Actions

Difference between revisions of "Conservatives and Liberals"

From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki

(→‎Brain Research)
(→‎Causes of Conservatism)
 
(151 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[[File:Lib-con summery.JPG|200px|thumb|right|Overview of the theory of conservatives and liberals]]
+
For 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. 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 differences between liberals and conservatives and the grounds for the schism, may help find devising deliberative process which will support a better mutual understanding and even agreed decisions.
  
  
−
[[File:Lib-con summery.JPG|200px|thumb|right|Overview of the theory of conservatives and liberals]]
 
  
 +
{{stub|[[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 03:46, 14 October 2014 (MDT)}}
  
 +
==description of liberalism and conservatism ==
  
−
==Paper==
+
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-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not."<ref>[http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Wright-and-Baril-2011-The-Role-of-Cognitive-Resources.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>
−
===The question===
 
−
Deliberate democracy aims at involving all the citizens in rational-communication which will help them make decisions according to reliable information that was produced in the intersubjective experience. While in the deliberation process we hope that people will change their minds according corroborated and reliable theories and evidences that stood the test of critical thinking, and will chose together the most suitable solution. Yet we know that large proportion of the population is conservative in mind, and according to research tend to resists change in world view, even in light of new information. This conflict between large scale participation and  the resistance to change by substantial  portion of the population is a challenge deliberative democracy developers need to address.
 
  
−
I suggest that if we will understand the mechanisms of resistance to change in the neurocognitive, psychological and social levels, we will be able to create better deliberation settings which will advance change of mind. In this paper I will focus on the neurocognitive mechanisms of rigidity of mind, and according to them I will suggest some basic deliberative settings which will promote more flexible thinking by participants of the deliberation process. In a following paper I  will suggest how social settings and psychological settings may create more Rome to change of mind.
+
Liberals are more moved by harm then conservatives and much more then libertants (see Haidt, 2102, Righteous in mind p. 212).
  
−
Conservatism is a social and psychological phenomena that is part of society. In every culture there are large proportion of people who resist changes in society. The proportion of conservatism in society may change according to many factors. Conservatism level may differ among cultures, and in the same culture in different times. Yet even in societies that are thought to be more liberal and in time the liberalism dominates the culture, conservatism, is strong and influential.
+
===Conservative Society===
  
−
====Properties of Conservative====
+
In conservative society, there is a tendency to align according to legitimate theories and customs. People afraid to think differently, otherwise they will be criticized heavily, as enemies or as collaborators with the enemy. This is probably due to the need for closure and the feelings of threats.
  
−
From the early 50s, the causes of conservatism was the scope of wide research. Jost et al<ref>Jost et al. 2003...</ref> has done extensive literature review and summed the findings from 88 samples, involving a near of 23,000 participants from 12 countries. They have found that conservatism is correlated to several factors related to cognitive needs, and to existential motivation.  They found that conservatism is associate with mental rigidty, increased dogmatism and intolarance to ambiguty, decress in cognitive complexity, decreased openness to new experience, uncertainty avoidance, personal need for structure and order and a need for closure.  In the existential needs, low self esteem  may promote resistance to change.  Fear anger and anxiety, fear of death, hard economic periods and the instability ofthe economic system were all found to promote conservatism.
+
Observed: Doron Tzur, 2013, private talks.; Tal Yaron, establishing the forum in Kedumim 2007.
  
−
====Suggested causes of the properties====
+
Conservative tend to look only on evidence for the justice of their country, and to dismiss evidence to the contrary.
−
(explain what these correlations are caused by fear and managing uncertainty)
 
−
Jost et al speculated that the properties of conservatives are the product of two basic needs. The first is the need to mange fears and to handle threats, and the second is to achieve certainty.(explain how this is corrolated). For instance dogmatism and a need to closure, will help a person that needs certainty, to reduce the complexity of options and information and achieve decisions more easily. It may not be the best option or the most subtle decision, but it will ease up decision making.  
 
  
−
A closed mind is also useful in cases of threats. During the evolution most of the threats needed fast reactions that depend on quick decision making. If a gazelle will not react properly to a threat in splits of a second, it may become the next meal of a predator. In light of a threat complex thinking is not adaptive and strait and simple thinking is needed. Evolution drove creatures to develop a system that will produce fast reactions to threats. This system is widely spread in the animal world, and is also part of the reaction system of humans. It is called "fight or flight".  In the human world some of the threats can evolve slowly or may take much more time to affect, yet probably because the fight or flight reaction is so conserved, people will use it even in light of slow evolving threat. People may react with anger to news in the media about rape or some misdeeds, although there is no immediate threat, and therefor no immediate need to reaction.  
+
Conservatives show more anger towards criminals<ref>Fodor, Wick, Hartsen, & Preve, 2008</ref>. Conservatives are more happey due to social conformation<ref>Schlenker, Barry R., John R. Chambers, and Bonnie M. Le. "Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction." Journal of Research in Personality 46.2 (2012): 127-146.‏</ref>
  
−
So although part of the threats we conceive do not need quick decision making, the reaction that was evolved through evolution still take charge, and people will look for more simple and strait-forward thinking while perceiving a threat.  Dogmatism and closed mindedness are just these simple thinking, in a reaction to a threat, and because conservatives perceive the world as more threatening, they will be more dogmatic as a reaction to a perceived menace.  
+
==Environmental Causes for Conservatism and Liberalism==
 +
Conservatism and liberalism as reactions to environmental states.
  
−
Decreased openness to experience are also the product reaction to threat and reducing uncertainty. When seeking to find working solutions, new experience may may take time and usage of brain process needed to evaluate the different established options that can produce a more certain solution. New experience may be thrilling, but to establish high certainty based on new solution need experiencing the... solution time after time....
+
Based on [[Haidt Moral Foundations Theory|Haidt findings]] I suggest that liberalism and conservatism are reactions to environmental state. Haidt found that liberal and conservatives differ in their attitude toward six typical values. I'll suggest that these differences of attitude may stem reactions to different environmental situations. Liberalism may stem from a reaction to  safe and abundant environment while conservatism may be a reaction to dangerous environment which is scarce of resources.  
  
−
Also, when in danger, seeking for new experience is not adaptive. While in danger, we have to decide fast, and try to decide according to our already established knowledge, which actions to take.  Therefore, people who perceive the world as more dangerous, will seek certainty, and will try to avoid the ambiguity that came along with new experience.  
+
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 ''k selection''. R selection is a strategy suited for an environment which is dangerous and has scarce resources. In this strategy, creatures tend to give birth to many offsprings and they tend to give them minimal resources in their nurture. In such strategy, some of the offsprings may survive the harsh conditions and the dangers. For instance some kinds of fishes ten to lay ten of thousands of eags, and they don't take care of them. from such multitude, only few survive predation ang go into adulthood.  But when the environment is safer and there are more resources, creatures 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.  
  
 +
It seems that  that  r and k strategies, also apply to breeding patterns in humane societies. Liberal societies where there are plenty of resources and life are safe tend to sustain a lower birth ratio compared to conservative societies, in which poverty is prevailing and life are less protected.
  
−
====The causes in the light of brain research====
+
While r and k selection is well documented strategies for birth, I'll suggest that  conservatism and liberalism are two strategies for group behavior in the face of dangerous or safe environment. One of the reason that help me suggest such hypothesis is a research done by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt found that conservatives and liberals have different attitudes towards six values. The values are loyalty, respect for authority, fairness, sexuality, defend from harm and liberty. Liberals tend to value loyalty and authority less then conservatives. Liberals tend to have a less strict need for controlling the sexuality. Conservatives tend to legitimize punishment of insubordinate individuals and groups, while liberals tend to defend the unorthodox. Conservatives see fairness as a reward for an investment, while liberals tend to share more resources and distribute them more evenly, regardless of one's investment. And of course, liberals tend to value liberty in the face of society more then conservatives does. 
−
(Fear and need for certainty, fits brain research.... and show how it fits)   
 
  
−
Jost et al. hypothesis, fits well to the new understandings of how the brain works.
+
it 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 based on reciprocity and that hard work is needed for one to earn his living, can help encourage people to work hard in an environment where resources are scarce. On the other hand, in a state of abundance, where there is plenty to go around, there is no need to work hard to obtain resources. In this case people can share more resources.
  
−
Conservatives are more afraid ([http://www.talyaron.com/wiki/index.php?title=Political_Attitudes_Vary_with_Physiological_Traits,_science_2008  appear in this paper])
+
==high levels proposed causes of liberalism and conservatism==
 +
===Causes of conservatism===
 +
Some genes differ between conservatives and liberal<ref>[http://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-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes." Journal of Politics 73.1 (2011): 271-285.‏]</ref>, asspecialy genes related to [[NMDA]] and [[serotonin]].
  
−
FFFF inhibits the ACC<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2701368/pdf/nihms98729.pdf Tracy A. Dennis and Chao-Cheng Chen, Trait anxiety and conflict monitoring following threat: An ERP study, Psychophysiology. 2009 January; 46(1): 122–131.]</ref><ref>Kristin A. Bussa, Tracy A. Dennisb, Rebecca J. Brookera, Lauren M. Sippela, An ERP study of conflict monitoring in 4–8-year old children: Associations with temperament, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, Volume 1, Issue 2, April 2011, Pages 131–140</ref>. In fear the rostral ACC is responding to threat stimulis<ref>[http://bishoplab.berkeley.edu/bishopnn.pdf S Bishop, J Duncan, M Brett, AD Lawrence, Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: controlling attention to threat-related stimuli, Nature neuroscience, 2004]</ref>. and it take resources frome the dorsal ACC, that is responible for cognitive conflict resulotion<ref>19</ref><ref>31</ref><ref>g (Easterbrook, 1959; Hanoch & Vitouch,
+
Enviromental threat elvate conservatism<ref>Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The Impact of Social Threat on Worldview and Ideological Attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199–222. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00322</ref>. For instance, [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10884617/Middle-aged-professional-men-who-vote-Tory-most-likely-to-be-victims-of-road-rage.html middle-aged, professional men who vote Tory most likely to be victims of road rage].
−
2004; Leith & Baumeister, 1996;Meinhardt & Pekrun, 2003; Wood, Mathews, & Dalgleish,
 
−
2001)</ref>. The threat do not influance much in non-clinicla groups<ref>13, 29</ref>. but can be observed in clinical populations<ref>32</ref>. In anxiaty, the main mechanism, is of attention distraction<ref>9, 19, 32</ref>.It is because of law rostral ACC acitivity (thus inability to concntrate) and reduced recurtment of laterl PFC (used for high control)<ref>[http://bishoplab.berkeley.edu/bishopnn.pdf S Bishop, J Duncan, M Brett, AD Lawrence, Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: controlling attention to threat-related stimuli, Nature neuroscience, 2004]</ref>. It was found that in highy enxialty (in clinical population) the anxities showed less activation of the rosteral ACC, thus there are less able to disengage from the fear cause, and thus elevate fear levels.
 
  
−
====Suggested mechanism for conservatism====
+
Jost et al, did a very large survey on research about conservatism. They have found two main causes for conservatism. One is a reaction to a state of fear, and the other is a reaction to a need to do work in limited time<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>. 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>[http://www.yorku.ca/ianmc/readings/NailMcGregorConservativeLiberalsJESP2009.pdf 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>.
−
=====Basic Mechanism=====
 
−
explain mechanism:
 
−
* FFFF -{ACCi -> mostly system1;(v)
 
−
** FFFF-> seratonin->solidarity; (Paper 2010 and some others (v))
 
−
* X(need to do work)-{ACCi -> mainly system1; (learn dorsal ACC (?))
 
−
* ACCa -> search for novelity (some reward) (learn Dorsal ACC +gene for novility Dopamin2)
 
  
−
Fear or need for work -> system1
+
Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals<ref>[http://yoelinbar.nfshost.com/papers/disgust_conservatism.pdf Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714-725.]</ref>. People with anxiety tend to make more conservative decisions and use vocabulary with more negative words<ref>Peng, J., Xiao, W., Yang, Y., Wu, S., & Miao, D. (2013). The Impact of Trait Anxiety on Self-frame and Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</ref>.People that where exposed to priming of uncleanlesnes<ref>[http://erikhelzer.squarespace.com/storage/HelzerPizarro2011.pdf Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). Dirty liberals!: Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517-522.]</ref> or bad taste<ref>Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A Bad Taste in the Mouth Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295–299.</ref>become more conservatives.
  
−
system2
+
"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-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not. Our study examined two alternative hypotheses for this difference—the first being 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>
  
−
Folllow by examples
+
This strength the idea that conservatives uses their self-regulation to be social? while the other say that implicit....
−
=====Advance Mechanism=====
 
−
complex mechanism: areas of lib/con..... illiberals.....
 
  
−
Follow by examples
+
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>
  
−
OK, we established theortical frame.
+
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]]).
  
−
====Discussion, or  What can we do?====
+
'''[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.
−
If FFFF and Certainty are the cause of con, then by changing them, we can start change the settings, so we can reduce ACC inhibition. When people get familier, they are less stressed--> reduction of fear....food, basic needs satisified...; certainty: I prime them by saing, we do not have to decide now, or it will not influance the future, or we do not have to solve anything.... or truth talk (avoid uncritical type II discusion), give yourself time....
 
  
−
==Letriture review==
+
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.
−
===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 [[Paper: Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or,  Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust ,George Lakoff, 1995|the phenomena was done by Lakoff]]<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>[[Paper: Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jost et al. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375|Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition, Jost et al. Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375]]</ref>
+
==The causes in the light of brain research==
  
−
===Causes of Lib-Con===
+
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>.
  
−
Conservatives are more fearful, while liberals are more calm<ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5896/1667.full Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits, 2008, Hibbing et al. Science] ([http://www.talyaron.com/wiki/index.php?title=Political_Attitudes_Vary_with_Physiological_Traits,_science_2008 Hebrew summery])</ref>. Conservatives percives thetening faces as more threatning<ref>[http://precedings.nature.com/documents/2414/version/1/files/npre20082414-1.pdf JM. Vigil (2008) Facial Expression Processing Varies with Political Affiliation, Nature]</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>.  
  
−
There is a connection between liberalism and intelegence<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x/full The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind Dana R. Carney, John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling3, Jeff Potter4, ''Political Psychology'', Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 807–840, December 2008]</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.  
  
−
===self motivation for conservatism===
+
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.
−
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. Thompson, 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 and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects of impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19,448–468.</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 the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing.” Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.</ref>
 
−
** Mental fatigue (Ego deplition)<ref>Webster, D. M., Richter, L., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). On leaping 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 for closure effects on the use of shared and unique information. Unpublished
 
−
doctoral 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 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-mindnessnes.
 
  
−
'''[http://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 legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don't adhere to them. 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>:
+
It seems that open-mindedness according to Cognitive Reflection Test is not correlated with [[Conservatives and Liberals|conservatism]]<ref>[http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/7/31/motivated-system-2-reasoning-experimental-evidence-its-signi.html 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.
−
* “a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate”;
 
−
* “a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, whichis perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities”; and
 
−
* “a high degree of adherence to the social conventions which are perceived to be endorsed by society” .
 
  
 +
'''Conclusions''':
  
−
'''Need for closure''' comply to regin idealogy<ref>Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Simon, L. (1999). Effects of epistemic motivation on conservatism, intolerance, and other system justifying attitudes. In L. Thompson, D. M. Messick, & J. M. Levine (Eds.),Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.</ref><ref>Golec, A. (2001, July). Need for cognitive closure 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, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref>. All in all, people with high need for closure will prefer rigid, construct and well defined theories<ref>Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. New York: Plenum.</ref>.
+
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.
  
−
'''[[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 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 and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.</ref><ref>Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as amotivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–45.</ref>.
+
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.  
  
−
'''Terror Management 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>, 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 reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308—318.</ref><ref>Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Lyon,D.(1989). Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 68 1—690.</ref>.Greenberg at al, suggested that TMT will no lead to conservatism, but just to strengthening 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>.
 
  
−
'''Just world theory''': The just-world hypothesis (or just-world fallacy) is the cognitive bias that all human actions eventually yield morally fair and fitting consequences, so that, ultimately: noble actions are duly rewarded and evil actions are duly punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to, or expect consequences as the result of, an unspecified power that restores moral balance; the fallacy is that this implies (often unintentionally) the existence of such a power in terms of some cosmic force of justice, desert, stability, or order in the universe.
+
----
 +
Stop here
 +
----
  
−
The fallacy popularly appears in the English language in various figures of speech, which often imply a negative reprisal of justice, such as: "You got what was coming to you," "What goes around comes around," and "You reap what you sow." This phenomenon 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 and Methods, in Leo Montada & M.J. Lerner (Eds.). Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World (1–7). Plenum Press: New York</ref>. Since that time, research has continued, examining the predictive capacity of the hypothesis in various situations and across cultures, 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>.
 
  
−
===Group motivation for conservatism===
+
===Amygdala and ACC===
−
'''Social Dominance Theory''' (SDO): According to social dominance theory, human societies strive to minimize group conflict by developing ideological belief systems that justify the hegemony of some groups over others<ref>Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 191—263.</ref><ref>Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.</ref><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). Durham, NC: Duke University Press</ref><ref>Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press</ref><ref>Sidanius, J., Prattu, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal 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 lead. (c) Sacred myth, which give dominence to one group over others by the authourity 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>.
 
  
−
SDO and RWA compose of 50% of the statisitcal varience of prejudice and athnocentrism, which is large part of the affectors (Altemeyer 1998 p. 47). SDO is more dominante and RWA is more submissive<ref>“Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47—91). New York: Academic Press. in p.75</ref>. as Jost et al put it "One 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>.
+
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>.  
  
−
===Main Causes of Conservatism===
+
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>
−
[[File:Jost et al - Conservatism motives.gif|200px|thumb|right|The causes of conservatism according to Jost et al (2003)]]
 
−
[[File:Yaron - Causes of conservatism 2012.gif|200px|thumb|right|The causes of conservatism according to [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] (2012)]]
 
  
−
"Theoretical and empirical considerations lead us to conclude that virtually all of the above motives originate in psychological attempts to '''manage uncertainty and fear'''<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. 351. left col middle)</ref>."These, in turn, are inherently related to the two core aspects of conservative thought mentioned earlier—resistance to change and the endorsement of inequality".Thus, epistemic needs affect the style and manner by which individuals seek to overcome uncertainty and the fear of the unknown<ref>Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay episremics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational basis. New York: Plenum.</ref><ref>Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: BasicBooks. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Sorrentino, R. M., & Runey, C. I. R. (2000). The uncertain mind: Individual differences in facing the unknown. Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis</ref><ref>Wilson, 0. D. (lid.). (l973). The psychology of conservatism. London: Academic Press</ref>. Existential motives, too, involve a desire for certainty 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 of need for closure and permeability of group boundaries. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79, 923—932.</ref><ref>McGregor, I., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, 1. 0., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). Compensatory conviction in the face of personal uncertainty: Going to extremes and being oneself. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 80, 472—488.</ref>.
+
(Brain sections)
  
−
===Socio-Psycho Research===
+
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>.
−
Evidence for and against the hypotheses that political conservatism is significantly associated with:
 
−
* Cognitive needs
 
−
** mental rigidity and closed-mindedness - The most contributng factor is mental rigidty<ref>Adorno et al., 1950, in [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Rokeach, 1960 [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Wilson 1973c [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref><ref>Christie
 
−
1954 [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).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>(e.g., Gruenfeld, 1995;
 
−
Sidanius, 1985, 1988; Tetlock, 1983, 1984) in [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. Recent work on personal need for structure<ref>Schaller et al., 1995, in Jost2003</ref> and the need for cognitive closure<ref>D. M. Webster & Kruglanski, 1994 in Jost2003</ref> helps to complete the picture.
 
−
**increased dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity - The right wingers are much more mentaly rigid (dogmatice) the left-wing extremists <ref>Barker, E. N. (1963). Authoritarianism of the political right, center, and left. Journal of Social Issues, 19, 63—74.</ref>, according to the reserch in the field<ref>Altemeyer (1981, 1998) in Jost2003</ref><ref>Billig (1984) in Jost 2003</ref><ref>s (Barker, 1963; Christie, 1991; Elms, 1969; Pettigrew, 1958; Rokeach, 1960; Smithers & Lobley, 1978; Stacey & Green, 1971) in [http://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003]</ref>. 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://www.sulloway.org/PoliticalConservatism(2003).pdf Jost 2003] p. 353</ref>, but these results are not conclusive. Sidanius 1984/8 found that extremists from both sides are more engaged in political information search and conversation. but over-all conservatism is more related to lower cognitive complexity; r=-.2 p<0.0001
 
−
** decreased openness to experience, in nonhuman experience. r=-.32 p<0.001 (Jost et al. 2003). Joe et al., found that cons. like to participate in decision making and humor experiments.
 
−
** uncertainty avoidance: r=.34 p<0.0001 to conservatism (Jost et al. 2003). conservatives prefer simple and realistic paintings (Mathews 1973). Cons do not like to change work habits or use new technology (Fay and Frase 2000). r=-.27 p<0.001
 
−
** personal needs for order and structure: cons like more tidy and representative clothing and are more tidy.(Altemyer 1998).
 
−
**need for cognitive closure
 
−
* Existential motives.
 
−
** lowered self-esteem: lower self-esteem, produce impulsive closure. failure promotes cons behavior. r=-.09 p<0.001
 
−
** fear, anger, and aggression: fear and threat correlate with con r=.18 p<.0001. neuroticism r=.3 p<.0001
 
−
** pessimism, disgust, and contempt: more research is needed (Jost et al. 2003). not enough research was done on parental role and cons.
 
−
** loss prevention: hard cons react better to loss prevention massages (Lavine et al 1999)
 
−
** fear of death. very high correlation.
 
−
** threat arising from social and economic deprivation - high rise of nazi after 1929 economic crises. but Jost fail to observe that there is rise of extremism on both sides. There seems that there was also rise in Communism.
 
−
** threat to the stability ofthe social system: In time of crises there is growing need for strong leadership and conservatism.
 
  
−
===Brain Research===
 
  
−
Conservatives have lack of [[empathy]].
 
  
−
People with more activation in the dorsal [[ACC]], tend be more suspitable to PTSD<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724666 Shin ML et al., Exaggerated activation of dorsal anterior cingulate cortex during cognitive interference: a monozygotic twin study of posttraumatic stress disorder, 2011]</ref>. (May be the more fearful need to use their dACC to calculate different options?). Where as people with ADD, which promote liberalism showed reduced activation of what seems to be the d[[ACC]]<ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322399000839 Bush et al., Anterior cingulate cortex dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder revealed by fMRI and the counting stroop,1999]</ref>.The dACC active in conflict monitoring<ref>[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661304002657 Conflict monitoring and anteriorcingulatecortex: an update, 2004]</ref>, (and it may be that ADD will decide more impulsivly. But if they have stress, they (fear from failure) they will be unable to decide, as I have seen with my trainees [[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 08:31, 11 September 2012 (IDT)).
+
(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>. 
  
−
Sadness enhances the experience of pain via neural [[ACC|activation in the anterior cingulate cortex]] and amygdala<ref>[ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811909012658Atsou et al., Sadness enhances the experience of pain via neural activation in the anteriorcingulatecortex and amygdala: An fMRI study, 2009]</ref>.The Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Modulates the Efficiency of Amygdala-Dependent Fear Learning<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2880388/ Bissieree et al., The Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Modulates the Efficiency of Amygdala-Dependent Fear Learning, 2008]</ref>.
 
  
−
Learning is induced because of surprise. The d[[ACC]] is concerned more with attention and motor control processes involved in behavioral adjustment. The dopamine [[RPE]] system is the process from which a learning is happening<ref>Benjamin Y. Hayden1,2, Sarah R. Heilbronner, John M. Pearson, and Michael L. Platt, Surprise Signals in Anterior Cingulate Cortex: Neuronal Encoding of Unsigned Reward Prediction Errors Driving Adjustment in Behavior, ''The Journal of Neuroscience'', 16 March 2011, 31(11): 4178-4187</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>.
  
−
[[Emotional processing in anterior cingulate and medial prefrontal cortex, 2011]]
+
(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).
  
−
==Further readings==
+
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>.
−
* [http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives], on TED.
+
 
−
* Jazvic said (look at Kahnman p. 67)that new experience is danger, and therefore, human an animals will avoid new exprience: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect mere-exprience effect]. (especially if [[FFFF]] is working....)
+
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>.
−
* Kahnman in thinking slow and fast p.76, said that in time of danger, it is to risky to relay on the mistakes of system 1, and therefore you will use System 2. I am not sure it is true, unless you have time and [[self control]] to activate system 2. maybe smart conservative will be more dependent on system 2.
+
 
 +
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 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]
 +
 
 +
Damage to the [[PFC]] can cause religious foundementalisem<ref>Zhong, Wanting, et al. "Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism." Neuropsychologia (2017).‏APA</ref>
 +
 
 +
===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.
 +
 
 +
==Conclusions==
 +
Base on previous research I will suggest that the basic difference between liberals and conservatives is the perception of state of threat from some source in the sounding, and the do-explore state, people are in.
 +
 
 +
[[conservatism|Conservatism]] and [[liberalism|Liberalism]] in the context of deliberation is states of mind that create different understandings and reactions to wide variety of issues. When people in the state of mind of conservatism they usually will be less suspitable to adopt new ideas, they will be more planed-action driven and sometimes more aggressive or fearful<ref>[http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=poliscifacpub&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.il%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Diw%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1026%2526context%253Dpoliscifacpub%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm06hrHGDT1Hjj8pNKxLQjtPRgZVpg%26oi%3Dscholarr%26ei%3DlU2vUIwVqqfRBfqCgbgN%26ved%3D0CB4QgAMoADAA#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1026%26context%3D 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>. Conservatism is driving people to group more closely<ref>[http://www.charlielawing.com/metaphor_and_politics.pdf Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust. Social Research, 62(2), 177–213.]</ref>. On a state of liberalism, people will be more ready to exam new ideas, be less action driven, and more friendly and cooperative toward strangers. In liberalism state, people tend to be more individualistic or to get along according to occasionally sharing of interests.
 +
 
 +
Conservatives has more need for clouser, while liberals can take more ambiguity. This is due to the [[FFFF]] mode that results from their preception of strangers as threat.
 +
 
 +
Recently I have seen that Liberals and Conservatives can also be looked at as [[thinkers and doers|Thinkers and Doers]]
 +
 
 +
See also: [[Conservatives and Liberals: literature review]]
 +
 
 +
===Other===
 +
I suspect that the NMDA have something to do with [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130109124227.htm liberalsem-conservatism]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Latest revision as of 00:37, 9 May 2017

For 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. 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 differences between liberals and conservatives and the grounds for the schism, may help find devising deliberative process which will support a better mutual understanding and even agreed decisions.


framless

This page is a stub. It is not ready for publication and is used to aggregate information about a subject. You can add further reading and add information to the page. If you want to prepare this page for publication please consults with the creator of this page.
Tal Yaron 03:46, 14 October 2014 (MDT)

description of liberalism and conservatism

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-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not."[1]

Liberals are more moved by harm then conservatives and much more then libertants (see Haidt, 2102, Righteous in mind p. 212).

Conservative Society

In conservative society, there is a tendency to align according to legitimate theories and customs. People afraid to think differently, otherwise they will be criticized heavily, as enemies or as collaborators with the enemy. This is probably due to the need for closure and the feelings of threats.

Observed: Doron Tzur, 2013, private talks.; Tal Yaron, establishing the forum in Kedumim 2007.

Conservative tend to look only on evidence for the justice of their country, and to dismiss evidence to the contrary.

Conservatives show more anger towards criminals[2]. Conservatives are more happey due to social conformation[3]

Environmental Causes for Conservatism and Liberalism

Conservatism and liberalism as reactions to environmental states.

Based on Haidt findings I suggest that liberalism and conservatism are reactions to environmental state. Haidt found that liberal and conservatives differ in their attitude toward six typical values. I'll suggest that these differences of attitude may stem reactions to different environmental situations. Liberalism may stem from a reaction to safe and abundant environment while conservatism may be a reaction to dangerous environment which is scarce of 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 k selection. R selection is a strategy suited for an environment which is dangerous and has scarce resources. In this strategy, creatures tend to give birth to many offsprings and they tend to give them minimal resources in their nurture. In such strategy, some of the offsprings may survive the harsh conditions and the dangers. For instance some kinds of fishes ten to lay ten of thousands of eags, and they don't take care of them. from such multitude, only few survive predation ang go into adulthood. But when the environment is safer and there are more resources, creatures 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.

It seems that that r and k strategies, also apply to breeding patterns in humane societies. Liberal societies where there are plenty of resources and life are safe tend to sustain a lower birth ratio compared to conservative societies, in which poverty is prevailing and life are less protected.

While r and k selection is well documented strategies for birth, I'll suggest that conservatism and liberalism are two strategies for group behavior in the face of dangerous or safe environment. One of the reason that help me suggest such hypothesis is a research done by Jonathan Haidt. Haidt found that conservatives and liberals have different attitudes towards six values. The values are loyalty, respect for authority, fairness, sexuality, defend from harm and liberty. Liberals tend to value loyalty and authority less then conservatives. Liberals tend to have a less strict need for controlling the sexuality. Conservatives tend to legitimize punishment of insubordinate individuals and groups, while liberals tend to defend the unorthodox. Conservatives see fairness as a reward for an investment, while liberals tend to share more resources and distribute them more evenly, regardless of one's investment. And of course, liberals tend to value liberty in the face of society more then conservatives does.

it 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 based on reciprocity and that hard work is needed for one to earn his living, can help encourage people to work hard in an environment where resources are scarce. On the other hand, in a state of abundance, where there is plenty to go around, there is no need to work hard to obtain resources. In this case people can share more resources.

high levels proposed causes of liberalism and conservatism

Causes of conservatism

Some genes differ between conservatives and liberal[4], asspecialy genes related to NMDA and serotonin.

Enviromental threat elvate conservatism[5]. For instance, middle-aged, professional men who vote Tory most likely to be victims of road rage.

Jost et al, did a very large survey on research about conservatism. They have found two main causes for conservatism. One is a reaction to a state of fear, and the other is a reaction to a need to do work in limited time[6]. 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[7].

Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals[8]. People with anxiety tend to make more conservative decisions and use vocabulary with more negative words[9].People that where exposed to priming of uncleanlesnes[10] or bad taste[11]become more conservatives.

"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-group, authority, and purity (the “binding” foundations) while liberals do not. Our study examined two alternative hypotheses for this difference—the first being 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."[12]

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.[13]

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).

ideo-attribution effect: 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.

The 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[14]. 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[15] [16]. The amygdala is involved social learning, and especially fear conditioning [17][18]. 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)[19]. The other implications of enlarged amygdala are that conservatives having enlarged amygdala will be more sensitive to threat[20]. Conservatives detect threatening faces more easily, with less effort[21]. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals[22]. 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[23].

The ACC, which is more active in liberals, is involved in conflict detection[24], and it is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge when people are puzzled [25][26]. 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 [27]. This may explain why on everage, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives [28].

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[29].

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[30]. This may be explained by the finding that the Amygdala can be controlled by the ACC[31]. 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[32]. The left insula is involved in warmth and painful sensations[33]. 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 conservatism[34]. 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[35]. 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[36] [37]. The Amygdala is involved emotional learning, and especially fear conditioning [38][39].The ACC is active in conflict detection [40]. And is a major player in the process of creating novel knowledge after puzels [41][42].

Also it was found that conservatives handle risk with the right amygdala, while liberals deal the same tasks with the left insula[43]. The insula is thought to be involve in risk prediction error[44]

(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 [45].


(Insula)The left insula was fund to be connected to warmth and painful sensations [46]. this suggest that conservatives are feeling more threat[47].

It was found the liberals reacts better to conflict detection, and their anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) was more active during conflict detecting [48].


The Amygdala can be controlled by the rACC [49].

(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[50]. Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals [51].

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.[52].

Liberals are more trusting but have smaller social networks, while conservatives find faster threatening facial emotion and have larger social networks[53].

Conservatives detect threatening faces more easly. With less stress[54].


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 [55]. 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[56].



Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly they adjust to liberal morals[57]

Conservatives, is suggested, are more aware of social asspects, due to more learning through the amygdala, and therefore conform to society[58]

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[59]. 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[60].

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 Amodio 2012

Damage to the PFC can cause religious foundementalisem[61]

Causes of Liberalism

Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent[62]

Liberals have the same implicit intuitions about moral, but explicitly the adjust to liberal morals[63]

it seems that conservatives uses more [system 1] while liberals uses more of [system 2].

Greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern[64].

Threat causes liberals to think like conservatives[65]

More

Libertanism

Libertarians have less social bonding and they value most liberty and self creativity[66]

Power Distance Index

The power distance index (PDI), describes how anequivlante sharing of power is accepted as legitimate. see this site, and see how low Israel is on this scale. This article calim that PDI is important factor for grouth[67]

Conservatives and God Complex

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". 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)[68] 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.

Conclusions

Base on previous research I will suggest that the basic difference between liberals and conservatives is the perception of state of threat from some source in the sounding, and the do-explore state, people are in.

Conservatism and Liberalism in the context of deliberation is states of mind that create different understandings and reactions to wide variety of issues. When people in the state of mind of conservatism they usually will be less suspitable to adopt new ideas, they will be more planed-action driven and sometimes more aggressive or fearful[69]. Conservatism is driving people to group more closely[70]. On a state of liberalism, people will be more ready to exam new ideas, be less action driven, and more friendly and cooperative toward strangers. In liberalism state, people tend to be more individualistic or to get along according to occasionally sharing of interests.

Conservatives has more need for clouser, while liberals can take more ambiguity. This is due to the FFFF mode that results from their preception of strangers as threat.

Recently I have seen that Liberals and Conservatives can also be looked at as Thinkers and Doers

See also: Conservatives and Liberals: literature review

Other

I suspect that the NMDA have something to do with liberalsem-conservatism

References

  1. ↑ 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.
  2. ↑ Fodor, Wick, Hartsen, & Preve, 2008
  3. ↑ Schlenker, Barry R., John R. Chambers, and Bonnie M. Le. "Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction." Journal of Research in Personality 46.2 (2012): 127-146.‏
  4. ↑ Hatemi, Peter K., et al. "A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes." Journal of Politics 73.1 (2011): 271-285.‏
  5. ↑ Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The Impact of Social Threat on Worldview and Ideological Attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199–222. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00322
  6. ↑ Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
  7. ↑ 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
  8. ↑ Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714-725.
  9. ↑ Peng, J., Xiao, W., Yang, Y., Wu, S., & Miao, D. (2013). The Impact of Trait Anxiety on Self-frame and Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
  10. ↑ Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). Dirty liberals!: Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517-522.
  11. ↑ Eskine, K. J., Kacinik, N. A., & Prinz, J. J. (2011). A Bad Taste in the Mouth Gustatory Disgust Influences Moral Judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295–299.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ 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.
  14. ↑ Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
  15. ↑ Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.
  16. ↑ 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
  17. ↑ 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
  18. ↑ LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629
  19. ↑ 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
  20. ↑ 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.
  21. ↑ Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.
  22. ↑ Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.
  23. ↑ 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.
  24. ↑ 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.
  25. ↑ 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.
  26. ↑ Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.
  27. ↑ 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.
  28. ↑ 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
  29. ↑ 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
  30. ↑ 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
  31. ↑ 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.
  32. ↑ 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.
  33. ↑ 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
  34. ↑ Dan Kahan (2013), Motivated system 2 reasoning--experimental evidence & its significance for explaining political polarization - review
  35. ↑ Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
  36. ↑ Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.
  37. ↑ 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
  38. ↑ 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
  39. ↑ LeDoux, J. (2004). The Emotional Brain, Fear, and the Amygdala. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, 23(4-5), 727–738. doi:10.1023/A:1025048802629
  40. ↑ 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.
  41. ↑ 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.
  42. ↑ Holroyd, C. B., & Yeung, N. (2012). Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(2), 122–128.
  43. ↑ 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.
  44. ↑ 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.
  45. ↑ 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
  46. ↑ 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
  47. ↑ 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.
  48. ↑ 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.
  49. ↑ 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.
  50. ↑ 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
  51. ↑ Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.
  52. ↑ 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.
  53. ↑ 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
  54. ↑ Giuseffi, K. (2012). Processing Facial Emotions: An EEG Study of the Differences between Conservatives and Liberals and Across Political Participation. University of Nebraska.
  55. ↑ 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
  56. ↑ Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33–57.
  57. ↑ 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.
  58. ↑ 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.
  59. ↑ Jost, J., & Amodio, D. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot, 36, 55–64.
  60. ↑ 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.
  61. ↑ Zhong, Wanting, et al. "Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism." Neuropsychologia (2017).‏APA
  62. ↑ Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33-57.
  63. ↑ 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.
  64. ↑ 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.
  65. ↑ 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.
  66. ↑ 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
  67. ↑ Gorodnichenko, Yuriy, and Gerard Roland. "Which dimensions of culture matter for long-run growth?." The American Economic Review 101.3 (2011): 492-498.
  68. ↑ Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  69. ↑ 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.
  70. ↑ Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, Morality, and Politics, Or, Why Conservatives Have Left Liberals In the Dust. Social Research, 62(2), 177–213.
Retrieved from "http://www.delib.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conservatives_and_Liberals&oldid=3679"