predicting political orientation from brain types

[spoonless]

I was thinking yesterday, while driving to Chicago, about how people who class themselves in particular political groups tend have very similar traits in terms of how they think about things.

Now, before I go any further with this, I'll be the first to say that this type of analysis is exactly the thing that is highly prone to over-generalization and stereotyping and all that bad stuff. Also, no doubt my own assessment of it is warped by my perspective and someone coming from another perspective may have a completely different assessment of it. Also, no matter what I say on this, it's sure to offend *someone* so well... I apologize in advance but I'm gonna tell it like I see it.

Nevertheless, I find myself noticing the same patterns again and again, and some of these really stuck out to me as I was thinking about it yesterday. So I figure, why not try to flesh them out in a post and see if anyone else notices the same thing? Or if others have noticed very different things?

First, let me just list out the various groups I'm thinking of... even this is somewhat arbitrary, but most people I run across tend to fall into one of these 5 groups, or at least lean toward one of them more than the others. First, there are the Liberals. A stereotypical liberal would be an academic in the natural sciences: pro capitalism, but also in favor of a moderately large role for government in things like education, science, protecting the environment, protecting human rights, and providing a social safety net. Second, there are the (right-) Libertarians. A stereotypical Libertarian would be an internet startup founder. Rabidly pro capitalism, highly individualistic, in favor of minimalist government, isolationism, skeptical of government role in public education, science, the environment, and against a social safety net and progressive taxation. Third there are the Leftists. A stereotypical Leftist would be an academic in a literature or art department): anti capitalism, anti corporations, pro workers rights, radical feminism, strongly pro environmental protection, pro animal rights activism, against globalization, anti technology, and either in favor of very big (Marxist-Leninists) or very small (left-anarchists) government. Forth, there is the Religious Right. A stereotypical person from the Religious Right would be an evangelical Christian: strongly pro life on abortion, anti homosexual, anti evolution, pro prayer in school, anti pornography and foul language, anti separation of Church and State. And Fifth, there are the Neo-Conservatives. Stereotypical neo conservative would be a wealthy Jewish guy who grew up in an academic culture and decided most academics are full of shit later in life: pro capitalism and pro globalization, pro military intervention, anti affirmative action and multiculturalism, either weakly opposed to or weakly in favor of social safety nets, opposed to "positive" human rights, usually weakly in favor of religion as a "noble lie" to help guide the masses.

I know, there are a lot more than those 5 camps, even just in the US. For example, there are the paleo-conservatives (anti-immigration, anti globalization, pro protectionism, often racist...), but I haven't met enough of them or read enough of them to be at all familiar with how their brains work. Looking at political groups in other countries makes the whole thing even more complicated, so let's just stick with those 5.

Now let's break down the brain in terms of left brain and right brain, left brain doing symbol processing such as logic and mathematics and analytic thinking, right brain doing more holistic integration, processing emotions and empathy, spiritual or artistic thought, and visualization. (Even more of a simplification, perhaps.) It seems to me that those in the Libertarian camp usually tend to have strong left brain skills and weak right brain skills. Their logical brains tend to think in terms of economics and rational self interest, but have trouble dealing with things like empathy and social interdependence, emergent systemic societal problems such as inequality, environmental degradation, and class warfare. On the contrary, those in the Leftist camp tend to have strong right brain skills and weak left brain skills. Their heart is in the right place, and they perhaps have a deep understanding of human nature, but they tend to ignore or misunderstand economic and practical realities. I know I may be biased here, but my impression is that Liberals tend to have both strong left brain and strong right brain skills. (Although perhaps neither is quite as pronounced as it is in the two forementioned groups?) The Religious Right tends to be composed of people who have both weak leftbrained skills AND weak rightbrained skills. In other words, just generally dumb people. (Although that doesn't mean they don't have a good heart--many of them do--they just happen to be mentally retarded.) Interestingly, I do notice some similarities between the religious right and the far left, and I think the similarities may stem from them both being bad at math and logical thinking. Both, for instance, tend to be very skeptical of science and technology, and prone to superstition.

That covers the first 4 groups. What about the 5th group, Neo-Conservatives? Hmmm.... perhaps I don't know them well enough yet either to place them somewhere. I tend to think of them as prone to overconfidence, and prone to black and white thinking. Actually, the issue of seeing things in black-and-white versus grayish or more complex is another issue I wanted to bring up here that I did think about a lot yesterday too, although it's now getting late and I have to run an errand before bed rather than write that out. I do think that thinking in terms of black-and-white fits in here in some important way. Perhaps there are even two characteristics that lead to it... one is a tendency for precise thinking and the other is a tendency for overconfidence. I think the J/P divide matters here a lot. To be continued!

And yes, sorry if you fit into one of these camps where I stereotyped or offended you. Feel free to share your own impression of how these different groups think.

Comments

[datavortex.livejournal.com]

I feel like an important distinction here boils down to being comitted to ones' convictions out of ideology or pragmatism. I'll use my own camp as an example. Idealistic libertarians tend to be anarchists and reject the authority of government outright , as anarcho-capitalists. Pragmatic libertarians tend to be minarchists. I feel like this distinction between ideology-driven people and political pragmatists likely exists in each of the five groups you list above, and the distinction makes a radical difference in the "brain type".

Also, total nitpick: I would say libertarian and not Libertarian. These are discrete groups. You also sometimes capitalize liberal or conservative, and this confuses me. Not sure if these are distinct from their lowercase forms or not.

[nasu-dengaku.livejournal.com]

This isn't quite the article I'm looking for, but here is one academic analysis of the different moral foundations of liberals and conservatives:

http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

[paideia.livejournal.com]

Virginia Postrel makes an interesting distinction between people who tend to prefer dynamic systems of all kinds and people who tend to prefer static systems, and I think this is a useful distinction as well. This may be what you're getting at when you talk about the J/P divide.

Dynamic vs static can be found all over the political map. For instance, I'd generally assume that libertarians and your stereotypical liberals above would probably fall into the "preferring dynamism" camp. Most conservatives, by their very desire to "conserve" the past, would be static systems people, as would anyone who believes in any fixed or fundamentalist system (religious right, Marxist/Leninists, people stuck in the 60's, teabaggers, etc.)

Some "neo-conservatives" may fall into the dynamic camp, depending on how much they lean toward, say, capitalism (which, depending on how you approach it, can be quite focused on dynamic systems and approaches) and away from social conservatism (which tends to assume a "one right way" to be.)

I don't think that dynamic vs static, in and of itself, tells you very much, but I think it's a valuable axis to consider political beliefs and policies. I also think that even if one values one more than the other, a lot of politics makes a lot more sense if you can see where a person places value on this axis, eg, I can understand where you're coming from better if I know that you see the world as static and I see the world as dynamic.

(I hope this makes sense... I'm really tired right now.)

[pbrane.livejournal.com]

I know I may be biased here, but my impression is that Liberals tend to have both strong left brain and strong right brain skills.
...
The Religious Right tends to be composed of ... just generally dumb people

You think your biases might be showing here a wee bit?

---

And where are the Moderates, of both Left and Right? And the Apathists, who don't give a shit, for the most part?

[ankh-f-n-khonsu.livejournal.com]

Like you said, things get messy with generalizations...

For instance, the left/right brain dichotomy is far less pronounced than you have represented. When composing a piece of music many of those same centers of activity in the "left brain" react. Likewise, when working through a math problem the "right brain" is similarly active.

Unless I've misread, however, the crux of your argument seems to lie in logic vs. empathy, which you've ported onto the brain and matched with political orientation. And, with the emphasis on empathy, this draws in developmental psychology. The empathy response is high in children and then begins cratering by age 7. It's been positively linked with schooling. Some psychological assessments attempt to correlate low empathy with political affiliation, but it gets really messy and doesn't seem to lead anywhere constructive.