A fascinating survey of research studies.
I suppose when it comes down to it, these findings are not surprising. Knowing both conservatives and liberals, it's pretty obvious that they have fundamentally different ways of processing the same social information. Unless you assume that our brains are not the whole of our mind, then conservative/liberal brains must be different. However, it's interesting to consider how environmental factors can bring about conservative or liberal shifts in a population. I don't think Saudi brains are that different from French brains.
I think it's more interesting that these two labels. liberal and conservative, have come in to so much greater use over the last (say) 20 years. Before, people would just say "republican" or "democrat", but people nowadays, in both parties, feel so un-connected with, and distrustful of their own respective parties, that they have abandoned those labels - for equivalent ones. Funny how almost everyone in the USA will identify with one or the other of these labels (never both); it would be very odd to hear of Kiwis self-describing in such limited terms. The use of the terms themselves shows what a polarising concept a two-party system is.
That's a good point. The political conversations that we are having here in the the US are not our own. We are having the conversations that the parties feel comfortable with. In fact, we are having conversations that are centered around issues that the parties have found to motivate their base. It's pretty sad, really. I think the global warming debate is an excellent example of this. If someone in the US is a supporter of fiscal austerity, they are likely not to believe in anthropomorphic climate change, and vice versa. It's pretty ridiculous that you can predict such disconnected opinions from the other.liberal and conservative, have come in to so much greater use over the last (say) 20 years. Before, people would just say "republican" or "democrat", but people nowadays, in both parties, feel so un-connected with, and distrustful of their own respective parties, that they have abandoned those labels - for equivalent ones.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum". -- Noam Chomsky Why do we keep debating things like abortion continuously like clockwork every election? Because it has no bearing on corporate earnings. We are allowed to have this debate. The power brokers want us to talk circles around this. The more we do, the less likely we are to talk about things like the repealing of Citizens United or re-implementation of Glass Steagall or raising the capital gains tax. Another great Chomsky quote: Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune.
Glass Steagall is not talked about in most circles. Its my understanding that the act had been in place since the mid 1930's. The fact that it was repealed by the Clinton administration has always baffled me. Allowing comercial banks to get in cahoots with investment houses, according to some experts my be the catalyst for a financial disaster like we have never seen. You can bundle up a few thousand mortgages and sell them as an investment product, to lets say an investor in china. Now you have some poor sap in Springfield IL who's mortgage is owned by a chinese investment firm.
Nail on the head here; both your comment, and mk's above it.