Left, Right; Obama, McCain: It may not be what you think
September 18, 2008(PhysOrg.com) -- Why does it seem many people begin with political preferences and then try to find reasons justifying their inclinations? Why is it so difficult to sway people who care deeply about politics no matter how compelling the facts or persuasive the prose? University of Nebraska-Lincoln research may help to answer these questions.
By monitoring people's physical sensitivities to things like sudden noises and threatening visual images, political scientists were able to conclude that physiological reactions help predict variations in political beliefs.
For the first time, political scientists show that people who are physiologically highly responsive to threat are likely to advocate policies that protect against threats to the social unit: favoring defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War. In contrast, people who are less startled by sudden noises and threatening visual images are more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control.
Researchers report their discovery in the Sept. 19 issue of the weekly international journal Science. Authors are UNL political science professors John Hibbing and Kevin Smith, UNL psychology professor Mario Scalora, Rice University political science professor John Alford, Virginia Commonwealth University postdoctoral fellow Peter Hatemi, and graduate students Doug Oxley and Jennifer Miller, of UNL, and Matthew Hibbing at University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign.
"What the findings suggest is a different view of the nature of political beliefs than the common understanding that political attitudes are exclusively the result of experiences and the environment," said John Hibbing.
Hibbing's team used physiological testing: skin conductance and eye movement sensors, to assess the body's biological reaction to threatening stimuli. Testing with these psychophysiological procedures is quite unusual in political science, he said.
This study involved a group of 46 people who admitted to caring about political issues. Researchers showed participants threatening visual images -- pictures of a very large spider on a person's face, a dazed person with a bloody face and an open wound with maggots in it -- and their skin was monitored for electrical conductivity. Hibbing said skin conductance tests indicate emotion, arousal and attention. By using the skin conductance tests, the researchers are able to track a person's reactions to the threatening stimuli.
In another physiological measure, scientists tested the "orbicularis oculi startle blink response" to record the amplitude or intensity of blinks. They surprised subjects with a sudden, jarring noise and measured how hard they blinked in response to being startled.
Researchers compared participants' reactions to the physical testing with their self-reported political attitudes on protective policies. They concluded that participants most disturbed by the threatening stimuli or by loud noises were also most likely to advocate socially protective policy positions.
"Now we can show that certain important political beliefs have a very deep basis," Hibbing said. "We don't know for certain that it's genetic but we do know that there's a predilection biologically that leads some people to experience the world differently from others. The relationships we found are far from deterministic -- environmental events still play a vital role -- but the fact that physical reactions to loud noises or to scary animals is at all predictive of political beliefs is remarkable."
"Should extreme interrogation techniques be used on foreign nationals suspected of terrorist activities? Should the privacy of law-abiding citizens be sacrificed if doing so offers the potential for making the country safer? Our research suggests that the answers a person provides to questions such as these are in part traceable to how vividly they physically experience generic threats."
"And if political beliefs do run as deep as we suggest, it becomes easier to understand why political conflict is so persistent. It's not that those who disagree with us politically are being intentionally stubborn but rather that the world seems very different to them. Perhaps recognition of the deep physical nature of these differences will increase political tolerance and understanding," Hibbing concluded.
The study, which was supported by National Science Foundation grants, builds on Hibbing's and his colleague's earlier research examining the role of genetics in shaping people's political temperaments and attitudes. His upcoming research, also funded by NSF, will focus on testing the varying brain activation patterns induced by the presentation of threatening images and locating the physiological predictors of political apathy.
Provided by University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Oct 14, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Why do you think the threat level was repeatedly raised during the election cycle? Why do you think the government (and the complicit media) works so hard to keep us "scared" of terrorist, criminal and biological (disease) threats?
The more scared someone is, the more open to suggestion they are.
I think the study was a good idea to begin with, but one has to wonder whether causation is being reversed here.
On a side note, since political and religious beliefs are typically inherited from parents, family members, and closer members of society, I would also expect to see some genetic correlations here. I don't see how you could prove genetic causation without pinpointing a specific gene.
Though it would be interesting to see more tests conducted on this type of behavior.
Besides the small and biased test group, the researchers also neglected to point out the parental instinct, often stronger than self protection, also manifests itself as a strong reaction to danger and the site of a person hurt or killed. Shall we call such people scaredy cats as well? Or shall we conclude that republicans have a stronger parental instinct? People that take such "research" as this seriously, need to review their science 101 notes.
For those of you claiming that this is not "science" or "serious research," take a pill. This is clearly a baby step. Methodology problems are common in initial research as well (often seen in hindsight). So the next study is larger, more focused, etc. If you read the article to the end, you would see that this study builds on prior research and will help with subsequent research.
The potential here is evident. Give it time.
You are a rational, logical, reasonable person. No one wants you here. Go away. :-)
A lot of dubious stuff gets into this and other science sites. Personally, this kind of junk science scares me silly. For example, I am in constant dread that there will be a follow-up study to the one that concluded a decade or so back that oral sex is not real sex. Unless I am asked to participate, of course.
The difference between republican and democrat could be explained then by the fact that the democrats are not as far to the right of center than republicans.;D
On another note, many people vote solely on the tax plans of the candidate. One candidate will benefit a specific group while another will benefit the other. This is alarming to me, because many/all candidates may be atrophic and the general population will vote for the one who steals the least from them.
If you do the research you will see that our tax system and the federal reserve are illegal and unconstitutional. But instead of voting for a person who will take the moral high road, we vote for the person who will benefit us the most. The individual chooses their "Robin Hood".
In Conclusion, this study approaches the reasoning to why individuals vote the way they do, but does not succeed at pin-pointing the culprit(s) to individual reasoning. I see all the truths for myself and believe that spending on this subject represents the wastefulness of our tax system.
Osama killed americans in his homeland.
Obama steals from the rich and spoils the poor.
McCain killed commies in their homeland.
WOW
\The two parties are not different in practice anymore. The only difference you'll see is where they concentrate their focus when it comes to determining tax law and spending.
Repubs will typically tax less overall and spend less on social programs for the poor and under privilegded while they belive in personal responsibility.
Dems will tax more and spend more on social programs to elevate the poor and less fortunate but they believe in social conciousness rather than individual responsibility.
The outlines above hold true in most cases, (there are always exceptions) and can be evidenced by recent policy.
Dems tend to push for censorship in the media (video games, music, etc) while republicans do not.
Repubs tend to push for individual responsiblity by removing social programs like retirement, welfare, schooling (ERISA law, Educational Tax act, etc).
The two parties really boil down to one thing in their purest form:
What should the federal government be responsible for?
Repubs - As little as possible
Dems - As much as possible
That's about it. It's states rights vs Fed rights.