Brain ''Wiring''

[Zythryn]

No one is 100% rational. We all are swayed by different arguments even if the underlying facts are the same.
Values are different from person to person. And their personal values color the way they see facts. Not so much in changing the facts, but in determining the importance of the facts related to other facts.

For example, three people may see a homeless person sleeping in a park. One seeks out a way to help the immediate needs of the person by buying them soup and a sandwich at a diner across the street.
The second may donate money to an adult education center hoping to help address homelessness on a larger scale.
The third sees this as a possible danger to children in the park and seeks out a police officer to remove the person.

All three felt they were doing good. And others in each of the cases would likely disagree that they were not just wasting their time, efforts or even that they were doing evil.

Which one is right?
Which one is wrong?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by questor

As yet, I have not seen an explanation of why a large portion of the population is liberal and a large portion is conservative.

Though my judgment is, as is almost certainly necessarily the case with as vaguely and controversially defined terms as “liberal” and “conservative” (See the wikipedia articles “Conservativism”, “Neoconservatism”, and “Liberalism” for fairly lengthy discussions of this vagueness and contraversy) , the most compelling explanation I’ve yet encountered is the one offered by George Lakoff in his 1996 book “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think”.

In this work, Lakoff answer the question by proposing the existence of two dominant and contradictory worldviews, acquired early in life through an enculturation (“nurture”, or learned behavior, not “nature” or innate genetic determination) process early in life: the “strict father morality” and the “nurturant parent morality”.

I strongly recommend this book – not only to questor, but to all readers interested in this questions - and to myself, as to date, while I’ve read considerable commentary and analysis of it, I’ve yet to read the original book.

[HydrogenBond]

In this work, Lakoff answer the question by proposing the existence of two dominant and contradictory worldviews, acquired early in life through an enculturation (“nurture”, or learned behavior, not “nature” or innate genetic determination) process early in life: the “strict father morality” and the “nurturant parent morality”.

I think things are clearer if the nurturant parent morality is replaced by the mother. A good mother doesn't make distinctions between her children but will love them all. In fact, she will often put more effort into the child who is different, since he needs more love. The strict father may side more with the child who plays by the rules.

If you look at liberalism it is more likely to spawn activism. This is a different side of the mother-child relationship. The spoiled child is the one who throws a tantrum to get his way. The conservative father wants to give him a time out or worse. But the mother often feeds into this by creating a symbiosis that will reinforce this behavior in the future. What the mother gains is a child for life who is dependent upon her.

The moderates are the children in the middle, who get alone with both parents but are not their favorites. Each parent favors the extremes, who form a better symbiosis with the needs of the parents.

The dynamics at the level of the parents is antagonistic but the relationship is held together with a common passion. This passion does not make sense at the rational level. But at some irrational level there is a bond, that occurs behind closed doors. But in the light of day (publicly) they will agree to disagree to maintain the special relationship with their favorites.

[questor]

The discussions on this topic are interesting, but generally concern the overt expressions of people who may be called liberal or conservative. My topic is more concerned about the biochemical or cellular basis that causes this difference. As research continues on brain function and technology allows us to examine tissues on a functional basis rather than depend on dead cells, we may come to better knowledge about this difference in ''brain wiring''.
It is quite obvious to me that this difference exists as anyone following the current political scene may deduce. People with a conservative mentality view issues such as the war, taxation, morality, education, religion and government in a different light from those of liberal persuasion. The question is why? And also, which method of ratiocination produces the best results for the society?

[Zythryn]

questor, I think your premise is not accurate.
There may be a biochemical 'aspect' to liberal or conservative, but it is certainly not dictated by biochemistry.
People change (some don't). I used to be very liberal, I am now fairly conservative in many areas.

People with a conservative mentality view issues such as the war, taxation, morality, education, religion and government in a different light from those of liberal persuasion.

You have it backwards. People who view the war in one way are labeled conservatives. The reason they view it in such a way is not because they are conservative, they are labeled conservative because of their views.
The reason for those views stem from upbringing and life events, not because of some arbitrary label assigned to them.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by questor

My topic is more concerned about the biochemical or cellular basis that causes this difference.

But in that very statement, you implicitly assume that these ideological differences are caused by biochemical or cellular structures. You have yet to offer a single bit of evidence of this assumed cause/effect relationship.


Conclusions grounded in false premises are themselves false, no matter how logical the steps in the middle may appear.


EDIT: I cross-posted with Zythryn.

[questor]

I must need some tutoring. Please tell me which human activities, including thought, are not carried on by biochemical reactions?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by questor

I must need some tutoring. Please tell me which human activities, including thought, are not carried on by biochemical reactions?

You must stop equivocating. "Carried on" and "caused by" are not one and the same.

[Zythryn]

Your implications seems to be that some fundamental difference in the chemical makup of the brain causes people to be either 'conservative' or 'liberal' and that this is 'hard wired' in some way.
If that was not your intent, I apologize for my misunderstanding.
Could you perhaps rephrase your position and assumptions? This will help me understand what your position is.

Edit - Infi you beat me to it this time

[questor]

This is included in my statement opening this thread:
''Since the opposing candidates have such differing world views, I can't help but think there has to be a basic difference in the biochemical processes of their brains. I call this ''different wiring''. ''
Since there has been quite a bit of confusion and disagreement over this concept, I have to wonder why most of the posters have not taken the time to read about biochemistry in order to better understand it as the basis of human life and activity. If one wishes to acquaint himself with the subject, go to Wikipedia and search for -- biochemistry.