emailaddr.jpg










About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 10, 2007 3:15 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Nah, Nah, Nah Nah--I'm Not Listening.

The next post in this blog is Moveon.org Marginalizes Itself.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Blogs We Read

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33

« Nah, Nah, Nah Nah--I'm Not Listening | Main | Moveon.org Marginalizes Itself »

The Liberal Brain is Half-a-Brain

What is a liberal?

Wikipedia prefaces their article of the topic with this:

This article discusses liberalism as a worldwide political ideology, its roots and development, and some of its many modern-day variations, including American, European, classical, and modern traditions. The local meaning of the term "liberalism" may differ greatly between countries; see the entries listed in Liberalism worldwide.

This is a polite way of saying that non-liberals often steal the term to misrepresent their actual political ideology. Having worn-out the positive associations of the term "progressive", post WWI lefties began calling themselves liberals. Having subsequently worn out the term "liberal", we are now back to "progressive". Regardless of what they call themselves, lofty terms don't manage to cover the stink.

The objective definition of liberal is someone who embraces the concept of individual rights and equality of opportunity.

Do you think we should get out of Iraq regardless of the consequences to Iraq and the region? You're not a liberal. Boycotting Walmart? You're not a liberal. Protesting globalism? You're not a liberal.

Does you're political philosophy consist of freedom to pursue as many new and different ways to orgasm, get stoned and avoid responsibility for your financial and lack of career decisions? You're not a liberal--you're an idiot.

UCLA researchers have come up with this:

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

Does that sound like the DailyKos to you? I thought not.


Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Hmm. This might explain why the left-wing stubbornly clings to discredited political ideas like socialism--their brains are calcified.


"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at New York University, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and that it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.

Political orientation, he noted, occurs along a spectrum, and positions on specific issues, such as taxes, are influenced by many factors, including education and wealth. Some liberals oppose higher taxes and some conservatives favor abortion rights.

Still, he acknowledged that a meeting of the minds between conservatives and liberals looked difficult given the study results.

Actually, history demonstrates that major revolutions in science require the demise of the ancien regime. No one could accuse Albert Einstein of narrow-mindedness, but he nevertheless could not accept the idea of an expanding universe. A new generation of astrophysicists was required to grapple with the concept.

Political "liberals" don't accept new scientific revolutions, they simply seek political advantage in them. Does anyone honestly believe that "information superhighway" Al Gore cares about global warming for its own sake? Is that what prompts him to falsely characterize global warming as a matter of scientific "consensus" second only to gravity? More often than not, scientific ideas are simply stalking horses for ambitious constituencies.

Ironically, the "Big Bang" theory was largely opposed because of its "religious" implications--a political, not scientific objection.

What age and wisdom teach you is that just because an idea is new, doesn't mean its good. A whole-brained person tempers an interest in the new with skepticism born from experience. There are very few things that are truly new, particular when it comes to human behavior.


Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains. -Sir Winston Churchill.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.uncorrelated.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2377

Post a comment

(This site no longer requires authentication for unmoderated comments to be posted immediately. Simply enter your comment with a valid email address and type the challenge word into the field below before posting. UNCoRRELATED accepts no editorial responsibility for the comments posted here, but will by discretion, remove vulgar, abusive or commercially-motivated comments. You may receive email notification of follow-up comment by clicking on the Subscribe to this entry checkbox.)





Tom-Mannis.jpg thinkingblogger.jpg









Google PageRank 
Checker - Page Rank Calculator

Blogroll Me!

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in Rojo

Add UNCoRRELATED to Newsburst from CNET News.com

Add to My AOL

Subscribe in FeedLounge

Add to netvibes

Subscribe in Bloglines

Add to The Free Dictionary

Add to The Free Dictionary

Add to Plusmo

Subscribe in NewsAlloy

Add to Excite MIX

Add to netomat Hub

Add to Webwag

Add UNCoRRELATED to ODEO

Subscribe in podnova

Add to Pageflakes