"The Republican Brain" by Chris Mooney. Interestin

Post Reply New Topic

I have not read this book. I live in the backwater
of Europe way up North so books from America
arrive a bit late here or don't arrive at all.

The Republican Brain:
The Science of Why They Deny Science--and Reality
by Chris Mooney

Link to Wiley The Publisher of the book
and here a text from New Scientist by the author.
Link to "Political divides begin in the brain".

I think this research support what Jonathan "Jon" Haidt also has done research on.
Moral system and how they differ politically.

Link to Uni of Virginia.edu Jon Haidt lab
The conventional view is that things like moral behavior and politics and religion are all
of them just cultural ideas that one chose due to intellectual rational or irrational preferences
but the research point to that some of those preferences can have to do with biological differences
in our brains.

Some people are more sensitive to lack of order and to novelty or lack of structure.
Others are biologically more tolerant to new things and don't fear to explore novel things.

Chris Mooney write something that I find very likely. That both political groups will
turn against this kind of science. We saw that tendency already to Jon Haidt and how
he interpreted his research.

The political spectrum differs a lot from country to country. The mainstream of GOP thinking would be thought of as outlandish in many Western countries. And Americans are not a separate race. Every Western country is now so socially liberal compared to 100 years ago that an average person from 100 years ago would think of us as moral degenerates. I can only conclude that people's opinions can and do change over generations, and that the American case is special only because a lot of money is put into giving Americans regressive opinions, since the American voter is so influential in the world.

There may be such a thing as a "Republican brain", but it can be realised in many different ways depending on the context. People are malleable.

Ah, so being a liberal now means accepting some form of biological determinism? How odd.

From the -wiki- article on Rush Holt


Holt was also only the second research physicist to be elected to Congress, and the first Democrat;[4] he joined Vern Ehlers (R-MI) and was later joined by Bill Foster (D-IL). Holt is now the only research physicist in the U.S. House of Representatives with the retirement of Ehlers and the defeat of Foster in 2010. Holt's supporters have produced green bumper stickers reading "My Congressman IS a rocket scientist!", reflecting his scientific background.


What do you know? A Republican congressman from Michigan who was a research physicist.

ruveyn

Yes even way back in the 1950 they where very much into repressive ideas.
The records of Elvis was smashed by conservative religious radio hosts for
being too sexy and in Radio Moscow they refused to play Elvis due to him
seen by them as a poster boy for capitalism.

Jazz musicians predicted Elvis would only last one or two years and then Jazz
would come back as the real music to listen to.

Change is always problematic for somebody holding on to what they are used to.

I would guess that the underlying biological trait has nothing to do with political or
religious conservative or liberal views. I trust it has to do with very basic feelings
of staying safe from uncertainty and fear of things one don't know what they leads to.

How that trait is expressed in cultural means or in religious or political ways
is very much like you say a contempory thing that is very muc up to trends and
go with the flow.

Take Christian Pentecostal Churches views on how a decent member of the Church
can wear cloth and have hair style. Back in 1950 here in Sweden they where extremely
strict and conservative not allowing hair to flow free and the dresses where conservative
not showing much skin at all. Now the younger girls say between 18 to 30 show very much
of skin. A huge difference in attitude to what is proper or not proper for a Christian girl.

But they are as conservative in attitude to Science and research. Literally believing
God created us just a few thousand years ago. Evolution being seen as the Devils
way of luring us away from the truth and so on.

How this biological trait get expressed is very much a zeitgeist thing. Following trends.

To WorldsEdge.

I don't think determinism has anything to do with it. Biology is not determinism.
How a trait get expressed is very much something culturally up to change.

Take Maoists in Sweden about 1973 or so. They where very much political Left
seen from their perspective but they where almost copies of fundamentalist conservatives
in their view on what cloth to wear and what music to listen to and their feelings of disgust
for "liberal views on sex" would make any Republican proud. A lot of the girls cut their
hair to not look sexy. They wanted to be Soldiers having uniform and not to be individuals.

A kind of political Left version of puritan conservative moral views.

The premise reminds me of Frank Burns from Mash. "Mr, when that flag goes up the pole each morning, I go with it!". There is certainly some truth to the stereotypes. Though Ive never met a Republican who was a fire breathing patriot during a war run by a Democrat.

As far as outlandish GOP views, it's interesting that while the denial of human evolution has broad support within the GOP it is infrequently mentioned by their leaders in DC. Republicans are more evenly divided on global warming but it's a frequent topic with thelr leadership.

i suspect many people in the science community favor the Democrats who lavish tax-payer funded handouts to scientists more frequently than do Republicans. Most scientists are on the government dole so it is not surprising that they favor those who provide the dole.

It is absolutely amazing what great result can be gotten by using other people's money.

ruveyn

Probably the fact that Democrats don't demonize certain types of scientists helps as well. I'd think it would be rather difficult for an evolutionary biologist to support a party whose candidate believes in intelligent design.

I will bet you never heard of a Republican Christian demonizing nuclear physics. That is what is used to make A-bombs and H-bombs.

ruveyn

True. Although, to be fair, the Democrats don't seem particularly keen on nuclear disarmament. They might (maybe) be a bit more cautious about using them, but that's all. I'm not claiming that I like the Democrats (I don't, particularly), just pointing out one of the many reasons I dislike the Republicans.

Also, I imagine that if asked the GOP would have some choice words for those who worked on the Manhattan Project and later expressed regret for their invention.

Pointy headed intellectuals.

ruveyn

Revision>>>Oops. I appear to have screwed up the quote tags. I hope this fixes that.

I was commenting on your link, specifically this:



Are you now saying what you posted is incorrect? After all, if "biological differences in our brains" cause us to behave, or not behave, in a certain fashion how is that not determinism?

I certainly agree that environment plays a role in how an individual's personality develops. If I gave the impression I think that nature vs. nurture is an either/or proposition, I apologize, on several levels. First, I don't agree with that idea myself. And, second, I don't think anyone who holds such views, from legitimate scientists like Steven Pinker to even crackpots Richard Lynn entirely rule out the role of environment.

I suppose what surprised me is simply the entire idea that certain traits, beliefs, and I guess behaviors arise as a result of nature and not nurture has now apparently become such a commonly held idea that, well, it isn't even really commented upon any longer. I would have thought the acolytes of Stephen Jay Gould (say) would have been on this study like ugly on an ape simply due to its claims of such-and-such behavior being innate. IOW, once upon a time the only respectable view to hold was that personality resulted from nurture, and that none, or next to none, from nature. This is apparently no longer the case, or at any rate is a position sliding out of the mainstream.

Hope that makes a bit more sense.



I would hardly consider a Maoist a liberal, circa 1973 in Sweden or not.



Well, they'd have my agreement about Abba...

Vern is the only Republican I've ever voted for. But that was back when Republicans were allowed to be more moderate. My parent's know the guy.

I am a right-winger but the current state the GOP is in well it has become a circus act.

the current Republican part is an embarrassment to anyone who favors limited government. There is not a viable mind at work in the party at this juncture. the current Republican Party is a pimp for Crony Capitalism.

ruveyn

I do give my full support to the liberatiarians who are in the GOP way to many fundies are in the GOP it is rather sad I support seperation of church and state don't like religion helping make political choices in the government.