siftbot says...

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 5th, 2011 11:41am PDT - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

brycewi19 says...

Not a surprise.

However, the gray matter in the area of my brain that processes complexity told me to be afraid of those who process great amounts of fear.

Peroxide says...

Of course, the age old debate of Nature vs. Nurture should preclude any jumping to conclusive explanations on our understanding of political persuasion.

Nevertheless, it makes you wonder.

Another interesting (related) point is the whole notion of trust in a society, and it's relevance to social capital. In my opinion, the more we fear each other, the less human we become.

quantumushroom says...

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?

That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."

And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

Crosswords says...

>> ^quantumushroom:

And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?


Never cause he's a Manchurian candidate created by the Kenyan Illuminati who control the world's drug companies. That's why he was so insistent on getting healthcare legislation passed, so he could make sure everyone could have access to the drugs and get them addicted so they can all be his mind slave zombies he'll use to make war on the peaceful utopian capitalist society on planet orbiting Gliese 581. If he had actually gone to college someone would have remembered him graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, but not surprisingly nobody ever saw him graduate, even his 238 year old lizard man Illuminati grandmother who's actually the queen of England never saw him graduate.


Did I do it right, can I vote republican now?

berticus says...

I find much of neuroscience research to be hogwash, but regardless, it brings me great joy to see Colin Firth listed as an author.

"I just decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who don't agree with me."

bamdrew says...

I'm a brain researcher.


NEWSFLASH! ... everyone's brains are physically different. Your brain will be physically different TOMORROW than it is today.


also... Liberals have more brain activity related to empathy and processing shades of gray?! Holy shit, stop the presses....

xxovercastxx says...

Seems like a pretty weak study with a healthy dose of confirmation bias.

And if the results had been reversed, if conservative brains were better at processing "complexity", then this would have...

a) never been reported on MSNBC (unless it was a debunking).
b) been downvoted out of the queue inside 10 minutes.

zor says...

A new study concludes that news outlets perceived as conservative tend to report on research that confirms the beliefs of conservatives. And vice-versa.

Psychologic says...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS096098
2211002892.pdf?intermediate=true
28 sample size? Give me a break. Though, I do find this interesting, this study seems to be lacking a bit. Also, what is the criteria for conservative and liberal? I consider myself a classical liberal, what does that mean for this study?


There were actually 90 people in the original test group (61% female). The group of 28 was an independent sample to verify the original findings afterward.

As far as the liberal vs conservative labeling, it was a simple 5-point scale between "very liberal" and "very conservative" as reported by the participants.

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say that they were correlating brain attributes to self-identified ideological leanings. I don't think it had anything to do with a participant's opinion on any particular issue or situation.


Edit: A few more random details. All participants were students at UCL (London), and none of them chose "very conservative" on their questionnaire.

Given the sample size and the population from which it came, this study was obviously not intended to conclusively establish anything. The results are interesting, but that's about it.

The only real problem I have with the study is the false dichotomy between liberalism and conservatism. Those labels mean different things in different regions, and they are certainly not the only options. I'd love to see a larger study with a more developed classification system, but I'm not sure that it would prove anything meaningful.

Mashiki says...

Seems that the general quality of samples size does nothing but go down. The last 2 years I've read nothing less than 50 studies with sizes under 30 people, and trying to pull a 'look, it's infallible' mode of reasoning. Having read the same posted study as you, and come to the same conclusion that they were attempting to correlate attributes, we simply need to go back to grade 9 science. Correlation != Causation.

After all, we've seen the disastrous results of that. Vaccine insanity, HRT, etc. And anyone who believes this type of crap one way or the other needs to get their conformation bias checked, or their head out of their ass.
>> ^Psychologic:

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say that they were correlating brain attributes to self-identified ideological leanings. I don't think it had anything to do with a participant's opinion on any particular issue or situation.

Psychologic says...

>> ^Mashiki:

Seems that the general quality of samples size does nothing but go down. The last 2 years I've read nothing less than 50 studies with sizes under 30 people, and trying to pull a 'look, it's infallible' mode of reasoning. Having read the same posted study as you, and come to the same conclusion that they were attempting to correlate attributes, we simply need to go back to grade 9 science. Correlation != Causation.
After all, we've seen the disastrous results of that. Vaccine insanity, HRT, etc. And anyone who believes this type of crap one way or the other needs to get their conformation bias checked, or their head out of their ass.
>> ^Psychologic:

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say that they were correlating brain attributes to self-identified ideological leanings. I don't think it had anything to do with a participant's opinion on any particular issue or situation.



From what I can tell the problem here (and in many cases) is the media rather than the researchers. I haven't seen any evidence of the authors publicly pushing the significance of the findings other than giving interviews about the study.

Reporters often seem to skim through the results of studies without caring about (or being able to understand) the methodology involved. They report on the result, but not the strength or thoroughness of the result. There will always be a place for small-scale studies, but they all tend to be reported with equal significance.

How many science/math classes are required for a degree in journalism these days?

direpickle says...

@OMG_SMALL_SAMPLE_SIZE_PEOPLE

Statistics moar! If the experiment is done properly, you can do good science with a small sample size. This is what error bars and confidence levels are for.

berticus says...

reminded me of http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^Mashiki:
Seems that the general quality of samples size does nothing but go down. The last 2 years I've read nothing less than 50 studies with sizes under 30 people, and trying to pull a 'look, it's infallible' mode of reasoning. Having read the same posted study as you, and come to the same conclusion that they were attempting to correlate attributes, we simply need to go back to grade 9 science. Correlation != Causation.
After all, we've seen the disastrous results of that. Vaccine insanity, HRT, etc. And anyone who believes this type of crap one way or the other needs to get their conformation bias checked, or their head out of their ass.
>> ^Psychologic:

I suppose it would have been more accurate to say that they were correlating brain attributes to self-identified ideological leanings. I don't think it had anything to do with a participant's opinion on any particular issue or situation.


From what I can tell the problem here (and in many cases) is the media rather than the researchers. I haven't seen any evidence of the authors publicly pushing the significance of the findings other than giving interviews about the study.
Reporters often seem to skim through the results of studies without caring about (or being able to understand) the methodology involved. They report on the result, but not the strength or thoroughness of the result. There will always be a place for small-scale studies, but they all tend to be reported with equal significance.
How many science/math classes are required for a degree in journalism these days?

Peroxide says...

Guess they couldn't get a hold of QM.

>> ^Psychologic:

>>
Edit: A few more random details. All participants were students at UCL (London), and none of them chose "very conservative" on their questionnaire.

GeeSussFreeK says...

@Psychologic Thanks for taking a closer look at that, I was admittedly just skimming through it. Your right, though, this is more reminiscent of unwarranted media attention than a "serious" study. Still interesting, though. Theory of mind is my favorite subject

criticalthud says...

I tend to find myself uncomfortable in trying to equate the term "liberal" with those humans who predominantly use a rational thought process (rather than an emotional). It seems somewhat politically stereotypical and misleading....like it is trying to equate an often emotional identification with a process of thought. Perhaps there is a need here for more accurate language. something a little smarter. thoughts?

quantumushroom says...

Very creative! Here's what you need to know about BHO.

He's a child of privilege posing as a downtrodden victim who somehow climbed out of America's drowning pool of "racism".

He isn't terribly bright but he knows what he's doing. He was nominated to assuage idiots' "White Guilt." He is an affirmative-action president with no real political credentials.

He's got a grudge against America, American Exceptionalism and free market capitalism. What the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright believes, BARACK believes.

He's likely a closet atheist, but for now obviously can't admit it.

He has had no achievements to speak of since taking office, unless--UNLESS--you understand what his true motives are: turn America into just another forgettable Euro-dump with no identity. Suddenly it makes sense!

"BULLPLOP QM! Barack wants JOBS for Americans!" As long as he embraces Keynesian rubbish, it won't happen. And he can't turn back now.

The libmedia works for BHO as if they were being paid directly from the White House. They hide his gaffes, downplay his goof-ups and hide the results of his schemes.

America is worse off now than when this jug-eared socialist was elected.

I'm not a liberal (anymore) so I can't match wits wit the brilliant geniuses here, but the results of the BHO Fraudsidency speak for themselves. Every day.


>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^quantumushroom:
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

Never cause he's a Manchurian candidate created by the Kenyan Illuminati who control the world's drug companies. That's why he was so insistent on getting healthcare legislation passed, so he could make sure everyone could have access to the drugs and get them addicted so they can all be his mind slave zombies he'll use to make war on the peaceful utopian capitalist society on planet orbiting Gliese 581. If he had actually gone to college someone would have remembered him graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, but not surprisingly nobody ever saw him graduate, even his 238 year old lizard man Illuminati grandmother who's actually the queen of England never saw him graduate.

Did I do it right, can I vote republican now?

xxovercastxx says...

>> ^direpickle:

@OMG_SMALL_SAMPLE_SIZE_PEOPLE
Statistics moar! If the experiment is done properly, you can do good science with a small sample size. This is what error bars and confidence levels are for.


But none of those important details are reported in this video and that's what we're supposed to be voting on.

xxovercastxx says...

>> ^criticalthud:

I tend to find myself uncomfortable in trying to equate the term "liberal" with those humans who predominantly use a rational thought process (rather than an emotional). It seems somewhat politically stereotypical and misleading....like it is trying to equate an often emotional identification with a process of thought. Perhaps there is a need here for more accurate language. something a little smarter. thoughts?


On the whole, Liberals and Conservatives are about equally driven by emotion. Conservatives fear social change whereas Liberals fear the harshness of reality. Conservatives think as long as we do everything the way we used to do it, everything will be fine. Liberals think if they change everything they can create utopia.

These are both stupid, emotionally-driven ideas.

Crosswords says...

>> ^direpickle:

@OMG_SMALL_SAMPLE_SIZE_PEOPLE
Statistics moar! If the experiment is done properly, you can do good science with a small sample size. This is what error bars and confidence levels are for.


If only there was some sort of power one could do an analysis on so as to gauge an appropriate sample size for a study. Alas statisticians shall just have to consult the Ouija table in the back of their Experimental Design and Analysis books.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

Alas for the field of rational science - it has been hijacked by biased politically motivated cretins. Climate science has been utterly lost, and not content with besmirching that branch alone, the trogs are moving into neurology?

A slightly larger amygdala has been associated with complex social interaction and the ability to move more information into long term memory. Whoopeedoo. The anterior cingulate cortex is associated with error detection, which is nothing more than a simple cognitive function. Again - whoopeedoo. A person with a huge anygdala can have excellent error detection, and just because someone has a bigger ACC doesn't necessarily mean they can perform higher thought for squat.

To imply from this study that Democrats are all complex thinkers and that Republicans don't think at all is in and of itself proof of quite the opposite. Only someone being driven by their basest, most fearful emotions could possibly believe such Gobbelesque tripe. Whatever brains believe that sort of flawed interpretation are certainly NOT being driven by complex thought.

Ryjkyj says...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Very creative! Here's what you need to know about BHO.
He's a child of privilege posing as a downtrodden victim who somehow climbed out of America's drowning pool of "racism".
Every president ever has existed under an altered image. George Washington didn't really cut down a cherry tree.
He isn't terribly bright but he knows what he's doing. He was nominated to assuage idiots' "White Guilt." He is an affirmative-action president with no real political credentials.
Right, people who aren't very bright become professors of constitutional law at Harvard all the time.
He's got a grudge against America, American Exceptionalism and free market capitalism. What the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright believes, BARACK believes.
I have a grudge against Exceptionalism and free market capitalism, but still love America with all my heart. Do you still beat your wife?
He's likely a closet atheist, but for now obviously can't admit it.
There he goes proving his intelligence again. Bush wasn't a Texan either.
He has had no achievements to speak of since taking office, unless--UNLESS--you understand what his true motives are: turn America into just another forgettable Euro-dump with no identity. Suddenly it makes sense!
Does getting Osama count? Before you say that it's the Seals that got him, remember that Obama came under heavy fire for thinking we should reach into Pakistan.
"BULLPLOP QM! Barack wants JOBS for Americans!" As long as he embraces Keynesian rubbish, it won't happen. And he can't turn back now.
You don't know that his strategy won't work, this problem was a long time in the making. And it will be a long time getting out. (I've seen Morganthau quote)
The libmedia works for BHO as if they were being paid directly from the White House. They hide his gaffes, downplay his goof-ups and hide the results of his schemes.
I can't argue with this one. I stopped watching the news a long, long time ago.
America is worse off now than when this jug-eared socialist was elected.
Again, no one... no one... could have stopped the giant snowball yet.
I'm not a liberal (anymore) so I can't match wits wit the brilliant geniuses here, but the results of the BHO Fraudsidency speak for themselves. Every day.
I don't know why I feel the need to defend this president. Especially considering that I think all politicians are completely full of shit. I guess I was just way more comfortable with him than any of our other options. Do we really believe that he's anything but a powerless figurehead anyway?

Also, as far as the video is concerned, the problems we face are way more complicated than "working harder" and "getting more". A complex system composed of billions of individuals cannot be boiled down to a few simple rules. And the rules we have will constantly have to change as people adapt to the new system anyway. All kindergartners are taught that one plus one equals two. It takes a lifetime to even visualize what it truly takes to have a functioning society.

HaricotVert says...

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?

Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.

I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?

Ariane says...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."

Probably because the first statement is false. Proof can be found on another video: http://videosift.com/video/What-motivates-us

As for "Private property = Freedom", apparently you forgot that this was the chief argument in favor of slavery.

quantumushroom says...

Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.

This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.

Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.


>> ^HaricotVert:

Since I am salaried and thus taxed at a set rate determined by what tax bracket I fall into based on my income - completely independent of how many hours I actually work - what makes you think that I (or anyone else who works a set # of hours during the week) will work harder simply because the IRS takes less of it?
Even when I wasn't salaried and had a contract position, I was allotted 40 hours a week, and no more, per my contract. Those 40 hours a week were taxed all the same. I still had to show up and put in 8 hours a day.
I assure you, financial incentives are hardly the motivation for hard, productive, and creative work. In fact, monetary bonuses can actually decrease performance for tasks that require any sort of rudimentary cognitive skill.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Liberals are good at understanding "complexity"?
That must explain why they miss simple concepts like, "People work harder when allowed to keep more of what they earn" and "Private property rights are the foundation of freedom."
And when will Supergenius Barack Hussein Obama be releasing his kollij grades?


HaricotVert says...

Isn't that exactly what I just said? That regardless of how "hard" (the word is in quotations because I am not sure if semantically speaking we are working from the same definition of "more hours worked") someone works, the government is already taking a set amount? I've bolded your own words that mirror my own.

If the government takes a quarter of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/10th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

If the government takes 1/100th of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder?

That was exactly my point and you seem to agree with it - the government is taking a set amount regardless of how hard you work, whether that's 15 hours a week or 40 hours a week or 80 hours a week. How "hard" (again, as in # of hours) someone works is irrelevant to how much the government is taking.

Your underlying assumption is that working more hours = more money, which is simply not the case for 1. all salaried employees in the workforce and 2. businesses that are subject to market forces/demand. How can someone work 80 hours a week if their business doesn't have sufficient demand/customers to even produce that much? That's like saying home construction workers/architects/building contractors at the trough of the housing crisis would have worked harder if only the government would lower taxes on their income. That's bullshit because home building and renovations/improvements were at record lows during that time.

Unemployment itself is a far, far bigger problem than lowering taxes if we're talking about average Joe Citizen trying to make an honest living.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Why do you think you're the standard for what I'm talking about? You're not running a business, are you? Because those people put in 80 hours a week easily, and are preyed on by the system far more than regular workers.
This isn't rocket science, peeps. If you shovel sh1t for 10 hours and the government takes half of what you make no matter how hard you work, are you going to work harder? I'm dealing with liberals so I've tried to type as slowly as possible.
Oh, and Genjkerk, I'll remove the splinter from mine eye when you remove the beam from yours.

playlists with this video:
who voted against this video:
who bookmarked this post:

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

 • view