Research on the physiological underpinnings of political ideology.

[TC]

"It found that political partisans on the left and the right differ significantly in their bodily responses to threatening stimuli. For example, startle reflexes after hearing a loud noise were stronger in conservatives. And after being shown a variety of threatening images ("a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it," according to the study), conservatives also exhibited greater skin conductance—a moistening of the sweat glands that indicates arousal of the sympathetic nervous system, which manages the body's fight-or-flight response.

It all adds up, according to Hibbing, to what he calls a "negativity bias" on the right. Conservatives, Hibbing's research suggests, go through the world more attentive to negative, threatening, and disgusting stimuli—and then they adopt tough, defensive, and aversive ideologies to match that perceived reality....


The results of Hibbing's study were clear: The conservatives tended to focus their eyes much more rapidly on the negative or aversive images, and also to dwell on them for a lot longer. The authors therefore concluded that based on results like these, "those on the political right and those on the political left may simply experience the world differently."

"...

Full article continues here:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/inquiring-minds-john-hibbing-physiology-ideology

Posted to generated discussion - I do not necessarily endorse the content.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

These studies are, at best, deeply flawed. They assume that ideologies are either "right" or "left" (which means they don't distinguish between socialism and liberalism), and they take place in the particular political context of modern bourgeois society, usually in America or Europe, reflecting the prevailing ideology of those societies. E.g. the assumption seems to be that gay marriage is wrong or deviant, so that conservatives want to punish the transgressors whereas liberals want to forgive them. And this does describe mainstream politics in America quite aptly - but it can't be generalised across cultures and modes of production.

So it might be the case that, in America in 2014, people who tend to be forgiving, tend to not focus on fear, hatred and other such "negative" emotions, are more likely to be liberals, which American society perceives as them being "left-wing". But I think people like Szamueli and Latsis prove that some socialists at least are motivated by fear, disgust etc.

The conclusion is just daft. "We should tolerate conservatives because they can't help themselves." Well, who cares, they're still a danger to us all (as are liberals for that matter).

[RyeN]

Makes sense to me. Conservatives are further entrenched in negative energy, and react more in fear, and it would make sense that people further to the left would be more compassionate, cooperative, and accepting. It shows how the energy we give off relates to the political spectrum. It just gives an incomplete picture, as there isnt reference to a wider political spectrum. Even the NDP, and Workers Parties are capitalists.

We shouldnt really judge people for acting out of fear, because they are really only doing what they have learned since their experience here on earth began. We are all products of our enviroment in one way or another, that and what potential we are born with. If we look at the people who are on the right side of that spectrum as enemy's because they are dangerous we are acting in negative energy, and fear.

If we just change our perspective towards one that see's them as sick humans, who suffer from an unconscious conection to their intentions. The few people at the top of the pyramid who control and manipulate the rest may have an awareness of whats going on, but they use domestication, and distraction methods to keep their slave class from searching for higher truth. Should we thus judge these slaves who have been broken and beaten and dont even know it, should we call them enemy?

[ckaihatsu]

The conclusion is just daft. "We should tolerate conservatives because they can't help themselves." Well, who cares, they're still a danger to us all (as are liberals for that matter).










Hibbing believes that understanding that you don't fully control your political orientation, any more than you do your sexual orientation or your left-hand/right-hand orientation, promotes political tolerance.


This is a self-contained *contradiction* -- the extent to which we're not in control of our political orientation (like a genetic predestination) is somehow supposed to automatically *shift* everyone politically to a more-tolerant state of political being -- ?! How can it be *both* -- ??

If we're 'genetically predetermined' then nothing would *change* -- it would already be pre-set according to the whole genetic pool of us, certainly over the span of our own lives, plus for many generations into the future.

But -- to be fair, Hibbing isn't denying our free will *altogether* -- he's saying that we need to build our *consciousness* on the basis of *his study*....





"We have this silly and naive hope, maybe it's more than that," says Hibbing, "that if we could get people to see politics in the same light [as left-handedness], then maybe we would be a little bit more tolerant, and there will be a greater opportunity for compromise."


This is just a run-of-the-mill 'If everybody drank the same Kool-Aid' argument, like karma or Christ....