The left and right sides of the brain - or how a healthy dose of debate is good for the nation
Robert Rouse
February 05, 2006
Tomorrow, I will be 51 years of age. I mention this only because of a strange phenomenon that has taken place on February 6 of each year since the '80s. I should be able to enjoy my birthday, but because of my political standings, I have to endure news reports about it being the birth date of one of the major architects of the current conservative movement - Ronald Reagan. Some may wonder why this causes me so much consternation - I include myself in this group. Why does it bother me so much? It's not because I have to share my birthday with Reagan, I'm not that selfish. I used to think it was simply because of the way I was wired. And after some research, I've come to the conclusion that my brain chemistry might just be the answer after all. Samuel Langhorne Clemens once observed, "All Democrats are insane, but not one of them knows it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it." Conservatives and Liberals don't just think differently, it's the biological formation of the brain that makes us the way we are.
A recent study by researchers at UCLA shows that our brains function differently. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the researchers studied the active brains of ten Republicans and ten Democrats. They showed each of the subjects images from various political campaigns from LBJ's little girl counting daisy petals before a nuclear explosion in 1964 all the way up to George W. Bush standing at the ruins of the World Trade Center in 2001.
Initial reports, although inconclusive, were intriguing nonetheless. When the Democrats saw images of violence, it caused a reaction in the amygdala region of the brain - an area the size of a penny that processes emotions like fear. The Republicans didn't show as much reaction. The bipartisan researches theorized that Democrats appear to be inherently more alarmed by violence and the use of force than Republicans.
Another study by psychologists at UC Berkeley focused on meta-analysis and statistical overviews of more than 50 years of conservative literature. The results showed that conservatives have:
The resistance to change fits the conservative mold. George W. Bush is consistently using the phrase "stay the course" (of course, Capt. Edward J. Smith stayed the course - and the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank). The only changes most conservatives are willing to make are those that will end up benefiting the pockets of their base - or as President Bush calls them, "the haves and the have mores". We know most political conservatives have a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitude toward the disenfranchised and the poor, so the acceptance of inequality makes sense as well. It is the intolerance of ambiguity and a need for closure that intrigues me.
Most liberals recognize the need to study the gray areas of decision making. We understand that there is more to the picture than what you can see on the canvas. Events are happening over the horizon, the frames of the picture hide what is at play beyond the borders of the canvas and certainly there are things going on behind the artist's back. We might believe one thing today, but new information could arrive tomorrow that will cause us to rethink our position and factor in new options. The vote on going to war with Iraq is a great example. Our legislators were only given the specific information needed to frame a decision to go to war. Later when other facts were revealed - some that were known by the White House and the intelligence community but not shared during the initial build up to the invasion - many Democratic Senators and members of the House changed their position and decided the invasion wasn't the brightest move. Republicans immediately pounced on this ambiguity as "flip-flopping", but in reality, the debate against war was stronger with the newly revealed information. The White House did what any good trial lawyer would do - they sought to suppress evidence that might sway the jury away from a verdict for their side.
I don't really have anything against Republicans - most of my family and in-laws belong to the GOP (even some members of the peace movement in my city are usually conservative on most other issues). But we are wired differently. There is a local blogger who has been taking pot shots at me (and my wife, Sheri) in recent days about our views. He considers us to be naive about the political world, but the truth of the matter is that he and I simply have opposing views on several issues. I see things he doesn't see and he sees things that I don't see. We both believe we are correct in our views. That's the beauty of politics. I wouldn't want to live in a country with a monolithic rule and I'm sure he wouldn't like it either. There are generally two sides to every argument and for the most part, the truth is probably somewhere closer to the middle. He went so far as to say that I lean so far to the left that I probably fall in the lap of Socialism. Of course that isn't true. He would probably be surprised to hear that I am personally opposed to abortion - the difference between us is that I won't force others to follow my moral or religious views. I simply don't believe in legislating morality.
I don't have a problem with American citizens owning guns - although I think they should all be registered. The only people who would have anything to fear in gun registration would be those with something to hide - criminals for instance. Many on the right use the same argument in favor of wiretaps, but I don't consider gun ownership as a privacy issue. However, in both cases, gun ownership and wiretaps, there are regulations that should be followed - registration for firearms and warrants for wiretaps. Until it was revealed that the wiretaps were being performed without warrants, George W. Bush himself was publicly claiming that all wiretaps still required a court order. But I see things differently than the conservatives and vice versa.
In Fort Wayne, IN, the local peace movement has been holding a monthly rally on the Courthouse Green since the fall of 2002. Over the past five months, there have been counter demonstrators across the street (it's an idiosyncratic concurrence that as people are driving south on the one-way street separating the demonstrations that the peace group is on the right and the pro-war folks are on the left). Both sides support the troops in different ways. The peace movement wants the troops out of harm's way and the counter demonstrators are there to give moral support for the troops and the war. The pro-war people honestly believe that we in the peace group don't really support the troops. They're under the misguided assumption that we have an ulterior political agenda. But we really do support the troops. Much as the Catholic church believes in "love the sinner, hate the sin" - we love our troops and want them home safe, but we despise the war. One of the great parts of holding these demonstrations simultaneously is how each side acknowledges each other as we arrive and leave. We greet each other, shake hands, exchange pleasantries, and even park next to each other. It's this dichotomy of ideas that makes America great.
There is another research project that may reveal a benefit in being a liberal. Kelly Bulkeley, who teaches at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA conducted a study of the dreams of liberals and conservatives. Bulkeley conducted the study using 56 college students, 28 liberals and 28 conservatives. The study revealed that the conservatives have three times as many nightmares as the liberals. Many of the nightmares tended to be about aggression, misfortune and physical threats.
So while I disagree with conservatives, I see a real need to keep opposing views as part of the machinations of our government - if only to make sure they're the ones who are helping me a get a good night's rest.
A recent study by researchers at UCLA shows that our brains function differently. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the researchers studied the active brains of ten Republicans and ten Democrats. They showed each of the subjects images from various political campaigns from LBJ's little girl counting daisy petals before a nuclear explosion in 1964 all the way up to George W. Bush standing at the ruins of the World Trade Center in 2001.
Initial reports, although inconclusive, were intriguing nonetheless. When the Democrats saw images of violence, it caused a reaction in the amygdala region of the brain - an area the size of a penny that processes emotions like fear. The Republicans didn't show as much reaction. The bipartisan researches theorized that Democrats appear to be inherently more alarmed by violence and the use of force than Republicans.
Another study by psychologists at UC Berkeley focused on meta-analysis and statistical overviews of more than 50 years of conservative literature. The results showed that conservatives have:
- A fear of and resistance to change
- A greater acceptance of inequality
- An intolerance of ambiguity and a cognitive need for closure
- A desire to confront and manage terror
The resistance to change fits the conservative mold. George W. Bush is consistently using the phrase "stay the course" (of course, Capt. Edward J. Smith stayed the course - and the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank). The only changes most conservatives are willing to make are those that will end up benefiting the pockets of their base - or as President Bush calls them, "the haves and the have mores". We know most political conservatives have a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitude toward the disenfranchised and the poor, so the acceptance of inequality makes sense as well. It is the intolerance of ambiguity and a need for closure that intrigues me.
Most liberals recognize the need to study the gray areas of decision making. We understand that there is more to the picture than what you can see on the canvas. Events are happening over the horizon, the frames of the picture hide what is at play beyond the borders of the canvas and certainly there are things going on behind the artist's back. We might believe one thing today, but new information could arrive tomorrow that will cause us to rethink our position and factor in new options. The vote on going to war with Iraq is a great example. Our legislators were only given the specific information needed to frame a decision to go to war. Later when other facts were revealed - some that were known by the White House and the intelligence community but not shared during the initial build up to the invasion - many Democratic Senators and members of the House changed their position and decided the invasion wasn't the brightest move. Republicans immediately pounced on this ambiguity as "flip-flopping", but in reality, the debate against war was stronger with the newly revealed information. The White House did what any good trial lawyer would do - they sought to suppress evidence that might sway the jury away from a verdict for their side.
I don't really have anything against Republicans - most of my family and in-laws belong to the GOP (even some members of the peace movement in my city are usually conservative on most other issues). But we are wired differently. There is a local blogger who has been taking pot shots at me (and my wife, Sheri) in recent days about our views. He considers us to be naive about the political world, but the truth of the matter is that he and I simply have opposing views on several issues. I see things he doesn't see and he sees things that I don't see. We both believe we are correct in our views. That's the beauty of politics. I wouldn't want to live in a country with a monolithic rule and I'm sure he wouldn't like it either. There are generally two sides to every argument and for the most part, the truth is probably somewhere closer to the middle. He went so far as to say that I lean so far to the left that I probably fall in the lap of Socialism. Of course that isn't true. He would probably be surprised to hear that I am personally opposed to abortion - the difference between us is that I won't force others to follow my moral or religious views. I simply don't believe in legislating morality.
I don't have a problem with American citizens owning guns - although I think they should all be registered. The only people who would have anything to fear in gun registration would be those with something to hide - criminals for instance. Many on the right use the same argument in favor of wiretaps, but I don't consider gun ownership as a privacy issue. However, in both cases, gun ownership and wiretaps, there are regulations that should be followed - registration for firearms and warrants for wiretaps. Until it was revealed that the wiretaps were being performed without warrants, George W. Bush himself was publicly claiming that all wiretaps still required a court order. But I see things differently than the conservatives and vice versa.
In Fort Wayne, IN, the local peace movement has been holding a monthly rally on the Courthouse Green since the fall of 2002. Over the past five months, there have been counter demonstrators across the street (it's an idiosyncratic concurrence that as people are driving south on the one-way street separating the demonstrations that the peace group is on the right and the pro-war folks are on the left). Both sides support the troops in different ways. The peace movement wants the troops out of harm's way and the counter demonstrators are there to give moral support for the troops and the war. The pro-war people honestly believe that we in the peace group don't really support the troops. They're under the misguided assumption that we have an ulterior political agenda. But we really do support the troops. Much as the Catholic church believes in "love the sinner, hate the sin" - we love our troops and want them home safe, but we despise the war. One of the great parts of holding these demonstrations simultaneously is how each side acknowledges each other as we arrive and leave. We greet each other, shake hands, exchange pleasantries, and even park next to each other. It's this dichotomy of ideas that makes America great.
There is another research project that may reveal a benefit in being a liberal. Kelly Bulkeley, who teaches at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA conducted a study of the dreams of liberals and conservatives. Bulkeley conducted the study using 56 college students, 28 liberals and 28 conservatives. The study revealed that the conservatives have three times as many nightmares as the liberals. Many of the nightmares tended to be about aggression, misfortune and physical threats.
So while I disagree with conservatives, I see a real need to keep opposing views as part of the machinations of our government - if only to make sure they're the ones who are helping me a get a good night's rest.