This is intriguing . . .

[pegkerr]

Could physiological differences underpin political leanings? A small but intriguing study finds that liberals and conservatives react differently when shown threatening images.

Comments

[eeknight.livejournal.com]

It's a good thing all liberals think exactly alike one way on a host of issues and all conservatives think exactly alike another way on the same set, otherwise there might be a problem with that study.

It's only rarely that I come across an analysis as iron-clad as: in the level of physiological reactions in the conservative mind, illegal immigrants may = spiders = gay marriages = maggot-filled wounds = abortion rights = bloodied faces. Wow, QED. It's nice to have one's thought processes so concisely summarized and explained.

Obviously, there's something deeply sick about me, if I emotionally react to a human being in the same way as a spider. Is there a remedy, I wonder? How does one overcome a lack of emotional intelligence, as one of the article's commentators suggested?

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting piece, I guess, in part for the modesty of some of the claims: "If you ask someone why they support the Iraq War... they'd never say...I'm simply biologically predisposed to be sensitive to threats."

Well, I'm reassured.

That said, I'm not even convinced by his previous study. Even assuming that he got it right -- that "identical twins were more likely to agree on political issues than were fraternal twins" (and I'll take his word for it) are there perhaps some other causes that might explain that than a tiny difference in DNA between identical and fraternal twins? (I can think of one or two, myself.)

That said, thanks for pointing to the article; it's interesting, and very funny in spots. "[Liberals] actually don't show any difference in physical response between a picture of a spider on someone's face and a picture of a bunny." The emphasis is Alford's, not mine.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Heh. I think I would have emphasized picture. Like...it's a picture of a spider on someone's face. Why should a non-emotional reaction mean anything? I would react differently to a bear running towards me than a bunny running at me, but I would probably react differently if they were both photographs.

I wonder what they do about conservatives with pet spiders!

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Good point; different folks react differently to different stimuli. And if you want to talk about pictures freaking people out, ask me sometime over on my own LJ; I've got a funny story that's probably better placed there.

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

I wonder whether what this study actually shows is a difference in how people determine what is a threat rather than a difference in how they react to threats. My reaction is like yours - I don't see why I should treat a picture of a spider as any more threatening than a picture of a bunny. Then again, I'm not all that inclined to treat an actual spider as much of a threat either in most cases. I think they could have chosen more threatening "threats".

It would kind of make sense if conservatives as a group are people who are better at imagining a threat where there is no evidence of actual threat. That would fit with a lot of what conservatives in the US have supported in recent years.

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

This is exactly the worst kind of evolutionary psychology, and (in my reasonably informed opinion) should never be allowed out of its cage. The link goes to a post Laurie Edison and I wrote about it, which links further to some good background information.

EvPsych studies are always tiny, and always set up to make the point they were looking for. You see similar studies that "prove" that Neanderthal women were not hunters, for example.

Run away! Run away!

[trogon.livejournal.com]

I heard the NPR story, and only the fact that I was in my carpool instead of alone in the car kept me from shouting "Correlation is not causation!" at the radio.

Given that the experiment was done properly and the results are statistically significant, it still doesn't indicate which way the arrow of causality goes, or if both responses (heightened fear response and right-wing leanings) are due to a common cause (being brought up believing that the world is a scary scary place that you need to be protected from). It's equally plausible that a non-stop diet of "Be afraid, be very afraid" from your chosen politicians and news sources makes one fearful in non-political arenas as well.

On a tangential note, have you read Don't Think of an Elephant?

[akamarykate.livejournal.com]

Re: the spider on the face picture--for me, personally, it would depend on the face on which the spider was crawling. I mean, if it was Cheney's face, or Rove's, I'd be *terrified*.

But then, that's my reaction to their faces without spiders as well. ;-)

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

From the description given, this study seems to be making some big assumptions. One being that there's some reason for people to consider a picture of those things to be a threat. Perhaps the real difference here is that liberals know the difference between a real threat and an imaginary one, not that they don't react to threats. That would fit in with my opinion that some things that tend to upset conservatives, like gay marriage, are imaginary threats.

The other assumption implied in the article is that the difference in reactions is the cause of their political attitudes rather than their attitudes being the cause of the different reactions. The fact that the reactions are involuntary doesn't mean they are caused by biological differences.

I do find it interesting, especially as it pertains to possible strategies for candidates to use when campaigning or even for other types of advertising, but I don't see that there's enough evidence to show what the relationships between the reactions and the politics and biology are. It would also be interesting to know what kind of reactions they'd get from people who don't self-identify as being strongly liberal or conservative. Most people I know fall somewhere in the middle on a lot of issues or are conservative about some things and liberal about others.