Dear Self Interested Ontologists,
People differ in statistically predictable
ways, depending on the way in which a Self Interest Ontology might characterize
them. The post below, originally from another list, relates to the
different ways in which Observers view reality. Here is a highlight which
makes that point:
By studying both physiological and cognitive aspects,
the researchers established unique new insights into the growing notion that
political leanings are at least partial products of our biology, UNL political
scientist and study co-author Kevin Smith said.
Recent research on the subject has focused mostly on physiological reactions to
negative stimuli. The new study's use of cognitive data regarding both positive
and negative imagery adds to the understanding of how liberals and
conservatives see and experience the world, Smith said.
It seems that our viewpoint (i.e., our
knowledge as presently affirmed) affects the way in which we each,
individually, view reality. This is one of many dichotomies, each said dichotomy
of human choice seems to show that people are motivated by deeper emotions that
are not actually related to the topic of dichotomization. I don’t particularly
care which end of which dichotomy people experience; the point is that they
exist and they strongly influence our perceived realities.
I think Self Interest Ontology motivated
individuals might find this interesting.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
cognitiveneuroscienceforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cognitiveneuroscienceforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert Karl Stonjek
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012
2:15 PM
To: Cognitive NeuroScience;
Evolutionary-Psychology; Evolutionary Psychology News
Subject: [Cognitive Neuroscience
Forum] News: The biology of politics: Liberals roll with the good,
conservatives confront the bad
The biology of politics: Liberals roll with the good, conservatives confront
the bad
January 5th, 2012 in Other Sciences / Social Sciences
>From cable TV news pundits to red-meat speeches in Iowa
and New Hampshire,
our nation's deep political stereotypes are on full display: Conservatives
paint self-indulgent liberals as insufferably absent on urgent national issues,
while liberals say fear-mongering conservatives are fixated on exaggerated
dangers to the country.
A new study from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln suggests there are
biological truths to such broad brushstrokes.
In a series of experiments, researchers closely monitored physiological
reactions and eye movements of study participants when shown combinations of
both pleasant and unpleasant images. Conservatives reacted more strongly to,
fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; liberals
had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images compared
with conservatives.
"It's been said that conservatives and liberals don't see things in the
same way," said Mike Dodd, UNL assistant professor of psychology and the
study's lead author. "These findings make that clear - quite
literally."
To gauge participants' physiological responses, they were shown a series of
images on a screen. Electrodes measured subtle skin conductance changes, which
indicated an emotional response. The cognitive data, meanwhile, was gathered by
outfitting participants with eyetracking equipment that captured even the most
subtle of eye movements while combinations of unpleasant and pleasant photos
appeared on the screen.
While liberals' gazes tended to fall upon the pleasant images, such as a beach
ball or a bunny rabbit, conservatives clearly focused on the negative images -
of an open wound, a crashed car or a dirty toilet, for example.
Consistent with the idea that conservatives seem to respond more to negative
stimuli while liberals respond more to positive stimuli, conservatives also
exhibited a stronger physiological response to images of Democratic politicians
- presumed to be a negative to them - than they did on pictures of well-known
Republicans. Liberals, on the other hand, had a stronger physiological response
to the Democrats - presumed to be a positive stimulus to them - than they did
to images of the Republicans.
By studying both physiological and cognitive aspects, the researchers
established unique new insights into the growing notion that political leanings
are at least partial products of our biology, UNL political scientist and study
co-author Kevin Smith said.
Recent research on the subject has focused mostly on physiological reactions to
negative stimuli. The new study's use of cognitive data regarding both positive
and negative imagery adds to the understanding of how liberals and
conservatives see and experience the world, Smith said.
UNL political scientist and co-author John Hibbing said the results might mean
that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in
life and are more naturally inclined to confront them. From an evolutionary
standpoint, that makes sense, he said.
The results also are consistent with conservatives' support of policies to
protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased defense
spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well (support for
traditional values and being tough on crime), Hibbing said.
The researchers were careful to not make a value judgment on either political
orientation. But they did note that their discovery provided an opportunity to
recognize the relevance of deeper biological variables in politics and turn
down political polarization.
Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or
willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced if it
was widely understood that political differences are based in part on our
physiological and cognitive differences.
"When conservatives say that liberals are out of it and just don't get it,
from this standpoint, that's true," Hibbing
said. "And when liberals say 'What are (conservatives) so frightened of?
Is the world really that dangerous?' Given what each side sees, what they pay
attention to, what they physiologically experience - the answer is both sides
are right."
More information: The study is in a forthcoming edition of the journal Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B and was authored by Dodd, Hibbing and Smith, as well as UNL's Amanda
Balzer, Carly Jacobs and Michael Gruszczynski.
Provided by University
of Nebraska-Lincoln
"The biology of politics: Liberals roll with the good, conservatives
confront the bad." January 5th, 2012. http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-biology-politics-liberals-good-bad.html
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek