RE: [RC] [ RC ] The Biology of Left vs Right / What attracts people to objectivity ?

2012-01-06 Thread Chris Hahn 
Grounding decision-making in quantitative data doesn't seem all that
important to me in religion, or to a lesser extent in politics.  I think it
is interesting that the eye movements of liberals and conservatives might be
different, but it won't make me vote differently. 

However, when I make life-changing recommendations about how children might
live their lives (www.constructiveagreement.com), I try to ground my
recommendations in the best-available research data.  Not only do I study
the results of the study, but I also examine the research methods used.
Why?  The decisions I make are too important for me to rely on just my gut
feel.  I don't want to be arrogant and think that my personal or instinctive
opinion is all that is needed.  

Chris


-Original Message-
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:00 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RC] [ RC ] The Biology of Left vs Right / What attracts people
to objectivity ?



Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:52, [email protected] wrote:

> What attracts people to objectivity ?

Not quite the right word, but I know what you mean. 

>  
> Suggestions anyone ?

Speaking for myself, the simplest answer is "alienation". I didn't belong
either in my home culture of India or my host culture of America. The reason
I went into Physics (and Christianity) was largely to find some transcendent
truth to ground my identity. And perhaps give me a "safe" place to critique
and integrate my group identities. 

Great question, though. How about the rest of you?

E

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

Re: [RC] [ RC ] The Biology of Left vs Right / What attracts people to objectivity ?

2012-01-06 Thread Mike Gonzalez 
I was actually reading something recently about the battle between the
concept of negative rights vs. positive rights, and how it explains how
both liberals and conservatives claim to belong to the same "liberal
democratic" tradition, yet argue on two entirely contradictory wavelengths.

I think people just want correct, unchanging answers, but humans don't seem
to understand that they're wrong or off-kilter sometimes. When we adjust
our values, it doesn't necessarily mean that truth changes, it's just that
we were wrong about what the truth was. Then again, what I don't get is why
we're not allowed to define our own subjective values as humans and believe
in them with the same force as the objective good that we claim exists out
in the unknowable ether. If there's an objective truth, we're only going to
get hints of it, and not the whole shebang. In the end, I dunno.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:52 AM,  wrote:

> **
> The question this study raises by omission is this* : *
> Why do some people insist on some approximation of objectivity,
> balancing the insights of L vs R and often seeking new answers
> to questions which defy Liberal vs Conservative classifications ?
>
> Radical Centrists are not the only people in this category.
> Natural scientists also belong, and obviously many people in
> the computer field, medical doctors, plus anyone else who values
> some kind of scientific outlook, which *can be* ( even if not always true
> )
> behavioral scientists, geographers, people in communications, etc.
>
> *What attracts people to objectivity ?*
>
> Suggestions anyone ?
>
> Billy
>
> ==
>
>
> January 6, 2012
>
> *University of Nebraska at Lincoln*
> *News Blog*
>
>  Political biology: The left rolls with the good, the right confronts the
> bad
>
> From cable TV news pundits to red-meat speeches from candidates in Iowa
> and New Hampshire, our nation’s political stereotypes are on full display:
> Conservatives paint self-indulgent liberals as insufferably absent on
> urgent national issues, while liberals say fear-mongering conservatives are
> fixated on exaggerated dangers to the country.
>
> A new study from the University of 
> Nebraska-Lincolnsuggests
>  there are biological truths to such broad brushstrokes.
>
> In a series of experiments, researchers closely monitored physiological
> reactions and eye movements of study participants when shown combinations
> of both pleasant and unpleasant images. Conservatives reacted more strongly
> to, fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images;
> liberals had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images
> compared with conservatives.
>
> “It’s been said that conservatives and liberals don’t see things in the
> same way,” said *Mike Dodd
> *, UNL assistant professor of psychology and the study’s lead author.
> “These findings make that clear – quite literally.”
>
> To gauge participants’ physiological responses, they were shown a series
> of images on a screen. Electrodes measured subtle skin conductance changes,
> which indicated an emotional response. The cognitive data, meanwhile, was
> gathered by outfitting participants with eyetracking equipment that
> captured even the most subtle of eye movements while combinations of
> unpleasant and pleasant photos appeared on the screen.
>
> While liberals’ gazes tended to fall upon the pleasant images, such as a
> beach ball or a bunny rabbit, conservatives clearly focused on the negative
> images – of an open wound, a crashed car or a dirty toilet, for example.
>
> Consistent with the idea that conservatives seem to respond more to
> negative stimuli while liberals respond more to positive stimuli,
> conservatives also exhibited a stronger physiological response to images of
> Democratic politicians – presumed to be a negative to them – than they did
> on pictures of well-known Republicans. Liberals, on the other hand, had a
> stronger physiological response to the Democrats – presumed to be a
> positive stimulus to them – than they did to images of the Republicans.
>
> By studying both physiological and cognitive aspects, the researchers
> established unique new insights into the growing notion that political
> leanings are at least partial products of our biology, UNL political
> scientist and study co-author *Kevin Smith*
> said.
>
> Recent research on the subject has focused mostly on physiological
> reactions to negative stimuli. The new study’s use of cognitive data
> regarding both positive and negative imagery adds to the understanding of
> how liberals and conservatives see and experience the world, Smith said.
>
> UNL political scientist and co-author *John 
> Hibbing
> * said the results might mean that those on the rig

Re: [RC] [ RC ] The Biology of Left vs Right / What attracts people to objectivity ?

2012-01-06 Thread Dr. Ernie Prabhakar 


Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 6, 2012, at 6:52, [email protected] wrote:

> What attracts people to objectivity ?

Not quite the right word, but I know what you mean. 

>  
> Suggestions anyone ?

Speaking for myself, the simplest answer is "alienation". I didn't belong 
either in my home culture of India or my host culture of America. The reason I 
went into Physics (and Christianity) was largely to find some transcendent 
truth to ground my identity. And perhaps give me a "safe" place to critique and 
integrate my group identities. 

Great question, though. How about the rest of you?

E

-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 

Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

[RC] [ RC ] The Biology of Left vs Right / What attracts people to objectivity ?

2012-01-06 Thread BILROJ 
The question this study raises by omission is this : 
Why do some people insist on some approximation of objectivity,
balancing the insights of L vs R and often seeking new answers
to questions which defy Liberal vs Conservative classifications ?
 
Radical Centrists are not the only people in this category.
Natural scientists also belong, and obviously many people in
the computer field, medical doctors, plus anyone else who values 
some kind of scientific outlook, which can be ( even if not always  true )
behavioral scientists, geographers, people in communications, etc.
 
What attracts people to objectivity ?
 
Suggestions anyone ?
 
Billy
 
==
 
 
January 6, 2012
 
University of Nebraska at Lincoln
News Blog
 
 
Political biology: The left rolls with the good, the right confronts the  
bad

 
>From cable TV news pundits to red-meat speeches from candidates in Iowa and 
 New Hampshire, our nation’s political stereotypes are on full display:  
Conservatives paint self-indulgent liberals as insufferably absent on urgent  
national issues, while liberals say fear-mongering conservatives are fixated 
on  exaggerated dangers to the country. 
A new study from the _University of Nebraska-Lincoln_ 
(http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab/current-research-publications-and-working-papers)
  suggests  there 
are biological truths to such broad brushstrokes. 
In a series of experiments, researchers closely monitored physiological  
reactions and eye movements of study participants when shown combinations of  
both pleasant and unpleasant images. Conservatives reacted more strongly to, 
 fixated more quickly on, and looked longer at the unpleasant images; 
liberals  had stronger reactions to and looked longer at the pleasant images 
compared with  conservatives. 
“It’s been said that conservatives and liberals  don’t see things in the 
same way,” said _Mike Dodd_ (http://psych.unl.edu/faculty/faculty.asp?id=57) 
, UNL assistant professor  of psychology and the study’s lead author. “
These findings make that clear –  quite literally.” 
To gauge participants’ physiological responses, they were shown a series of 
 images on a screen. Electrodes measured subtle skin conductance changes, 
which  indicated an emotional response. The cognitive data, meanwhile, was 
gathered by  outfitting participants with eyetracking equipment that captured 
even the most  subtle of eye movements while combinations of unpleasant and 
pleasant photos  appeared on the screen. 
While liberals’ gazes tended to fall upon the pleasant images, such as a  
beach ball or a bunny rabbit, conservatives clearly focused on the negative  
images – of an open wound, a crashed car or a dirty toilet, for example. 
Consistent with the idea that conservatives seem to respond more to 
negative  stimuli while liberals respond more to positive stimuli, 
conservatives 
also  exhibited a stronger physiological response to images of Democratic 
politicians  – presumed to be a negative to them – than they did on pictures of 
well-known  Republicans. Liberals, on the other hand, had a stronger 
physiological response  to the Democrats – presumed to be a positive stimulus 
to 
them – than they did to  images of the Republicans. 
By studying both physiological and cognitive  aspects, the researchers 
established unique new insights into the growing notion  that political 
leanings 
are at least partial products of our biology, UNL  political scientist and 
study co-author _Kevin Smith _ (http://polisci.unl.edu/dr-kevin-smith) said. 
Recent research on the subject has focused mostly on physiological 
reactions  to negative stimuli. The new study’s use of cognitive data regarding 
both 
 positive and negative imagery adds to the understanding of how liberals 
and  conservatives see and experience the world, Smith said. 
UNL political scientist and co-author _John Hibbing_ 
(http://polisci.unl.edu/dr-john-hibbing)  said the results  might mean that 
those on the right are 
more attuned and attentive to aversive  elements in life and are more 
naturally inclined to confront them. From an  evolutionary standpoint, that 
makes 
sense, he said. 
The results also are consistent with conservatives’ support of policies to  
protect society from perceived external threats (support for increased 
defense  spending or opposition to immigration) and internal ones as well 
(support for  traditional values and being tough on crime), Hibbing said. 
The researchers were careful to not make a value judgment on either 
political  orientation. But they did note that their discovery provided an 
opportunity to  recognize the relevance of deeper biological variables in 
politics 
and turn down  political polarization. 
Rather than believing those with opposite political views are uninformed or 
 willfully obtuse, the authors said, political tolerance could be enhanced 
if it  was widely understood that political differences are based in part on 
our  physio