The Watering Hole, Monday, April 4, 2016: How Both Sides Get Political Debate Wrong

Political discourse in this country has sunk to a depth I feared we would one day reach, and it shows no signs of rising again anytime soon. We no longer talk about issues starting from a common point of view. Liberals and Conservatives don’t agree on what role our government should have, so any discussion about what it should do is really pointless if we don’t know from where the other guy is starting. According to George Lakoff, where Liberals would see the nation through the Nurturing Parent model, Conservatives would tend to see it as the Strict Father. When you screw up, should the government find an appropriate punishment for your wrongdoing and sit you down and explain why what you did was wrong, with discussions on how to be a better person afterwards, with the goal of making you want to choose to be a better person, or should it just spank you in the ass, lock you in your room without supper, and let you out after so much time has passed saying, “Next time’ll be worse”? Who should be deciding what our government does? People who believe in doing what’s best for all of us, or people who think only certain people should get preferential treatment? We all agree in equality for all, we just don’t necessarily agree on how important that is, or to exactly what “equality for all” refers. We agree in Justice and Fairness, but we don’t agree on how important those morals should be. If we say everybody should participate in discussing Society’s problems, shouldn’t we make sure everybody agrees on exactly what the problems are that we are discussing? Are you talking about the two faces staring at each other? Or are you talking about the candlestick in between them? Both of you see a problem. but what is the problem you both see? There are many differences in the way the brains of Liberals and Conservatives process information. To find a common solution, we must first have common ground. I’m not really sure how that’s possible, but I do know our discussions aren’t getting us anywhere because it’s clear we don’t see the world and the problems within in the same way.


angry trumpbernies birdieAccording to one study, people right-of-center politically spend more time looking at unpleasant images, and people left-of-center politically spend more time looking at pleasant images.

“We report evidence that individual-level variation in people’s physiological and attentional responses to aversive and appetitive stimuli are correlated with broad political orientations. Specifically, we find that greater orientation to aversive stimuli tends to be associated with right-of-centre and greater orientation to appetitive (pleasing) stimuli with left-of-centre political inclinations.”

Conservatives would rather see an angry, war mongering President Trump (see left), where Liberals would prefer a peace-loving, animal friendly President Sanders (see right). It makes me wonder if Conservatives want to see all those images of what our Military Industrial Complex is doing in the Middle East, and that’s why they elect Republicans who talk about more and more bombing ISIS into oblivion, as if ISIS lives in the Middle East alone and that such bombing would not harm any civilian populations. I know we Liberals don’t enjoy seeing such images, but maybe the Conservatives do. Another study has concluded that people who react strongly to disgusting images, such as a picture of someone eating worms, are more likely to self-identify as conservative. Or maybe images of war do not bother them enough to want the wars stopped because to Conservatives, images of children being blown up is not as disgusting as it is to us Liberals. There are other key differences that Science has taught us, and understanding them can help us work toward a better solution to the problems of our Society. And, yes, I will freely admit that I omitted the word “together” in there. As you’ll soon see, I’m not entirely sure Conservatives can help us determine what’s in the best interests of all of us.

For one thing, in very general terms, both sides don’t put the same effort into solving the problem. Now, before this continues, let me say that when I speak of these groups in very general terms, unless otherwise specified I’m talking about your average Liberal and average Conservative Citizens. We’re the ones who are supposed to (somehow, it’s never spelled out how) hash out our differences and come to a consensus on how to solve our problems. The question that should be asked of anyone participating is, “How much time are you willing to spend trying to solve the problem?” Reliance on quick, efficient, and “low effort” thought processes yields conservative ideologies, while effortful and deliberate reasoning yields liberal ideologies. (Scott Eidelman, PhD, Christian S. Crandall, PhD, Jeffrey A. Goodman, PhD, and John C. Blanchar, “Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism,” Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 2012)

“…[P]olitical conservatism is promoted when people rely on low-effort thinking. When effortful, deliberate responding is disrupted or disengaged, thought processes become quick and efficient; these conditions promote conservative ideology… low-effort thought might promote political conservatism because its concepts are easier to process, and processing fluency increases attitude endorsement….Four studies support our assertion that low-effort thinking promotes political conservatism… Our findings suggest that conservative ways of thinking are basic, normal, and perhaps natural.”

When confronted with a problem, the Conservative reaction is to look for a quick solution, preferably one that has worked in the past. Liberals tend to be more open to trying things that haven’t been tried before. When faced with a conflict, Liberals are more likely than Conservatives to alter their habitual response when cues indicate it is necessary. (David M. Amodio, PhD, John T. Jost, PhD, Sarah L. Master, PhD, and Cindy M. Yee, PhD, “Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism,” Nature Neuroscience, Sep. 9, 2007)

“[We] found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern…Our results are consistent with the view that political orientation, in part, reflects individual differences in the functioning of a general mechanism related to cognitive control and self-regulation. Stronger conservatism (versus liberalism) was associated with less neurocognitive sensitivity to response conflicts. At the behavioral level, conservatives were also more likely to make errors of commission. Although a liberal orientation was associated with better performance on the response-inhibition task examined here, conservatives would presumably perform better on tasks in which a more fixed response style is optimal.”

Liberals are more open-minded and creative whereas conservatives are more orderly and better organized. (Dana R. Carney, PhD, John T. Jost, PhD, Samuel D. Gosling, PhD, and Jeff Potter, “The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind,” International Society of Political Psychology, Oct. 23, 2008)

“We obtained consistent and converging evidence that personality differences between liberals and conservatives are robust, replicable, and behaviorally significant, especially with respect to social (vs. economic) dimensions of ideology. In general, liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and better organized… A special advantage of our final two studies is that they show personality differences between liberals and conservatives not only on self-report trait measures but also on unobtrusive, nonverbal measures of interaction style and behavioral residue.”

Even if we agree on what the problems are, we have the issue of how best to resolve those problems? Conservatives learn better from negative stimuli than from positive stimuli and are more risk avoidant than liberals. (Natalie J. Shook, PhD, and Russell H. Fazio, PhD, “Political Ideology, Exploration of Novel Stimuli, and Attitude Formation,” Experimental Social Psychology, Apr. 3, 2009)

“In this study, the relations among political ideology, exploratory behavior, and the formation of attitudes toward novel stimuli were explored. Participants played a computer game that required learning whether these stimuli produced positive or negative outcomes. Learning was dependent on participants’ decisions to sample novel stimuli… Political ideology correlated with exploration during the game, with conservatives sampling fewer targets than liberals. Moreover, more conservative individuals exhibited a stronger learning asymmetry, such that they learned negative stimuli better than positive… Relative to liberals, politically conservative individuals pursued a more avoidant strategy to the game…The reluctance to explore that characterizes more politically conservative individuals may protect them from experiencing negative situations, for they are likely to restrict approach to known positives.”

So we have people trying to find new, innovative ways to resolve the problems we continue to have, which is why it’s still necessary to have these discussions, and people who would rather avoid making the problem worse by doing something different (even though what’s being done now continues to not work.) We Liberals want to move toward a better situation for everyone, even if only incrementally, while Conservatives don’t want to upset the status quo. Conservatism is focused on preventing negative outcomes, while liberalism is focused on advancing positive outcomes. (Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, PhD, “To Provide or Protect: Motivational Bases of Political Liberalism and Conservatism,” Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, Aug. 2009)

“Political liberalism and conservatism differ in provide versus protect orientations, specifically providing for group members’ welfare (political Left) and protecting the group from harm (political Right). These reflect the fundamental psychological distinction between approach and avoidance motivation. Conservatism is avoidance based; it is focused on preventing negative outcomes (e.g., societal losses) and seeks to regulate society via inhibition (restraints) in the interests of social order. Liberalism is approach based; it is focused on advancing positive outcomes (e.g., societal gains) and seeks to regulate society via activation (interventions) in the interests of social justice.”

Life is hard. The World is a dangerous place but, unlike Conservatives, I believe it can be made better. It will never be completely safe. Ironically, this is more because of people who are Conservative (with all the aggression that often comes with that) than it is from Liberals (who would rather everybody just get along.) But if things are going to get better, we have to approach things from a new way of thinking. And this is where trying to include everyone in solving society’s problems runs into a problem. We all want Security above all else. Security brings stability, and stability brings comfort. We just want to know what the rules are from day to day. We know that Change is inevitable, and we want to minimize the effects of that change as much as possible. But in order to do that, we have to have a better understanding of what it is we face. Liberals have more tolerance to uncertainty (bigger anterior cingulate cortex), and conservatives have more sensitivity to fear (bigger right amygdala)Ryota Kanai, PhD, Tom Feilden, Colin Firth, and Geraint Rees, PhD,

“In a large sample of young adults, we related self-reported political attitudes to gray matter volume using structural MRI [magnetic resonance imaging]. We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala…[O]ur findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty. The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing. Individuals with a larger amygdala are more sensitive to fear, which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amagdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief systems… our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex [ACC] may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty and conflicts. Thus it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views.”

We often speak of the amygdala being the “fear center” of the brain, as the place where all our fears begin. This is somewhat misleading, and can lead to further confusion. First, it’s important to know that scientists and researchers do not yet have a complete understanding of how the amygdala works, but they’ve been getting better answers with recent research. To put it simply, the amygdala analyzes everything your senses pick up and looks for signs of something that caused you harm the last time you encountered it. It then sends a signal to your prefrontal cortex where the actual analysis takes place. So, if out of the corner of your eye, your brain thinks it sees something like looks like the snake that’s been biting and killing your caveman friends lately, your amygdala will send a signal to the prefrontal cortex (PFC) that says, “SNAKE!” It’s up to your PFC to put what it thinks your brain sees in context. Maybe it’s a real snake, or maybe it’s just a dead poisonous snake that Thag thought would be hilarious to put on your rock seat. That Thag is such an asshole. Wait ’til he finds the dead poisonous spider in his bed later. Well, he’ll think it’s dead. But in today’s America (and in other places, too), a Conservative who hears the word “Muslim” immediately associates that with “bad things” and sends the signal to the PFC, where a Liberal would say “Muslim what?” before sending any alarms. A Muslim author? A Muslim comedian? A Muslim surgeon? I’m not hearing anything to get alarmed by yet. There are many authors, comedians, and surgeons who are quite good at what they do. Some of them also happen to be Muslim. That doesn’t automatically make them a danger. Liberals and Conservatives would essentially disagree on what the dangers we face are. How are we ever going to agree on how to confront them, and how best to expend the resources we have? I don’t know. And I’m beginning to wonder if it is even possible.

Daily open thread. Do your thing.


27 thoughts on “The Watering Hole, Monday, April 4, 2016: How Both Sides Get Political Debate Wrong

  1. What frustrates me is people not asking specific questions and demanding specific answers.
    Rhetoric only goes so far and a lot of people are suckers for lofty ambiguous answers.
    Important questions like “who would you appoint”? or “Who’s going to be in your cabinet”? are questions that go unasked until it’s way too late.
    Making America yoog again isn’t an answer to anything.
    It’s tub thumping and grand standing.
    What’s your favorite color can’t even be answered without a fancy tap dance.
    Predicating your sentences with “if” is noncommittal and easily denied when trying to pin down an answer after the fact.
    Campaign promises are crap.
    Unless that person is signing a contract, they can’t be held to anything. So, campaign promises are for suckers. It’s like trying to get Mr. Haney to honor a warranty on a Hoyt Clagwell tractor.
    Ain’t gonna happen.

    • It’s like trying to get Mr. Haney to honor a warranty on a Hoyt Clagwell tractor. Ain’t gonna happen.

      You wanna bet five dollars on that?

      Actually, I watched the show enough to know not to take that bet.

      Someone once took a case to the SCOTUS and they ruled that no American politician can be held to his campaign promises once he takes office. The only recourse to the voter, absent a recall mechanism or impeachment, is to vote him out the next time he runs for re-election, and to not vote him into any future offices..

      One punishment for conviction upon impeachment is permanent disability to hold any office of public trust again, They should impeach Cheney and his ilk for their 9/11 War Crimes and upon conviction declare that they can never hold any public office again. It is just Cheney, but people like John Yoo are allowed to serve in our government again. They shouldn’t be and there’s a way to make sure they can’t. But they won’t do it.

    • Our profit driven media doesn’t do that any more. They will allow guests to tell obvious lies through their entire appearance and then the host, who must know that the guest is lying if they aren’t a complete imbecile, will end the segment with “we’ll have to leave it there” instead of “that’s simply not true”.

  2. Great post, Wayne. The thing that strikes me the hardest in re the diff twixt liberal and conservative philosophy is their respective attitudes toward forward thinking and innovation. Conservatives hate any kind of either and will do anything in their power to stop/prevent such “travesty.” As some others have noted in times past,

    “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.” ~John Stuart Mill

    “Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory.” ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~John Kenneth Galbraith

    “Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.” ~William Gladstone

    “A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.” ~Alfred E. Wiggam

    “A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.” ~Franklin Delano Roosevelt

    “A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they’re dead.” ~Leo C. Rosten

    “A conservative is someone who makes no changes and consults his grandmother when in doubt.” ~Woodrow Wilson

    These days, challenges such as climate change, poverty, racism, overpopulation, preservation of public lands, and widespread societal inequity are anathema to conservatives. Requires too much thinking, too much empathy, and way too much directed action. As Woodrow Wilson put it, “A conservative is a man who sits and thinks, mostly sits.” Thinking is for libruls.

    • “Conservatives are against the arts unless it serves the propaganda machine”.
      My own experience in China.

      • It would probably be fair to say that conservatives are against ‘everything’ that doesn’t serve their propaganda machine. Arts in particular, cuz only leftists and commies like art that ain’t got no money in it. Only leftists and commies like ANYTHING, in fact, that ain’t got no money in it. Wildlife refuges for example. What the hell good are all them birds and wolves and grizzles an’ shit like that? Ain’t no money in ’em. Wilderness don’t allow no four-wheelers or dirt bikes, so where’s the money in that? Can’t drill for oil or mine uranium in National Parks. Where’s the money in that?

        One thing all us conservatives really can’t fuckin’ stand, it’s that damn commie and librul conservation. Ain’t no money in it, so hell with it.


        • As a liberal commie art lover, don’t get me started on those four wheel sport bike things. I fly over large swaths of what was once pristine land.
          Now it is a playground for dipshits tearing it up “wheeling” and destroying the ecosystem.

          • Boy do I know it. As a hiker/walker, I’ve encountered far too many of those noisy destructive contraptions, along with the IDIOTS! driving them. Not to mention the godawful destruction of the once pristine trail/landscape, and not to mention the impact of the stupidity on wildlife.

  3. Wanna have a really fun political discussion with a reichwing relative?
    Ask them “How Much is Enough”?

    • “Something that is not thought through” is him politely saying more stupid than a bag of parrot shit.

      • Great article by Greg Sargent on the steaming load of Drumpf sludge…
        Time to set up the RUC “Get that Money South” website, where, for a ridiculously small fee, you can ‘loan’ your Mexican friends and relatives small amounts of money, say, under $10,000.00.
        Thanks Drumpfshitforbrains!

        • Poor RNC Chairman Rinse Penis has his work cut out for him. I think he’s ready to pull the plug on all life support.

  4. Big banks acted as American as apple pie when they needed our money in 2008, but when it’s time to pay taxes, they’re proud Panamanians. ~ Bernie Sanders

  5. Blind justice can sometimes really be apropos:

    George Mason quickly changes name of Scalia law school after Twitter mocks ‘#ASSLaw’ acronym

    George Mason University has adjusted the moniker of its law school just days after renaming it in honor of late US supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia, a decision that gave the institution an unfortunate acronym: “Ass.”

    The Virginia college announced on Thursday that the school’s new name would be the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University. The name change spurred a fair amount of ridicule accompanied by the hashtag #ASSLaw on Twitter.

Comments are closed.