. They are completely unrelated. If what you're trying to talk about are extraneous variables, it's more of a theoretical problem than a real one. They had measures of these people's political philosophy; of course a ton of things are associated with political philosophy - parents, friends, gender, personality, religiosity, genes, environment, etc. etc. But those factors don't make political beliefs go away. What it is about political philosophy that is most closely associated with this task is a great topic for further research. Maybe conservatives have more money, which gives them greater access to computers, which changes their brain to make them... yadda yadda. Or maybe liberals are younger, and younger people are... yadda yadda. Fascinating possibilities, and all great for further work.

I'd completely agree with you if you'd said that this should generate more research to find out those specifics. But that's not what you're saying, is it? You're saying that it's all BS because it's a "study" done by "researchers" - you can't even type the words without putting them in quotes - and there are false positives and it's "only the result of what you're looking at" and one should "behave like an individual" when looking at research, whatever any of that means.

Criticize away, as long as the criticisms make sense, and yours most certainly didn't. That's what these people who actually know what they're talking about do every day to each others' research. But again, that's not what you've done. You apparently didn't like the results so, rather than try to offer competing explanations for the data, you just BS your way through a dorm-room rant: "dude those results are like SO bogus," "yeah there are like waaaay too many, um, false positives!" "like, far out dude, high-five."

Also, I can't seem to read your link now, but were there really only 7 people identified as conservatives? If so, sounds like something from the Michael Moore school of "research"!

Right, Michael Moore. That's only true if the zero-point on that scale is interpreted as a qualitative dividing line, which you probably should be very careful about doing. To one person, a moderate liberal is a far-right-winger, and to another, an extreme lefty. The real meaning of it is to look at continuous differences rather than dichotomous ones (i.e., the more liberal, the more they XYZ, or the more conservative, the more...). That's the way all of these analyses were run: correlations rather than, say, t-tests. And so were there conclusions. The media reports it differently, of course.

[design219]

I'm going to try to be more accepting of my conservative friends now that I know it's not a lifestyle choice.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Wow you've got brass ones. You make long posts about "false positives" in a study in one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals,

That's a SAD state of affairs that rather than use any kind of common sense, your ability to swallow what indeed looks like an utter bullshite leap of logic is based solely on "b-but it was published in a scientific journal! That must make it so!"

What it seems you're trying to talk about is an extraneous or confounding factor, not a false positive.

Oh well, excuse me, Poindexter. Rather than smokescreen over terms, and bullshit your way around being taken in by something that wasn't really proven conclusively, why don't you actually deal with the relevant questions? So what "extraneous or confounding factors" were considered? Do you have any idea? Perhaps the fact that the deck was stacked with liberals is a HUGE "extraneous or confounding factor"?

You don't seem to be dealing well with the fact that it's logical to be skeptical of something that you clearly just wanted to believe at face value without having considered any actual details. I thought you liberals were able to deal with changes of situations so well?

But those factors don't make political beliefs go away.

What factors? You haven't shown where any factors were taken into consideration what-so-ever, and that any result had a thing to do with anyone's political beliefs, let alone how any of it really relates to all other liberals or all other conservatives.

In fact, the study you've shown seems to indicate that no one even considered that having several times more of one group than the other could perhaps be a major factor in skewing the result, let alone what else may have been overlooked.

What it is about political philosophy that is most closely associated with this task is a great topic for further research. Maybe conservatives have more money, which gives them greater access to computers, which changes their brain to make them... yadda yadda. Or maybe liberals are younger, and younger people are... yadda yadda. Fascinating possibilities, and all great for further work.

Or here's one- maybe none of it has anything to do with liberal or conservative, any more than it has to do with anyone's astrological sign, eye color or any other random factor. You're so vested in wanting to believe, you simply can't even grasp the concept.

Way to demonstrate liberals supposedly being able to deal with unexpected circumstances so well!

I'd completely agree with you if you'd said that this should generate more research to find out those specifics. But that's not what you're saying, is it? You're saying that it's all BS because it's a "study" done by "researchers" - you can't even type the words without putting them in quotes - and there are false positives and it's "only the result of what you're looking at" and one should "behave like an individual" when looking at research, whatever any of that means.

What it means -since clearly you'll buy into anything so long as it's published, yet can't seem to even grasp common sense- is that if you're going to make claims this broad, "all liberals are this way, all conservatives are that way" you'd better actually prove it in a way that's conclusive.

Clearly to you, "conclusive" is merely defined as "Well, it's something I want to believe, some researcher said it was so, and it was published." To someone with common sense, conclusive means irrefutable proof, with a set of details that don't leave gaping logic holes big enough to drive a truck through.

[besson3c]

Crash: did you read the actual study or just the Yahoo summary?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: did you read the actual study or just the Yahoo summary?

Last night, for some reason the link wasn't working, but I've since read the study. I find it even more interesting that 63% of the respondents were female. That seems to me to contribute even more to the possibility of an unbalanced representative group- mostly female, mostly liberal.

To take any of this as any sort of real world indicator for all liberals and conservatives seems really sloppy to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Last night, for some reason the link wasn't working, but I've since read the study. I find it even more interesting that 63% of the respondents were female. That seems to me to contribute even more to the possibility of an unbalanced representative group- mostly female, mostly liberal.

To take any of this as any sort of real world indicator for all liberals and conservatives seems really sloppy to me.

Why would they not have chosen a random sample of people? Just because they are female doesn't mean they are liberal or even more likely to be liberal. For somebody that has a difficulty with these sorts of relationships (as you should), isn't this a little bit hypocritical?

Besides, all of the polls I've seen have shown women are only about 1-3% different than men, which is fairly insignificant. Even if all 3% of these women are indeed liberal, it doesn't mean they are the kind of liberals that substantiate the sorts of characteristics described in this study (which, I admit to not having read yet myself).

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That's a SAD state of affairs that rather than use any kind of common sense, your ability to swallow what indeed looks like an utter bullshite leap of logic is based solely on "b-but it was published in a scientific journal! That must make it so!"

Haha. That's all I can say. Haha. The idea that your "common sense" (which is actually nonsensical blabbering about things you clearly have never spent even a few moments thinking about) should trump a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now THERE'S a stereotype of conservatives - utterly unaffected by empirical evidence, and instead overwhelmed by folksy nonsense. "I ain't no monkey, use common sense!"

Oh well, excuse me, Poindexter. Rather than smokescreen over terms, and bullshit your way around being taken in by something that wasn't really proven conclusively, why don't you actually deal with the relevant questions? So what "extraneous or confounding factors" were considered? Do you have any idea? Perhaps the fact that the deck was stacked with liberals is a HUGE "extraneous or confounding factor"?

No, that's not a confound. But just keep using that common sense, crash.

You don't seem to be dealing well with the fact that it's logical to be skeptical of something that you clearly just wanted to believe at face value without having considered any actual details. I thought you liberals were able to deal with changes of situations so well?

It's exactly the opposite, and you know it crash. You dismissed it as bogus without reading it. You still hadn't read it as of this post. I merely pointed that fact out, and have never expressed any support for any conclusion from the study.

What factors? You haven't shown where any factors were taken into consideration what-so-ever, and that any result had a thing to do with anyone's political beliefs, let alone how any of it really relates to all other liberals or all other conservatives.

In fact, the study you've shown seems to indicate that no one even considered that having several times more of one group than the other could perhaps be a major factor in skewing the result, let alone what else may have been overlooked.

Because it wouldn't skew the results. Just take a few minutes and think about it. It won't hurt.

Or here's one- maybe none of it has anything to do with liberal or conservative, any more than it has to do with anyone's astrological sign, eye color or any other random factor. You're so vested in wanting to believe, you simply can't even grasp the concept.

I don't even know where to begin crash. They asked people to self-report their political philosophy, and do this task and give brain measures. They found that the task and those brain measures are associated with liberalism-conservatism. What, exactly, is it that I'm not missing?

What it means -since clearly you'll buy into anything so long as it's published, yet can't seem to even grasp common sense- is that if you're going to make claims this broad, "all liberals are this way, all conservatives are that way" you'd better actually prove it in a way that's conclusive.

Clearly to you, "conclusive" is merely defined as "Well, it's something I want to believe, some researcher said it was so, and it was published." To someone with common sense, conclusive means irrefutable proof, with a set of details that don't leave gaping logic holes big enough to drive a truck through.

Right, it's unbelievable that I said this was "conclusive," and that I said "all liberals are this way, all conservatives are that way." I can't believe I said that. Oh wait, I didn't, did I?