Conservatives
Need More Space Than Liberals
"Imagine
that, eight million people all wanting to live together...New York City
must be the friendliest place on earth..."
Crocodile Dundee
Humans
are rather unusual among the primates when it comes to how they distribute
themselves over territory--it seems they don't follow the usual rule
of constant population density. At least the Liberals don't. It seems
that Liberals are not very adverse to high-density urban lifestyles,
and are more likely to seek them out.
| Big
Cities |
39% |
60% |
| Smaller Cities |
49% |
49% |
| Suburbs |
52% |
47% |
| Small Towns |
50% |
48% |
| Rural |
59% |
40% |
|
|
|
2004 US Presidential Election Results by Community Size
However,
the Conservatives tend to have quite a different view--they don't like
big cities much. This dislike is especially prominent among the caucasian
Conservatives. Of the 1,162 people that have so far responded to our
Fall 2005 survey, we asked: Do you like to spend a lot of time in
big cities? The responses we received were rather interesting:
Those NOT preferring to spend time in a big city
(VL=Very Liberal, L=Liberal, C=Conservative, VC=Very Conservative)
These percentages represent those that do NOT like to spend a
lot of time in a big city. This
might explain one of the most pervasive phenomena in American politics---the
liberalistic tendencies of big cities. The question is, why do Liberals
and Conservatives hold such different opinions?
The
Conservative aversion to high-density environments is more consistent
with the behavior of primates in general---it is the Liberal preference
that is unusual. In our previous research, we have seen that Liberals
are not as suspicious of strangers. This tendency certainly lowers the
overall threat assessment that a city presents. The Liberals are also
more tolerant of lower birth rates, another characteristic of heavily
urbanized living. Obviously
the Conservative orientation towards reproductive and defensive behaviors
is consistent with an aversion to large cities.
We
can only speculate about the underlying neurological reasons for this
aversion, however, it appears that all the monoamine neurotransmitters,
(dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin), are in play, along with the
sex hormones of testosterone, progesterone, and estrogen, and possibly
vasopressin (a neuropeptide).
Serotonin
is of particular interest due to its strong presence in the so-called
"limbic" system, which functions primarily in emotional recognition
and response. Brain serotonin levels have been linked with inhibiting
aggression and promoting social affiliations, and reducing the dominance
behaviors associated with high testosterone levels.
Testosterone
has been implicated with territoriality in numerous species. High testosterone
levels generally increase territorial requirements in males and the
associated defensive behaviors and dopamine release. Estrogen and progesterone
have also been linked with territoriality, and can modulate dopamine
release (primarily in females) in many species.
The
Liberal tolerance of high density environments may have been potentiated
by a stronger influence of the serotonergic system (serotonin and serotonin
receptors), and/or the reduction in the levels and impacts of the sex
hormones. We do have some preliminary evidence that Conservatives and
Liberals vary, on average, in their testosterone-estrogen ratios, with
Conservatives males higher on the testosterone side, and Conservative
females higher on the estrogen side. This means that the Liberal females
and males are closer to each other in their testosterone-estrogen ratios,
and the Conservatives further apart.
The
idea that the serotonergic system is more active in Liberals is speculative,
but consistent with the smaller territorial requirements that urban
life requires. Indeed, the still relatively dense suburban lifestyles
favored by Conservatives are made more palatable by serotonergic influences,
along with moderations in the influence of the sex hormones. Certain
suburban environments are so crowded that the territorial reductions
approximate urban life.
A
further question remains: does urban life make you more liberal? Does
a suburban or rural life make you more conservative? We believe so,
and will present our evidence in a future edition of Neuropolitics.org.
____________________________________________________
How
do Conservatives and Liberals Personally Respond to Aggression?
How
much does one's personality impact their political beliefs? Are politics
just an extension of one's personality? If this is true, then we would
expect to find some correlation between our personal behavior and how
we think our society should behave in analogous scenarios.
One
such scenario is how we respond to acts of aggression. Conservatives
and Liberals have long been thought to have different approaches as
to when to apply force at the societal level---but what about the personal
level? We picked one such scenario involving unequivocal aggression--the
common everyday occurrence of the aggressive tailgater.
In
our March 2005 survey, we posed this hypothetical question to 1, 390
people:
If
you are being tailgated, do you maintain your speed, slow down, or speed
up?
When
it comes to maintaining speed in the face of an aggressive tailgater,
Liberals and Conservatives would vary only slightly in their responses.
Let's first look at the relatively neutral response of maintaining
speed, which is neither aggressive or aversive.
Maintain Speed
The
Liberal females would have a slightly higher propensity to maintain
their speed than the Conservative females (32% vs 29%). The males in
general were more likely to maintain their speed. The Liberal males
were slightly more likely to maintain their speed than the Conservative
males (37.1% vs 36.7%). Maintaining speed was the most
likely response in both Conservative and Liberal males--but not the
females. Maintaining speed was the least likely response of the females.
Surprisingly, the females were more likely to meet aggression with aggression
and slow down---the Conservative females in particular. They had an
elevation over every other cohort, including Conservative males.
Slow Down
Within genders, the Conservative females were about 20% more likely
to slow down than the Liberal females. The Conservative males were 12%
more likely than the Liberal males.
And
finally, the Liberals of both genders were slightly more likely to speed
up, or engage in aversive behavior.
Speeding Up
Liberal
females were 6% more likely than Conservative females to speed up, and
Liberal males were 10% more likely than Conservative males.
The
theory that certain personality traits impact political preferences
gets some support from this hypothetical case. The Conservatives were
slightly more likely to meet an aggressive behavior with an aggressive
behavior. On the other hand, Liberals were slightly more likely to avoid
a confrontation.
Overall,
the differences between Conservatives and Liberals were relatively small
and in-line with what we see in response to unequivocal aggression in
societal level conflicts, which tend to have considerable Liberal support.
However, we suspect that personal responses will vary considerably as
the scenarios are less clear and the risks of the aggressive responses
are greater.
|
Visuospatial Task Performance, Binary Morality Models, and Religious Tendencies
A brain scan (frontal view) showing the activity of the
right and left parietal cortices while mentally switching of the position
of two objects.
In
last month's issue, we found some interesting but inconclusive tendencies
in emotional recognition and visuospatial task performance in Conservatives
and Liberals. For ages under 40, we found that Liberal males had the
advantage in emotional recognition when compared to Conservative males.
Conversely, the Conservative males had an advantage in visuospatial
task performance. Liberal males performed better with faces---Conservative
males performed better with objects.
The females were the opposite, with the Conservatives having the advantage
in emotional recognition and the Liberals having the advantage in visuospatial
task performance.
But
for ages over 40, the Liberals showed a more dramatic decline in both
emotional recognition and visuospatial performance. We hypothesized
that the Liberal tendency towards right-hemispheric cognitive styles
was causing this, as there is significant evidence that the right-hemisphere
declines more rapidly with age than the left hemisphere.
In
this issue, we will focus on Religion rather than Politics. Religious
and political beliefs are strongly correlated, as they share common
neural substrates. Conservatives are much more likely to have a strong
religious orientation, and Liberals are much more likely to have none.
In our laterality survey early this year, we found those indicating
both strong conservative and strong religious beliefs scored highest
on the left hemisphere dominance scale. Conversely, those indicating
both strong liberal and non-religious beliefs scored highest on the
right hemisphere scale.
However,
the definition of Religious cohorts is much more problematical than
Political cohorts, as religious beliefs do not fall as consistently
down hemispheric lines as do political beliefs. We propose that each
hemisphere of the brain has its own contribution to religious predisposition,
and each hemisphere can promote or inhibit religious tendencies.
The
right hemisphere is oriented towards the ambiguous or "spiritual"
side of religion. The left hemisphere is oriented towards unambiguous
religious models, and is especially attracted to binary morality models,
such as good and evil. Andrew Newberg, in his groundbreaking
book, Why God Won't Go Away, calls this the binary operator,
which he locates in the brain's left inferior parietal lobe (actually
Newberg implies that a wider neural network is involved, most likely
including the left prefrontal cortex, although he does not explicitly
say this). Newberg's binary operator engenders a person to categorize
the world as a series of opposites, such as up and down,
left and right, back and front, good and
evil, or heaven and hell.
Newberg's
location for the binary operator is interesting, in that portions
of the left parietal cortex have been implicated in the preparation
for redirections in body movements. Have the cognitive concepts of good
and evil been built upon the neural management of redirecting
body movements, which in turn may be linked with our fight or flight
instinct?
Christianity,
Judaism, and Islam all incorporate the use of strong binary morality
models, and the neural network that supports the binary operator
would be one of the common neural substrates linking religiosity
and politics. While we see evidence that the left hemisphere predominates
in the generation of binary morality models, the right hemisphere has
generally been viewed to predominate in most categories of visuospatial
task performance, with assistance from the left hemisphere.
But
Newberg's binary operator and visuospatial reasoning appear to
be using the parietal cortices in each hemisphere of the brain, but
in different ways. In the right hemisphere, visuospatial tasks involve
an extensive neural network, including the temporal, occipital, and
parietal cortices and the medial superior cerebellum. In the left hemisphere,
the binary operator appears to be involving a network that includes
the prefrontal, temporal, and parietal cortices.
During certain visuospatial reasoning tasks, the right hemisphere was
shown during fMRI scans to inhibit the parietal cortex of the left hemisphere.
In other research, the left parietal cortex was found to be incorporated
in the mental reversal of the positions of two objects (as seen in the
top picture). This implies that the left parietal cortex is more active
during such things as visuospatial position reversal.
Since binary morality models and visuospatial analysis both share the
left parietal cortex, what happens to visuospatial performance when
one has a strong preference for binary morality models?
In
our June 2005 survey, we did see a decline in visuospatial task performance
in both males and females indicating a preference for binary morality
models. If we look at the chart below, we see that those females scored
a 2.00 (maximum score was a 4), in our visuospatial task portion of
our survey. Females that had no preference for binary morality models
scored a 2.18.
Visuospatial task scores by binary morality model preference
The
males with a binary morality preference scored a 2.21, while those without
a preference scored a 2.26. While the female performance is consistent
with the fMRI evidence, we only see a modest reduction in male performance.
If
we look at visuospatial performance of females by religious cohorts
(we are excluding ages over 40 to eliminate the impact of aging), we
see an interesting decline in the moderately and very
religious.
Female visuospatial task performance by religious cohort
This
decline is expected, as the preference for binary morality models is
highest in the moderately and very religious females.
However, we see a different picture when we look at the males in the
graph below.
Male visuospatial task performance by religious cohort
We
see an elevation in visuospatial performance in the moderately
and very religious, in contrast to the females. The atheists
also have an elevation in their performance. The reductions occur in
the religiously neutral groups---the agnostics and the little
religious.
However, only two-thirds of the moderately and very religious
cohorts include males that prefer binary morality models---the one-third
with no preference performed better than the ones that do. In other
words, males that considered themselves moderately and very
religious, but without a preference for binary morality models, performed
an average of 0.21 points better in our visuospatial tasks than the
ones that preferred binary morality models.
But
the males that preferred binary morality models still performed effectively,
and better than the more religiously neutral groups (the agnostics
and little religious)---but not as well as the atheists or the
religious males that had no preference for binary morality models.
Discussion
One
of the greatest differences we have seen between Liberals and Conservatives
is the propensity to categorize the world into a series of opposites.
Conservatives are much more likely to exhibit this tendency, and the
stronger the tendency, the more conservative (and religious) a person
is likely to be.
The
visuospatial tasks from our June 2005 survey were not oriented towards
reversing or opposing objects in space. Therefore, the contribution
of a binary-oriented left parietal cortex might not be as useful in
these cases, and it appears to be inhibiting visuospatial task performance,
particularly in females. Those favoring binary morality models might
do better in visuospatial tasks that involve mentally reversing or opposing
the positions of objects.
Newberg's proposed binary operator is stacking up as one of the
primary neural networks in both political and religious tendencies,
which would explain the positive correlation between conservatism and
religiosity. Since we have an area in our brain devoted to categorizing
opposites, do we have an area in our brain that tends to favor one of
those opposites, such as up over down, right over
left, more over less, and good over evil?
If so, where is it? And more importantly, why does it exist at all?
More
on the binary operator and its neural neighbors in future editions
of Neuropolitics.org.
|
Political
Radium: The Liberal Tendency for Depressive
Disorders
In
last month's edition of Neuropolitics.org, we discussed the
stronger tendency for Liberals to exhibit a wide variety of anxiety
disorders. This was political radium, and strong evidence of
neurological variations between Liberals and Conservatives, on average.
In this month's edition, we will discuss the variety of depressive
disorders and the different rates at which they afflict these two
political cohorts.
Depression
is a generic term used to summarize a variety of psychological illnesses
such as major depressive disorder, dysthymia (chronic mild depression),
bipolar disorder, cyclothemia (mild bipolar disorder), Seasonal Affective
Disorder (SAD), and postpartum depression.
One
of the most popular theories of depression is the monoamine hypothesis,
which proposes that depression results from a deficiency of one or
more of the following neurotransmitters: dopamine, noradrenaline,
and serotonin. However, it is incomplete, as it does not explain
the non-impact of monoamine depletion in normal control subjects.
In
our most recent survey, Liberals in general were 64% more likely to
report major depression, 320% more likely to report bipolar disorder,
50% more likely to report mild depression, and 113% more likely to
report Seasonal Affective Disorder.
They were also more likely to use a variety of anti-anxiety and depressive
drugs, such as SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors)--86%
more likely, and Anti-anxiety drugs--159% more likely. SNRIs (Selective
Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors ) and Tricyclics were also used
at a higher rate, but not in significant numbers for either Liberals
or Conservatives.
One
interesting note, Liberals and Conservatives reported a very high
satisfaction rate with the anti-anxiety drugs. SNRIs were also well
received, though not as well as the anti-anxiety drug group. SSRIs
had mixed reviews, and tricyclics were generally disliked.
On
the graph below, we see the major depression breakdown for the Very
Conservative (VC), Conservative (C), Liberal (L), and Very Liberal
(VL) cohorts.
Major
Depression by Political Cohort
The
above graph shows a stong elevation in the Very Liberals, with the
females reporting very high rates of major depression. The Very Liberal
males are also the highest on the male scale.
Below,
we see the rates of bipolar depression among our political cohorts.
Again, we see elevations in the Very Liberals and Liberals, especially
the females. Out of the 50 Very Conservative females that responded
to our survey, none reported bipolar depression.
Bipolar
Disorder by Political Cohort
Liberals
are also elevated in both genders for the most common form of depression---mild
depression (see below).
Mild Depression by Political Cohort
And
finally, on the graph below, Liberals of both genders show an elevation
in Seasonal Affective Disorder.
Seasonal
Affective Disorder by Political Cohort
This
elevated tendency for depressive and anxious disorders is compelling
evidence of fundamental differences in the neurophysiological make-up
of Liberals and Conservatives. Elevated depression and anxiety rates
provide further evidence of a right hemispheric bias in the average
Liberal. There is substantial evidence that the right hemisphere is
more strongly linked with depressive and anxious disorders than the
left.
The stronger the Liberal belief, the greater the probability of depression
and anxiety. Conversely, the stronger the Conservative belief, the
lower the probability of anxious disorders. However, depressive disorders
do not follow this trend in the males, as the Very Conservatives were
slightly more likely to have a depressive disorder than the regular
Conservatives, but still much less than the average Liberal.
As
we shall see in future editions of Neuropolitics.org, depression
and anxiety are not the only differences in the psychological or health
profiles of Conservatives and Liberals.
______________________________________________
What's
So Wrong With Being Depressed?
Depression
has been a bit of a mystery to the evolutionary psychologists for
a long time. Why would something so maladaptive be so common? What
survival value could depression have that would allow it to persist
at such high levels? Why hasn't natural selection made short work
of it?
Obviously,
depression must have something going for it. There have been some
notable recent theories, such as the Watson and Andrews
social navigation hypothesis, which proposes that depression
promotes niche changes when the current niche is restricting, thereby
improving overall adaptability.
In
our March 2005 survey we found a few other things that could also
be considered survival advantages for those with susceptibility towards
depression.
The
first is the enhanced tendency for multitasking. Multitasking
is simply the ability to inter-mingle multiple unrelated behaviors
simultaneously. The phenomenon of multitasking is common in
animals that live in predator-rich environments, where attention to
the environment is crucial during feeding, nesting, and mating behaviors.
While humans generally do not live in predator-rich environments,
there can be an advantage towards enhanced environmental focus while
still attending to the tasks at hand.
Depressives
(and the anxious) also have a stronger tendency towards offspring
entitlement. It seems that depressives have a stronger desire
for improving the material wealth of their children.
We
also found evidence that depressives are more likely to follow societal
rules. They are less likely to be involved in confrontations with
others, especially violent confrontations. The depressives also tend
to be much less competitive, thereby reducing the overall level of
intra-group competition at work, school, or other social environments.
Brack
and Zhang, October 2005
Email: Brack@neuropolitics.org
Zhang@neuropolitics.org
|
