Yet another story is in the media highlighting the supposed superiority of liberals' brains to those of conservatives. Not long after the president of the American Publishers' Association claimed that liberals were simply more intelligent, based on a poll that showed liberals tend to read more books (one a year) than conservatives, a new study is highlighted by the Agencie France-Presse claiming that liberals and conservatives brain functions differ.
The story waits only four short paragraphs beofre focusing on the supposed superiority of liberals by claiming that,
Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.
So, liberals show a 'higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity'? I guess we poor conservatives simply can't deal with complex and ambiguous issues. The story continues to point out the liberal advantage in dealing with change, stating,
The match-up was unmistakable: respondents who had described themselves as liberals showed "significantly greater conflict-related neural activity" when the hypothetical situation called for an unscheduled break in routine.
Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed."
So I gather that conservatives cannot change even when it is necessary. To do it credit, the study does admit that these results could be seen in different ways, pointing out that,
Whether that is good or bad, of course, depends on one's perspective: one could interpret the results to mean that liberals are nimble-minded and conservatives rigid and stubborn.
Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal.
However, the main thrust of the story leaves no doubt of the writers' opinions- liberals are superior to those poor, plodding, inflexible conservatives. The repeated references to the supposed adaptability of liberals to 'unexpected situations' is one example. The equally repetitious nature of the authors' references to conservatives' 'refusal to deviate from old habits'. The point is made- adaptability and flexibility in reacting to conflict is good, steadfastness is bad.
This story is amusing on a variety of fronts. Firstly, the story assumes that change is a good thing, but history shows that change is not always for the best. Who can deny that the change to Communism was disastrous for millions in Russia and China (and we won't even mention the bloodletting upon the fall of South Vietnam)? Who can deny that the change in the educational system here in the US over the last forty years or so has had disastrous effects as the once-accepted concentration on classical liberalism and core skills (the three 'R's) has degenerated into a potpourri of multiculteralist garbage and a loss of some of our best and brightest with the de-emphasizing of mathematics, reading and writing. Today's students are indoctrinated- not taught to think for themselves. And who can deny that the so-called welfare society has been an unmitigated disaster, destroying the economies in Europe, while potentially also causing huge problems here in the US with the imminent insolvency of Social Security?
And that brings us to the second howler in this story. Liberals in fact are not known for their adaptability. In both higher education and in politics, liberals who are faced with a new situation- the loss of the once-monolithic liberal press voice- are reacting by trying to silence their opponents, not adapt to the changed playing field. Case in point is Dartmouth's recent decision to pack the board of trustees with appointed members so as to silence the voice of the alumni-elected members. On the current battlefield, liberals are unable to concoct a strategy to fight the Muslim imprialists who are trying so hard to kill us either, though conservatives have been willing to change strategies as events on the ground have changed. Liberals still are calling for a withdrawal of forces, irregardless of the actual conditions. They seem unable to embrace change and adapt to it.
So once again the media take a study that could be interesting, depending on the criteria used, and twist it into yet another 'liberal brain better' story.There may indeed be a difference in the way that liberals and conservatives think. but I serioiusly doubt that one is superior to the other. And certainly based on current events, to suggest that liberals are somehow more flexible is a laugher. You would think that after liberals and the media have been proven wrong on so many fronts- from socialism to communism to the war on paverty to their hopes for a defeat in Iraq- they might take stock of the fact that conservatives seem better able to actually analyze events and make the right calls on a more regular basis. Instead of actually taking stock and analyzing events however, the media is still pushing stories on why those poor conservatives are just dumb reactionaries. Media bias? Oh, you mean that media bias....
Hat tip to Power Line for the stories on Dartmouth College and the Democrats' pre-emptive attacks on General Petraeus. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.














Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Liberals are better than
September 10, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Chris NormanLiberals are better than Conservatives in dealking with changing circumstances. Like when the grant money runs out, the welfare is cut off, the parents cut off the college tuition payments after eight years...
Conservatives, holding steady jobs, staying with their families, etc. have more trouble...
"Irregardless" isn't a word
September 10, 2007 - 15:37 ET by NBF"Irregardless" isn't a word.
Irregardless of that . .
September 10, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Mica the MagnificentSurely your liberal brain can change with the circumstances. 'Irregardless' is a word if you feel it should be a word.
Isn't that the way the liberal mind really works?
You're right.
September 10, 2007 - 15:49 ET by NBFSorry, that was my conservative brain being unable to deal with error in a flexible way.
Flexible?
September 10, 2007 - 15:54 ET by Mica the MagnificentNow . . if I believe you are sorry, does that mean I'm flexible and therefore a . . LIBERAL??
Arrrgggg.
Let's change the subject and discuss clam chowder recipes just to be safe . .
Yes, but irregardless of the
September 10, 2007 - 15:51 ET by PeskyDaneYes, but irregardless of the way you have disenfranchised my right to make changes to the lexicon...
Yes, but irregardless of the
September 10, 2007 - 16:01 ET by mandrakeYes, but irregardless of the irregardlessness it ain't gonna have no affect you're right to change the lexicon...if you know what I am inferring!
oh, I think I know what
September 10, 2007 - 16:59 ET by PeskyDaneoh, I think I know what you're inferring... but do you understand my coagulation of the mendacious insinuation?
Lexicon rocks
September 10, 2007 - 16:02 ET by Mica the MagnificentMaybe we like the lexicon just the way it is!
(Just checking my conservative mind. Thanks.)
Lexicon. I liked that band
September 13, 2007 - 00:42 ET by RESTLESS 1Lexicon. I liked that band too. ;>)
The only books those fools
September 10, 2007 - 15:51 ET by rbosqueThe only books those fools read are the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Saul Alinsky's works, and comic books.
Liberals are the superior
September 10, 2007 - 16:58 ET by TruthMongerLiberals are the superior aryan race:)
We conservatives are the subhumans:(
We need a final solution to this...hmmmm....what could we do...
"Liberals, by contrast,
September 10, 2007 - 15:53 ET by ckc1227"Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances."
In other words, they rely on opinion polls and groupthink to decide what they should believe.
"Conservatives tend to crave
September 10, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Sonny Lykos"Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances."
This is simply "crap" talk that they wish was true.
I know far too many successful conservative buisness owners are successful because they adapt to unexpected circumstances. And since when was order and structure bad. What nitwits!
"Liberals, by contrast,
September 10, 2007 - 16:03 ET by drillanwr"Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity ...
"Liberalism is a mental illness ..." - Michael Savage
Yup!
"Liberals ... adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances."
So do cockroaches.
Liberals couldn't possibly grasp the nuances of conservative consistency ...
"Liberals ... adapt more
September 10, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Sonny Lykos"Liberals ... adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances."
So do cockroaches.
Excellent comparison!
Irregardless
September 10, 2007 - 16:07 ET by Richard NewcombJust to add fire to the debate, here is what Webster has to say on the topic of Irregardless.
My apologies if I have dealt up too much nuance and conflict for our inflexible minds to successfully manage.
More to the study - Liberals lie more
September 10, 2007 - 16:16 ET by Gary HallMore to the study - Liberals lie more than do conservatives - and indeed it probably does have to do with how the brain is wired.
First subject: The Clinton's.
Oh, there's a study for just about everything, but often enough that what gets widely reported is only side of the discussion.
Not that any elitist liberal writers have sensed an urgent need to connect the dots and write the story, but there have been recent scientific studies which suggest that the amount of white matter in the brain has a lot to do with both the thought process and with truth telling. How's that? Allow me to quote:
How's that? Allow me to quote:
From researchers from the University of California, Irvine and the University of New Mexico:
Bottom line: Liberals lie more than conservatives - because they simply have a more difficult time making a decision. I expect the examples should not be too difficult to locate.
Intellectual Myopia
September 10, 2007 - 16:18 ET by mattmLiberals suffer from intellectual myopia. This is a mental disorder which prevents them from recognizing their own faults or from recognizing the virtues of others who do not share their affliction.
This disorder is sometimes indicated by relatively high I.Q. combined with very little common sense.
These people can appear to be intelligent, articulate and compassionate people, but in actuality, they are suffering from a serious mental condition that can lead to other severe psychological problems.
One example is a constant insistence in the veracity of something that is known to be false - Like Algore and Global Warming, or Bill Clinton claiming to be a victim, or John Kerry claiming to be a war hero. Once a person gets to this stage, they are quite hopeless, unless some medical breakthrough is discovered.
More research is needed in this vital area....
Once a person gets to this
September 10, 2007 - 16:34 ET by drillanwrOnce a person gets to this stage, they are quite hopeless, unless some medical breakthrough is discovered.
Ex-Lax ...
The KosKidz are just proving
September 10, 2007 - 16:41 ET by chessplayerThe KosKidz are just proving the superiority of the liberal mind by showing a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity. sarc/
Sorry about that. I posted
September 10, 2007 - 16:45 ET by chessplayerSorry about that. I posted my comment in the wrong thread.
You need a nimble lib brain to deny reality
September 10, 2007 - 16:45 ET by nkviking75You have to abandon all structure in your brain if you're going to hold the notions that (1) abortion is a constitutional right, despite nary a hint of the subject in the text; (2) That the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee a right to bear arms; (3) That the 1st Amendment's religious freedom clauses mean society can barely acknowledge the existence of Christmas, even though the livelihood of millions depends on how well the Christmas shopping season goes; (4) That marriage somehow suddenly means an institution meant for any two people, even when they're of the same sex; (5) That it's racist to want to keep illegal immigrants out; and so on and so on and so on. Libs probaby can accept the idea that 2+2=5.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Ex. Madison, WI
September 10, 2007 - 16:46 ET by The MavTake Madison as an example. They continuously elect the same officials over and over, yet complain of the same problems. So, if the "progressives" here keep electing the same officials, does that make them "rigid and stubborn"?
When did it become "intellectual" to care for the elderly, care for children, "feel peoples pain"? That's common sense, and, if you're a normal human being, it's what you do.
I judge a person's intellect with what is done, not all on what is said. It's in the eye of the beholder to determine whether Politician A is intelligent because they "feel the need that everyone has a RIGHT to healthcare (with tax hikes and uncontrollable legislation), or Politician B, who believes that people should be able to AFFORD insurance that isn't legislated by the government.
But hey, I'm just an ignorant hispanic redneck in Wisconsin...
I judge a person's
September 10, 2007 - 16:53 ET by FishFace222I judge a person's intellect with what is done, not all on what is said.
Interesting point--Conservatives are doers, Liberals are sayers(?).
I like it!!
One more point........
September 10, 2007 - 22:15 ET by Scout FinchConservatives are do-ers, while liberals are sayers and feelers.
Bill Clinton could not have personified the liberal mind more than when he famously said "I feel your pain". So what, Bill? How can you end their pain in a way that won't cripple America's economy and cause governmental bureaucracy the likes of which we could never crawl out from under?
"GWB said Saddam Hussein
September 10, 2007 - 16:50 ET by FishFace222"GWB said Saddam Hussein had WMD's. We have not found any. GWB lied, people died."
The above liberal argument seems pretty black and white to me. There seems to be no "complexity" involved.
I'm sure there are more examples.
simplicity in the lies
September 10, 2007 - 18:05 ET by uncle_buckThere seems to be no complexity in the lies either - case in point
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Another interesting point in this study is it involved 43 right handed participants. No left handers? Is 43 people a "representative sample"?
And it seems traffic jams were a big part of this study. Did they have brain probes connected while these folks were fighting traffic? A rather weak study from a science point of view if you ask me.
From the Report ...
September 10, 2007 - 16:57 ET by mytwocents"Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals
don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal."
I would conclude that conservatives have strong core values and that liberals change on a whim.
}}---> Desensitized
September 10, 2007 - 17:02 ET by Cool ArrowTo a Liberal who has already decided Grandma is the first one to make dinner of if s/he's starving, how horrified of any change could they be?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Liberals always want to be
September 10, 2007 - 22:17 ET by Scout FinchLiberals always want to be popular, not correct.
Kind of like junior high school.
THE CLASSIC EXAMPLE of the ambiguous liberal mind
September 10, 2007 - 17:04 ET by RJ"...it depends on what the meaning of is, is......"
Straight from the Bill
September 10, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Clear thinkerStraight from the Bill Clinton Thesaurus!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
See? A complex argument!
September 10, 2007 - 17:09 ET by balboaSee? A complex argument! :-)
I can't remember if I am a conservative - help me
September 11, 2007 - 01:49 ET by Captain RepusThe LA Times article also notes that the study concluded that blacks and Latinos are significantly less intelligent than whites and asians.
I didn't actually read far enough in the article to see this finding, but, based on the logic of the findings I did read, I am certain that conclusion was in there somewhere.
Ever had an argument with a
September 10, 2007 - 18:53 ET by general companyEver had an argument with a liberal, isn't that all you needed to no about ones mental capacity
Well I guess the "Agencie
September 10, 2007 - 19:15 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Well thank goodness the "Agencie France-Presse" press has brought clarity to my plight as a conservative! I think I'll pick my knuckles up off the floor, grab my wife by the hair and drag her off to dinner now. Whew...feelin' better already.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
If Liberals are smarter....
September 10, 2007 - 19:41 ET by Dad GummitIf liberals are so much smarter, why don't they push for some type literacy or aptitude test for voters? Surely imbeciles, morons, and idiots have no business voting right? ... RIGHT??!!
hee hee... there would never be another dim rat elected to anything.
"If you don't read a newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper, you are mis-informed."-Mark Twain
AND FURTHERMORE....
September 10, 2007 - 19:45 ET by Dad GummitYou think any conservative has ever been offered a carton of cigarettes and a ride to the polls and instructions on which hole to punch by the same people who filled out his registration for him?
"If you don't read a newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read a newspaper, you are mis-informed."-Mark Twain
I look at it this way:
September 10, 2007 - 21:56 ET by mostlymoderateI look at it this way: conservatives want to "conserve" the ideas of our founding fathers and the Constitution. Liberals want to "change" the ideas of our founding fathers.
Conservatives believe in discipline and hard work whereas liberals believe in welfare.
Conservatives can think about the "bigger picture" such as God, morality, human sanctity, etc. Liberals can think about homosexuality as "normal" or abortion as "acceptable" or handouts as "expected"
Yeah, liberals are the smart ones for sure.
Wow, mostlymod
September 10, 2007 - 21:56 ET by BlondeI suspect you ought to change your SN.
You've come over to the dark side, here.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Or...........
September 10, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Scout FinchThat the Constitution, as written by our forefathers in ink, is a 'living, breathing document' that should be changed frequently to reflect whatever values seem important today. Tomorrow, we'll change the Constitution again to reflect another set of flimsy ideas. That's Progressive Liberalism.
Good grief!
September 11, 2007 - 07:56 ET by ding7777The founding fathers created the "amendment process" to the Constitution so that the Constitution could be changed.
"Good grief" indeed, ding
September 11, 2007 - 09:03 ET by RJUm, thanks for that startling revelation.
The problem is, ding, that the left is constantly changing the existing Constitution by reading new meanings into it. That's what the left means by a "living, breathing" document.
RJ - Here's another
September 11, 2007 - 16:27 ET by ding7777"revelation" for ya. You're confusing "judicial interpretation" of the Constitution with the "admendment process" - but in any event those radical founding fathers incorporated "change" into the Constitution.
}}---> Sure thing ding
September 11, 2007 - 16:31 ET by Cool ArrowSo when they wrote "Congress shall make no law..." they meant what?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool Arrow... LOL! Get
September 11, 2007 - 16:33 ET by Clear thinkerCool Arrow...
LOL!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Cool Arrow
September 11, 2007 - 19:56 ET by ding7777You have just proven that those "lefty" founding fathers did indeed "change" the Constitution with the addition of Amendments.
Is that argument deliberately specious, ding?
September 11, 2007 - 20:07 ET by RJPlease don't admit that you're making a serious argument. "Hey folks! Did you know there are mechanisms to change the Constitution? Duh-huh, duh-huh."
Ding, no one has said that mechanisms to change the Constitution do not exist. The point is that liberals find bizarre new "meanings" in the Constitution in order to accomplish whatever politically driven goals they have in mind....not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind
RJ - please re-read mostlymoderate's
September 12, 2007 - 08:33 ET by ding7777initial comment to which I was replying
Contrary to both you and MM, the idea(s) of our founding fathers was exactly the ability to change the Constitution.
"Conserve the IDEAS", ding.
September 12, 2007 - 10:19 ET by RJThat says NOTHING about not being able to change the Constitution itself.
Once again, ding: the problem is that liberals find new meaning in the existing words.
Instead of a knee-jerk reaction, please think about what I am actually saying.
RJ -
September 12, 2007 - 13:10 ET by ding7777the idea of the Constitution was that the Constitution could be changed! Even your poster-boy Scalia admits to that.
But that's not what MM said - s/he said - and I'll repeat the quote:
As I stated above, MM probably meant "judicial activism" instead of liberals.
MM goes on to say that "conservatives" think about the big picture of;
Yet God was not mentioned in the Constitution and as for human sanctity we have slavery, which was Constitutionaly accepted by the founding fathers.
Are you suggesting we revert to the "original intent" of the founding fathers concerning slavery? Or perhaps "muskets" as the only acceptable mode of "bearing arms'.
Sigh. Once again, ding....
September 12, 2007 - 17:14 ET by RJSigh. Once again, ding....no one has said the Constitution has no mechanism for change. That's a phony argument that you have created and refuse to let go.
And, yes, liberals DO want to change the ideas of our founding fathers, but they want to do it without using the mechanism provided. So they've recently found new ways to achieve their politically motivated goals. One is to "discover" new meanings in the existing words. Another is to openly look to judical rulings in other countrys and apply them to OUR Constitution.
Liberals think that this outrageous reworking of the U.S. Constitution without using amendments is just fine. Conservatives don't.
Ding, consider how the
September 13, 2007 - 00:24 ET by MikeBDing, consider how the Constitution has been changed in recent years. Was the "constitutional right" to an abortion introduced as an amendment by the Senate? Was this "right" debated by both houses of Congress and then voted on? Did the amendment pass by the supermajority required by the Constitution? Or, was the constitution changed by judicial fiat?
You are correct in that there is a mechanism for change in the Constitution. The recent changes in the Constitution have not been made in the prescribed method. The fact is that the liberals who have wanted certain changes in the Constitution have not been able to get them made in a Constitutional manner, but rather in the court system where liberal judges and Justices have twisted the Constitution into meanings that the founding fathers never imagined or foresaw.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
No confusion, ding
September 11, 2007 - 16:55 ET by RJThe left uses it's ambiguous liberal brain to "discover" bizarre "interpretations" in the Constitution in order to accomplish whatever politically driven goals they have in mind....not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.
RJ... Like the lefts
September 11, 2007 - 16:57 ET by Clear thinkerRJ...
Like the lefts "living, breathing document" crap?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I thought ding renounced his Newsbusters Membership?
September 11, 2007 - 09:05 ET by Free StinkerI thought ding renounced his Newsbusters Membership?
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
Be careful of polls
September 10, 2007 - 22:39 ET by celatorI've created many surveys and polls and I want to offer a few hints about what a reader of polls should be aware of in reading poll results.
Before one can "understand" what the results of a poll truly signify or what they are actually measuring, poll readers should be aware of the following:
1. Who is paying for the poll and what are they really trying to measure?
2. What are the poll questions, specifically, and how are the questions related to one another?
3. Has the poll be field tested before being administered to a larger universe?
4. How to the questions interelate, i.e., what weight is given to certain questions, what questions are "connected" to other questions etc.
5. What is the internal reliability of the questions?
6. What statistical algorithym is being used to interprete the results?
7. What is the working hypothesis of the poll?
8. Who is interpreting the poll results?
9. Who is the intended audience of the poll?
There are other issues to consider, of course, but these are issues one should know before one can truly understand what's going on in the poll. The problem is that the answers to these questions are often proprietary, and the general public is unaware of them. Hence, not all poll results are what some would want you to believe they are. An unethical poll "producer" can create exactly the results the client wants to create.
Generally, I trust no poll unless I know the answers to most of these questions.
By the sound of it, I
September 13, 2007 - 00:39 ET by RESTLESS 1By the sound of it, I believe I have been right all of these years to never trust a poll period. Even if I knew the answers to all of those questions, I would look at any poll as suspect.