[[File:Lib-con summeryFor many of those who attempted to reach an agreement between liberals and conservatives on wide variety of issues, it seems that the gaps in understanding the situation between the parties is very hard to negotiate.JPG|200px|thumb|right|Overview The misunderstanding sometimes become an emotional issue, which result the raising of a wall of contempt that blocks any further path to mutual understanding. Thus, understanding the theory of differences between liberals and conservatives and liberals]] the grounds for the schism, may help find devising deliberative process which will support a better mutual understanding and even agreed decisions.

Conservatism and Liberalism is a wide phenomena which presnt itslef in very divers areas of social life. It is well knowen that there are some who behave in a conservative wayConservatives has more need for clouser, and some in liberal waywhile liberals can take more ambiguity. Although it This is well knowen phenomena, it was hard due to charctrized precisly the properties of liberals and conservatives, and it is stil not very well established, what are the causes [[FFFF]] mode that results from their preception of liberalism and conservatismstrangers as threat.

In this papae Recently I will make an effort to give a coherent view of the cartrization of the lib-con phenomena, have seen that Liberals and will try to give Conservatives can also a coherent mechnism for the causes of lib-con, based on recent years research in psychology be looked at as [[thinkers and neurocognitive. doers|Thinkers and Doers]]

==Letriture review=====Charectristics of Lib-Con===Liberalism and conservatism (LibCon) is a phrsae taken form the political scene, but it may apply to commerce, fashion and other social attitudes. In commerce, liberals, or early adopters, are people who tend to buy the newst products, while conservatives look for well tested products, who are old-fashiond<ref>Rogers Everett M., 1962,Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press of Glencoe, Macmillan Company</ref>. Although the phenomena is well knowen, It's cahrectarisitc are buffleing. A well knowen attempt to See also: [[Paper: Metaphor, Morality, Conservatives and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust ,George Lakoff, 1995|the phenomena was done by Lakoff: literature review]]<ref>[http://www.charlielawing.com/metaphor_and_politics.pdf Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust ,George Lakoff, 1995]</ref>. Lakoff put liberals on the carring and empathic moral and the conservatives on the strong moral, which divide the world in to good and evil.

The charectaristics of conservatives<ref>{{stub|[[PaperUser: Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jost et al. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375WinSysop|Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jost et al. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375Tal Yaron]]</ref>03:46, 14 October 2014 (MDT)}}

===Causes description of Lib-Con=liberalism and conservatism ==

Conservatives Liberals are more fearful, while liberals are moved by harm then conservatives and much more calm<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5896/1667.full Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traitsthen libertants (see Haidt, 2008, Hibbing et al. Science] ([http://www.talyaron.com/wiki/index.php?title=Political_Attitudes_Vary_with_Physiological_Traits2102,_science_2008 Hebrew summery])</ref>. Conservatives percives thetening faces as more threatning<ref>[http://precedings.natureRighteous in mind p.com/documents/2414/version/1/files/npre20082414-1.pdf JM. Vigil (2008212) Facial Expression Processing Varies with Political Affiliation, Nature]</ref>.

===self motivation for conservatism===conservatism can be caused by: * [[FFFF]]*Important of actions and time presure, which sustaning information can be too costly<ref>[https://www.msu.edu/~pleskact/research/papers/op729_pleskac.pdf A Dynamic and Stochastic Theory of Choice, Response Time, and Confidence] ([http://www.talyaron.com/wiki/index.php?title=מאמר:A_Dynamic_and_Stochastic_Theory_of_Choice,_Response_Time,_and_Confidence review in Hebrew])</ref><ref>A paper about time and change of attitude for learning</ref><ref>[http://www.google.co.il/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=y2BFhu0lZfgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=time+decision+making&ots=eLyQCYrfwf&sig=mzP3YLD7qvhPejpQGxloCsU7IR4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=time%20decision%20making&f=false Author, 1990 , Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making]</ref><ref>*Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. In L. Thompsonconservative society, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.), Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp.91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</ref><ref>Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing there is a tendency to align according to legitimate theories and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoringcustoms. Journal of Experimental Social PsychologyPeople afraid to think differently, 19otherwise they will be criticized heavily,448–468.</ref><ref>Shah, J. Y., Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1998). Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 383–393.</ref>** Ambiant noise (White noise)<ref>Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of as enemies or as collaborators with the mind: “Seizing” and “freezingenemy.” Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.</ref>** Mental fatigue (Ego deplition)<ref>Webster, D. M., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). On leaping This is probably due to conclusions when feeling tired: Mental fatigue effects on impressional primacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 181–195.</ref>** alcohol intoxication<ref>Webster, D. M. (1994). Groups under the influence: Need need for closure effects on and the use of shared and unique information. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.</ref>* Low need for cognition* Personal need for structure<ref>Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., & O’Brien, N. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation feelings of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544–555.</ref>)and there is a scale for cognitive closure NFCS<ref>Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.</ref>** Prefernce for order and sturcture.** Emotional discomfort associated with amvbigiuty (it can be domain specific and [[FFFF]] related. [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]])).** Impetiante and impolsivity with regard to decision making.** Desire for security and predictability.** Colsed-mindnessnesthreats.

'''[httpObserved://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism The Theory of RWA] (Right-Wing Authoritarian)''': Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimateDoron Tzur, who adhere to societal conventions and norms2013, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to themprivate talks. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it. <ref> [http://ussc.edu.au/s/media/docs/publications/1006_Inequality_Stenner.pdf Stenner, Karen (2009). "Three Kinds of “Conservatism". Psychological Inquiry: 142-159]</ref>. In it start the reserchers<ref>Adomo, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswilc, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.</ref>, proposed that harsh parenting styles brought on by economic hardship led entire generations to repress hostility toward authority figures and to replace it with an exaggerated deference and idealization of authority and tendencies to blame societal scapegoats and punish deviants.Altemeyer charcrized RWA as (p.148)<ref>Altemeyer, R. A. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University ofManitoba Press.</ref>:* “a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate”; * “a general aggressivenessTal Yaron, directed against various persons, whichis perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities”; and * “a high degree of adherence to establishing the social conventions which are perceived to be endorsed by society” forum in Kedumim 2007.

'''Need for closure''' comply to regin idealogyConservatives show more anger towards criminals<ref>JostFodor, J. T.Wick, Kruglanski, A. W.Hartsen, & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. In L. ThompsonPreve, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.),Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.2008</ref>. Conservatives are more happey due to social conformation<ref>GolecSchlenker, ABarry R. (2001, July)John R. Need for cognitive closure Chambers, and political conservatism: Studies on the nature of the relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Cuernavaca, Mexico.</ref>. But also when a need for closure is felt, also left-wing ideologies will become regid<ref>*Rokeach, Bonnie M. (1960)Le. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Rorty"Conservatives are happier than liberals, R. (1989). Contingencybut why? Political ideology, ironypersonality, and solidaritylife satisfaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. All " Journal of Research in all, people with high need for closure will prefer rigid, construct and well defined theories<ref>Kruglanski, A. WPersonality 46. 2 (19892012). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. New York: Plenum127-146.‏</ref>.

'''[[Regulatory Focus Theory]]"'''(High demends, critisicem): When one has aspirations (ideals) and on the other hand responsibilites (oughts), and his parenting role models asked him to acomplish high goals, but was focused on saftey, avoding of negative outcomes combined with punishment, the child will grow up to be with strong need ==Environmental Causes for closure, while holding, high ideas. This will be the base for some of the left-wing illiblerals ideologies<ref>Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure Conservatism and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.</ref><ref>Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion Liberalism==Conservatism and prevention: Regulatory focus liberalism as amotivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–45.</ref>reactions to environmental states.

'''Terror Management Based on [[Haidt Moral Foundations Theory'''<ref>Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press</ref>: fear of death may be a cause for political conservatism<ref>Wilson, 0. D. (l973). The temperamental basis of attitudes. In 0. D. Wilson (Ed.), The psychology of conservatism (pp. 187—196). London: Academic Press</ref>, |Haidt findings]] I suggest that liberalism and may motivate conservatism<ref>Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, 5. (1986). The causes and consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror management theory.In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and private self (pp. 189—207). New York: Springer-Verlag.</ref><ref>Greenberg, 3., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory: II. The effects of mortality salience on are reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldviewenvironmental state. Journal of Personality Haidt found that liberal and Social Psychology, 58, 308—318.</ref><ref>Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Lyon,D.(1989)conservatives differ in their attitude toward six typical values. Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects 'll suggest that these differences of mortality salience on attitude may stem reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural valuesdifferent environmental situations. Journal of Personality Liberalism may stem from a reaction to safe and Social Psychology, 57, 68 1—690.</ref>.Greenberg at al, suggested that TMT will no lead to abundant environment while conservatism, but just may be a reaction to strengthening dangerous environment which is scarce of basic values<ref>Greenberg, 3., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D.(1992). Terror management and tolerance: Does mortality salience always intensify negative reactions to others who threaten one’s worldview? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 212—220.</ref>resources.

The idea that creatures tend to react with different strategies to different environmental situations is not new. In ecology it is known that in organisms react to a harsh or safe environment with two different strategies of breeding: one is named ''r selection'' and the other is 'Just world theory'k selection'': The just-world hypothesis (or just-world fallacy) . R selection is a strategy suited for an environment which is the cognitive bias that all human actions eventually yield morally fair and fitting consequences, so that, ultimately: noble actions are duly rewarded dangerous and evil actions are duly punishedhas scarce resources. In other wordsthis strategy, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency creatures tend to attribute consequences give birth tomany offsprings and they tend to give them minimal resources in their nurture. In such strategy, or expect consequences as some of the result of, an unspecified power that restores moral balance; offsprings may survive the fallacy is that this implies (often unintentionally) harsh conditions and the existence dangers. For instance some kinds of such a power in terms fishes ten to lay ten of some cosmic force thousands of justiceeags, desertand they don't take care of them. from such multitude, stabilityonly few survive predation ang go into adulthood. But when the environment is safer and there are more resources, or order in the universecreatures tend to have less offsprings and they tend to give each of them much more care and resources while nurturing them. They protect their offsprings and prepare them for adulthood.

The fallacy popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech, which often imply a negative reprisal of justiceIt seems that that r and k strategies, such as: "You got what was coming also apply to you," "What goes around comes around," and "You reap what you sowbreeding patterns in humane societies." This phenomenon Liberal societies where there are plenty of this fallacy has been widely studied by social psychologists since Melvin J. Lerner conducted seminal work on the belief in a just world in the early 1960s<ref>Lerner, M.J. & Montada, L. (1998). An Overview: Advances in Belief in a Just World Theory resources and Methods, in Leo Montada & M.J. Lerner (Eds.). Responses life are safe tend to Victimizations and Belief in sustain a Just World (1–7). Plenum Press: New York</ref>. Since that timelower birth ratio compared to conservative societies, research has continued, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, which poverty is prevailing and clarifying and expanding the theoretical understandings of just world beliefs<ref>Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differences; 34: 795–817.</ref>life are less protected.

===Group motivation While r and k selection is well documented strategies for birth, I'll suggest that conservatism==='''Social Dominance Theory''' (SDO): According to social dominance theory, human societies strive to minimize and liberalism are two strategies for group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify behavior in the hegemony face of some groups over others<ref>Pratto, Fdangerous or safe environment. (1999)One of the reason that help me suggest such hypothesis is a research done by Jonathan Haidt. The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, Haidt found that conservatives and cultural forces in social dominance theoryliberals have different attitudes towards six values. Advances in Experimental Social PsychologyThe values are loyalty, 31, 191—263.</ref><ref>Pratto, F., Sidanius, J.respect for authority, Stallworth, L. M.fairness, & Mallesexuality, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social defend from harm and political attitudesliberty. Journal of Personality Liberals tend to value loyalty and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763authority less then conservatives.</ref><ref>Sidanius, JLiberals tend to have a less strict need for controlling the sexuality. (1993). The psychology Conservatives tend to legitimize punishment of group conflict insubordinate individuals and groups, while liberals tend to defend the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspectiveunorthodox. In S. Iyengar & W. J.McGuire (lids.)Conservatives see fairness as a reward for an investment, Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183—219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press</ref><ref>Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy while liberals tend to share more resources and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press</ref><ref>Sidanius, J., Prattu, F.distribute them more evenly, & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal regardless of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476—490.</ref>. They achive it by legitmizing myths like (a) parental myth, in which the dominent group is the only one capable of mangment of the large group. (b)"reciprocal myth", in which every group should take it's place, and the dominante group shoul leadinvestment. (c) Sacred mythAnd of course, which give dominence liberals tend to one group over others by value liberty in the authourity face of God<ref>Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J.McGuire (lids.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183—219)(look at pp. 207-209).Durham, NC: Duke University Press</ref>society more then conservatives does.

SDO and RWA compose of 50% of the statisitcal varience of prejudice and athnocentrismit seems that such difrences in attitude, may help a group to adapt itself to change in an environment. The conservative value in which fairness is large part of the affectors (Altemeyer 1998 p. 47). SDO is more dominante based on reciprocity and RWA that hard work is more submissive<ref>“Altemeyerneeded for one to earn his living, Rcan help encourage people to work hard in an environment where resources are scarce. A. (1998). The On the other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.)hand, Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30a state of abundance, where there is plenty to go around, ppthere is no need to work hard to obtain resources. 47—91). New York: Academic Press. in p.75</ref>. as Jost et al put it "One In this case people can therefore infer that the most inexorable right-wingers are those who are motivated simultaneously by fear and aggression"<ref>John T. Jost, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339—375 (p. 350. left col buttom)</ref>share more resources.

==high levels proposed causes of liberalism and conservatism=====Main Causes of Conservatismconservatism===Some genes differ between conservatives and liberal<ref>[[Filehttp:Jost //www.researchgate.net/publication/228366891_A_Genome-Wide_Analysis_of_Liberal_and_Conservative_Political_Attitudes/file/3deec5164c67a34233.pdf Hatemi, Peter K., et al . "A genome- Conservatism motiveswide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes.gif|200px|thumb|right|The causes " Journal of conservatism according to Jost et al Politics 73.1 (20032011)]] [[File:Yaron 271- Causes of conservatism 2012285.gif|200px|thumb|right|The causes of conservatism according ‏]</ref>, asspecialy genes related to [[User:WinSysop|Tal YaronNMDA]] (2012)and [[serotonin]].

"Theoretical and empirical considerations lead us to conclude that virtually all of the above motives originate in psychological attempts to '''manage uncertainty and fear'''Enviromental threat elvate conservatism<ref>John T. JostDuckitt, Arie W. Kruglanski, Jack Glaser and Frank J. Sulloway, Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition& Fisher, Psychological Bulletin 2003, Vol. 129, NoK. 3, 339—375 (p. 351. left col middle2003)</ref>."These, in turn, are inherently related to the two core aspects The Impact of conservative thought mentioned earlier—resistance to change Social Threat on Worldview and the endorsement of inequality"Ideological Attitudes.Thus, epistemic needs affect the style and manner by which individuals seek to overcome uncertainty and the fear of the unknown<ref>KruglanskiPolitical Psychology, A. W. 24(19891), 199–222. Lay episremics and human knowledgedoi: Cognitive and motivational basis10. New York: Plenum1111/0162-895X.00322</ref><ref>Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: BasicBooks. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. CambridgeFor instance, England[http: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sorrentino, R. M., & Runey, C. I. R/www. (2000)telegraph. The uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing the unknownco. Philadelphia: Psychology Pressuk/Taylor & Francis<news/ref><ref>Wilson, 0. D. (lid.). (l973). The psychology of conservatism. London: Academic Press<uknews/ref>. Existential motives, too, involve a desire for certainty road-and security that is associated with resisting rather than fostering change, and is highly corolated for need for certenty<ref>Dechesne, M., Janssen, J., & van Knippenberg, A. (2000). Derogation and distancing as terror managementstrategies: The moderating role -rail-transport/10884617/Middle-aged-professional-men-who-vote-Tory-most-likely-to-be-victims-of need for closure and permeability of group boundaries-road-rage. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79, 923—932.</ref><ref>McGregor, I., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, 1. 0., & Spencerhtml middle-aged, S. J. (2001). Compensatory conviction in the face of personal uncertainty: Going professional men who vote Tory most likely to extremes and being oneself. Journal be victims of Personalityand Social Psychology, 80, 472—488.</ref>road rage].

===Reserch===Evidence Jost et al, did a very large survey on research about conservatism. They have found two main causes for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism . One is significantly associated with:* mental rigidity a reaction to a state of fear, and closed-mindedness - The most contributng factor the other is mental rigidtya reaction to a need to do work in limited time<ref>Adorno et al., 1950, in [http://wwwfaculty.sullowayvirginia.orgedu/PoliticalConservatism(2003)haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Rokeach, 1960 [http://wwwJ., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F.sullowayJ.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Wilson 1973c [http://wwwPolitical Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatismPsychological Bulletin, 129(20033), 339–375.pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. The idea that threat is causing people to bevcome more conservatives was further corroborated by an experiment that showed that under fear conditions, liberal students judge like conservative students<ref>Christie1954 [http://www.sullowayyorku.orgca/PoliticalConservatism(2003)ianmc/readings/NailMcGregorConservativeLiberalsJESP2009.pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. Research on cognitive sophistication and integrative complexity provides the soundest basis for evaluating claims linking epistemic motivation to political ideology<ref>(eNail, P.gR., GruenfeldMcGregor, 1995;Sidanius, 1985, 1988; TetlockI., 1983Drinkwater, 1984) in [http://wwwA.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. Recent work on personal need for structure<ref>Schaller et alE., 1995Steele, in Jost2003</ref> and the need for cognitive closure<ref>DG. M. Webster , & KruglanskiThompson, 1994 in Jost2003</ref> helps to complete the pictureA.**increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity - The right wingers are much more mentaly rigid (dogmatice) the left-wing extremists <ref>Barker, E. NW. (19632009). Authoritarianism of the political right, center, and leftThreat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Issues, 19, 63—74.</ref>, according to the reserch in the field<ref>Altemeyer (1981Psychology, 1998) in Jost2003</ref><ref>Billig 45(19844) in Jost 2003</ref><ref>s (Barker, 1963; Christie, 1991; Elms, 1969; Pettigrew, 1958; Rokeach, 1960; Smithers & Lobley, 1978; Stacey & Green, 1971) in [http901–907. doi://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003)10.pdf Jost 2003]<1016/ref>j. Right wingers, Modrate and extrem, are much more intolrate to ambiguty<ref>See Jost 2003, p. 353</ref>. ** decreased cognitive complexity - Left-wingers have more cognitive complexity the right-wingers. Modrates in both wings, have more complexity then extrimists<ref>[http://wwwjesp.sulloway2009.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003)04.pdf Jost 2003013] p. 353</ref>, but these results are not conclusive.** decreased openness to experience** uncertainty avoidance: r=.34 p<0.0001 to conservatism (Jost et al. 2003)** personal needs for order and structure**need for cognitive closure* lowered self-esteem* fear, anger, and aggression* pessimism, disgust, and contempt* loss prevention* fear of death* threat arising from social and economic deprivation* threat to the stability ofthe social system

Finished "Recent research provides evidence that one important difference between liberals and conservatives is their basic moral intuitions. These studies suggest that while liberals and conservatives respond similarly to considerations of harm/care and fairness (what Graham and Haidt call the “individualizing” foundations), conservatives also respond strongly to considerations of in p-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not. 352 Our study examined two alternative hypotheses for this difference—the first chapterbeing that liberals cognitively override, and the alternative being that conservatives cognitively enhance, their binding foundation intuitions. Using self-regulation depletion and cognitive load tasks to compromise people's ability to monitor and regulate their automatic moral responses, we found support for the latter hypothesis—when cognitive resources were depleted/distracted, conservatives became more like liberals (de-prioritizing the binding foundations), rather than the other way around. This provides support for the view that conservatism is a form of motivated social cognition."<ref>[http://wrightjj1.people.cofc.edu/JESP%20Role%20of%20Cognitive%20Resources%20(Publication).pdf Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 1007-1012.]</ref>

This strength the idea that conservatives uses their self-regulation to be social? while the other say that implicit.... here is an example that conservatives favor the state power, and there fore blame a situation (liberal tendency) when the police make misdeeds.<ref>[http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/Haditha.pdf Morgan, G. S., Mullen, E., & Skitka, L. J. (2010). When values and attributions collide: Liberals’ and conservatives’ values motivate attributions for alleged misdeeds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1241-1254.]</ref> I think conservatives try to comply to society(system 1 and rACC.[[amygdala]]), while liberals try to comply to reason (system 2 and dACC/[[ACC]]). '''[http://tigger.uic.edu/~lskitka/styled-7/styled-16/index.html ideo-attribution effec]t''': Our current work in this area has been primarily focused on understanding the sources of what we call the “ideo-attribution effect,” that is, the tendency for liberals and conservatives to make different attributions for the causes of various social and personal problems. Specifically, conservatives tend to attribute poverty, crime, homelessness, AIDS, foreign aggression, and even obesity to causes internal to persons, whereas liberals tend to attribute the same phenomena more to situational factors. This is probably due to [[amygdala]]/[[rACC]] and [[dACC]] tendencies, which causes the liberals to engage more in situational causes and conservatives to engage more in societal reasons. ==Further readingsThe causes in the light of brain research==* Jost at al, summarizing a 50 years of research on the causes of conservatism had suggested that the two main casus of conservatism are fear and a feel of urgent<ref>[http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.]</ref>. These findings where partly supported by new evidences that comes from the emerging field of political-brain research. These findings show that there are some differences in the way brains of conservatives and liberals work. People with chronic state of conservatism are characterized by smaller anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and enlarged amygdala<ref>[http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.]</ref> <ref>[http://blog.psico.edu.uy/cibpsi/files/2011/04/brains.pdf Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current biology : CB, 21(8), 677–80. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017]</ref>. The amygdala is involved social learning, and especially fear conditioning <ref>LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Brain mechanisms of emotion and emotional learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2(2), 191–197. doi:10.1016/0959-4388(92)90011-9</ref><ref>LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629</ref>. People with larger amygdala volume correlates positively with both the size (the number of contacts a person has) and the social complexity (the number of different groups to which a person belongs)<ref>Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. C., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nature neuroscience, 14(2), 163–4. doi:10.1038/nn.2724</ref>. The other implications of enlarged amygdala are that conservatives having enlarged amygdala will be more sensitive to threat<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>. Conservatives detect threatening faces more easily, with less effort<ref>Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.</ref>. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals<ref>Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.</ref>. This may explain the finding that Individuals with measurably higher physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support conservatives policies like defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War, whereas individuals displaying measurably lower physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor liberals politics such as foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control<ref>Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford. John R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2008). Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science, 321, 1667–1670.</ref>.  The [[ACC]], which is more active in liberals, is involved in conflict detection<ref>Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(12), 539–546.</ref>, and it is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge when people are puzzled <ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2011). An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function: Option selection in hierarchical reinforcement learning. The Neural Basis of Motivational and Cognitive Control, 333–349.</ref><ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.</ref>. Liberals having larger ACC and therefore we may expect that liberals are better in conflict detection. This suggestion was corroborated by a research that found that liberals reacts better to conflict detection, and their anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was more active during conflict detecting <ref>Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature neuroscience, 10(10), 1246–1247.</ref>. This may explain why on everage, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives <ref>Hodson, G., & Busseri, M. A. (2012). Bright minds and dark attitudes: lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact. Psychological science, 23(2), 187–95. doi:10.1177/0956797611421206</ref>. On the other hand liberals seems to have lower ability to work in groups as Lakoff suggested (ref). He suggested that liberals should learn from conservatives how to make greater coalitions, but the reason liberals are porrer preformers at social gathering may be due to brain tendency having lower volume of amygdala, which is involved in social learning. And indeed, liberals are more trusting but have smaller social networks, while conservatives find faster threatening facial emotion and have larger social networks<ref>Vigil, J. M. (2010). Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 547–558. doi:10.1177/1368430209356930</ref>.  Having lower amygdala volume does not mean that liberals are not felling threat. They detect threat less easily and therefore are more trusting, but when they do detect threat they react as conservatives<ref>Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901–907. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.013</ref>. This may be explained by the finding that the Amygdala can be controlled by the ACC<ref>Etkin, A., Egner, T., Peraza, D. M., Kandel, E. R., & Hirsch, J. (2006). Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron, 51(6), 871–882.</ref>. And as long as liberals do not recognize a threat they will be more engaged in learning through the ACC and it will suppress the amygdala, but when threat is recognized the ACC is turning-on the amygdala and more conservative style reactions will occur.  Some other research found that when engaging in risk conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala and liberals handle risk with the left insula<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>. The left insula is involved in warmth and painful sensations<ref>Stephani, C., Fernandez-Baca Vaca, G., Maciunas, R., Koubeissi, M., & Lüders, H. O. (2011). Functional neuroanatomy of the insular lobe. Brain structure & function, 216(2), 137–49. doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0296-3</ref>. This may imply that liberals will feel more pain when thinking on losing in risky conditions and therefore will be less ready to engage risk. This may explain why conservatives may favor war while liberals will try to find more peaceful solutions. It seems that open-mindedness according to Cognitive Reflection Test is not correlated with [[Conservatives and Liberals|conservatism]]<ref>[http://www.tedculturalcognition.comnet/blog/2013/7/talks31/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mindmotivated-system-2-reasoning-experimental-evidence-its-signi.html Jonathan Dan Kahan (2013), Motivated system 2 reasoning--experimental evidence & its significance for explaining political polarization - review]</ref>. Thous, Consevatives and liberals uses [[system 2]] in the same manner. '''Conclusions''': Conservatives uses the amygdala which is active in social learning and threat detection and handling and therefore are more social orinetd. Because every society has it won codes, conservative may tend to be more local-culuter oriented, and when they will engage different cultures and especialy very different cultures, they will be more un-knowing and therefore will feel more threathend. In General they feel more threat, and may prefer war over peace, because they feel less pain when evaluating the consequence. Liberals are more intelligent and will try to solve social and non-social conflicts by thinking. They will avoid risks due to more sensitivity to pain and lost.   ----Stop here----  ===Amygdala and ACC=== Jost at al, summerizing a 50 years of research on the causes of conservatism had suggested that the two main casus of conservatism are fear and a feel of urgent<ref>[http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.]</ref>. These finding where partly supported by new evidance from the emerging field of brain research. A chronic state of conservatism is characterized by smaller anterior cingulate cortex ([[ACC]]) and enlarged amygdala<ref>[http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.]</ref> <ref>[http://blog.psico.edu.uy/cibpsi/files/2011/04/brains.pdf Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults. Current biology : CB, 21(8), 677–80. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017]</ref>. The Amygdala is involved emotional learning, and especially fear conditioning <ref>LeDoux, J. E. (1992). Brain mechanisms of emotion and emotional learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 2(2), 191–197. doi:10.1016/0959-4388(92)90011-9</ref><ref>LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629</ref>.The [[ACC]] is active in conflict detection <ref>Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(12), 539–546.</ref>. And is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge after puzels <ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2011). An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function: Option selection in hierarchical reinforcement learning. The Neural Basis of Motivational and Cognitive Control, 333–349.</ref><ref>Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.</ref>.  Also it was found that conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala, while liberals deal the same tasks with the left insula<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>. The insula is thought to be involve in risk prediction error<ref>[http://www.jneurosci.org/content/28/11/2745.long Preuschoff, K., Quartz, S. R., & Bossaerts, P. (2008). Human insula activation reflects risk prediction errors as well as risk. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(11), 2745–2752.]</ref> (Brain sections) The amygdala volume correlates positively with both the size (the number of contacts a person has) and the complexity (the number of different groups to which a person belongs) of social networks <ref>Bickart, K. C., Wright, C. I., Dautoff, R. J., Dickerson, B. C., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Amygdala volume and social network size in humans. Nature neuroscience, 14(2), 163–4. doi:10.1038/nn.2724</ref>.   (Insula)The left insula was fund to be connected to warmth and painful sensations <ref>Stephani, C., Fernandez-Baca Vaca, G., Maciunas, R., Koubeissi, M., & Lüders, H. O. (2011). Functional neuroanatomy of the insular lobe. Brain structure & function, 216(2), 137–49. doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0296-3</ref>. this suggest that conservatives are feeling more threat<ref>[http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 Schreiber, D., Simmons, A., Dawes, C., Flagan, T., Fowler H., J., & Paulus, M. (2009). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans.]</ref>. It was found the liberals reacts better to conflict detection, and their anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was more active during conflict detecting <ref>Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature neuroscience, 10(10), 1246–1247.</ref>.   The Amygdala can be controlled by the rACC <ref>Etkin, A., Egner, T., Peraza, D. M., Kandel, E. R., & Hirsch, J. (2006). Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron, 51(6), 871–882.</ref>.  (Non brain research)The idea that threat is causing people to become more conservatives was further corroborated by an experiment that showed that under fear conditions, liberal students judge like conservative students<ref>Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009).  Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901–907. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.013</ref>. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals <ref>Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.</ref>. Individuals with measurably higher physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support conservatives policies like defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism, and the Iraq War, whereas individuals displaying measurably lower physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism, and gun control.<ref>Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford. John R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K., et al. (2008). Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science, 321, 1667–1670.</ref>. Liberals are more trusting but have smaller social networks, while conservatives find faster threatening facial emotion and have larger social networks<ref>Vigil, J. M. (2010). Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 547–558. doi:10.1177/1368430209356930</ref>. Conservatives detect threatening faces more easly. With less stress<ref>Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.</ref>.  ====Proposed Outcomes====This strength that conservative learn more through social learning, and on threat, they will react more with the [[FFFF]] reaction.  Conservatives will prefer "conservative" decision (well established past decisions)The [[ACC]] is turned off when there is enough past information for making a decision <ref>Domenech, P., & Dreher, J.-C. (2010). Decision threshold modulation in the human brain. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 30(43), 14305–17. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2371-10.2010</ref>. Therefore, people with lower volume of ACC have more "closured" decision making system, and therefore they will prefer "conservative" decisions.  Liberals will prefer less "group" prefernces and more intelgent solutions.  ----Stop here---- More intelligent people tend to adopt liberal ideology<ref>Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33–57.</ref>.    Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly they adjust to liberal morals<ref>Graham, J., Englander, Z., Morris, J., Hawkins, C., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. (2012). Warning Bell: Liberals Implicitly Respond to Group Morality Before Rejecting it Explicitly.</ref> Conservatives, is suggested, are more aware of social asspects, due to more learning through the amygdala, and therefore conform to society<ref>Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral roots intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 1007–1012.</ref> All in all, conservative learn and react more to emotions through the amygdala, and may exhibt more aggresivnes toward threat, while liberals are less effective in the social filld, but are more effective in conflict detaction, thoughs create more non-social ineligible solutions. Liberals are more wise on the social level, while liberals more wise on the non-social level. ===Causes of Conservatism===Chronic state of conservatism is characterized by smaller anterior cingulate cortex ([[ACC]]) and enlarged amygdala<ref>[http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.]</ref>. The ACC is used to control efforts and also rostral ACC is active in learning intuitively social behaviors. if having small volume of the ACC, people will react more impulsively, and will have difficulty to understand social interactions. This will cause them to perceive unfamiliar people with less understanding and therefore with more mistrust. Conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala, while liberals deal the same tasks with the lef insula. this sugest that conservatives are feeling more threat<ref>Schreiber, D., Fonzo, G., Simmons, A. N., Dawes, C. T., Flagan, T., Fowler, J. H., & Paulus, M. P. (2013). Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. PloS one, 8(2), e52970.</ref>. Conservative statments make you stop: "Zamboni et al. (2009) found that, regardless of participants’ own political orientation, the processing of conservative statements was associated with greater activity in the right dlPFC—a brain region that is associated with withdrawal motivation, negative affect, and response inhibition in prior research (e.g., Aron et al. 2004; Davidson 1992; Harmon-Jones 2003). Although this finding may have multiple interpretations, one could speculate that thinking about more conservative positions elicited a withdrawaloriented response among these participants, which would be consistent with responses to disgusting or threatening stimuli (cf. Helzer and Pizarro 2011; Terrizzi et al. 2010).This pattern of activation was unrelated to the extremity or level of abstraction of political statements" from [http://amodiolab.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf Amodio 2012] ===Causes of Liberalism=== Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent<ref>[http://secure.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/spq/Mar10SPQFeature.pdf Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33-57.]</ref> Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly the adjust to liberal morals<ref>[http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=616064002106075065123023116022113121037016025093044007014073023026003097074068114120028062030124045033010026074088083098112122046083078061083099070027073092117028094010018046069064071119098113065118100088&EXT=pdf Graham, J., Englander, Z., Morris, J., Hawkins, C., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. (2012). Warning Bell: Liberals Implicitly Respond to Group Morality Before Rejecting it Explicitly. Available at SSRN.]</ref> it seems that conservatives uses more [system 1] while liberals uses more of [system 2]. Greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related [[ACC|anterior cingulate activity]], suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern<ref>[http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Publications_files/Amodio_etal_2007_NatureNeuro.pdf Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature neuroscience, 10(10), 1246-1247.]</ref>. Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives<ref>Nail, P. R., McGregor, I., Drinkwater, A. E., Steele, G. M., & Thompson, A. W. (2009). Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 901-907.</ref> ==More=====Libertanism===Libertarians have less social bonding and they value most liberty and self creativity<ref>Iyer R, Koleva S, Graham J, Ditto P, Haidt J (2012) Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians. PLoS ONE 7(8): e42366. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042366</ref>  ===Power Distance Index=== The power distance index (PDI), describes how anequivlante sharing of power is accepted as legitimate. see [http://www.clearlycultural.com/geert-hofstede-cultural-dimensions/power-distance-index/ this site], and see how low Israel is on this scale. This article calim that PDI is important factor for grouth<ref>[http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~ygorodni/GorodnichenkoRoland_AEAPP.pdf Gorodnichenko, Yuriy, and Gerard Roland. "Which dimensions of culture matter for long-run growth?." The American Economic Review 101.3 (2011): 492-498.]</ref> ===Conservatives and God Complex===[http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/he/tim_harford.html Good complex et TED] WOW! write how he presuase, how Archy works to presuase people, and The god complex in conservatives. and the greatnes in liberal trial and error, and the chalngs he put before schools and politicians. (Fear and need for certainty, fits brain research.... and show how it fits)===Why liberals are socialists=== Th0: Abstract-Liberals have poor social intuitive understanding probably due to small volume of [[rACC]], and they have trouble to work at "productive jobs". Therefore they will prefer to avoid community help for the poor, and will prefer to let the government do the help for the poor. Thy will also resist capitalism, because capitalism emphasize "productivity", and therefore capitalism is inhospitable to liberals. Mild-Conservatives are more "productive" and are more closed-communities oriented; therefore they will prefer capitalism and self-helping communities. As people become more conservatives they more closed minded, adhere more to the "truth" and are more critical, their communities start to disintegrate. They will shift to "strong leadership" regimes like Theocratic regime or nationalistic regime. These regimes are usually working on "Justice" and much less on "Benevolence". [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 00:03, 26 December 2012 (IST) ===Extremism===Hadit suggest that extremism is caused by addiction to the reward in [[ventral stratium]] that people get whenever they are prove to be right (Hadit p. 100-103) ===Media influance on Conservatives, Liberas and Moderates=== Zaller’s (1992)<ref>Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref> reason-accept-sample model of public opinion hypothesizes that politi- cally knowledgeable individuals who have a liberal or conservative ideological bias can effectively filter out messages contrary to their ideology. Moderates and persons lacking political expertise fail to apply such filters and develop views representative of the larger media diet they consume. ===Other===I suspect that the NMDA have something to do with [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109124227.htm liberalsem-conservatism]