Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Political ideology linked with brain structure differences, but lessthan once thought
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.110532

PRESS RELEASE: Conservative voters have slightly larger amygdalas than progressive voters—by about the size of a sesame seed. In a replication study publishing September 19 in the Cell Press journal iScience, researchers revisited the idea that progressive and conservative voters have identifiable differences in brain morphology, but with a 10x larger and more diverse sample size than the original study. Their results confirmed that the size of a person’s amygdala is associated with their political views but failed to find a consistent association between politics and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Anatomical differences in both the amygdala and ACC varied depending on a person’s economic and social ideology—which aren’t necessarily aligned—indicating that relationships between political ideology and brain structure are nuanced and multidimensional.

“It was really a surprise that we replicated the amygdala finding,” says first author and political psychology and neuroscience researcher Diamantis Petropoulos Petalas (@diamond_petalas) of The American College of Greece and member of the @HotPoliticsLab at the University of Amsterdam. “Quite honestly, we did not expect to replicate any of these findings.”

The new study, which aimed to replicate a widely shared 2011 study that was based on 90 UK university students, used pre-existing MRI brain scans from 928 individuals aged 19-26 whose levels of education and political identities were representative of the Dutch population. Because the Netherlands has a multi-party political system, the study was also able to compare brain structures along the continuum from left- to rightwing, in contrast to the two-party UK system. In addition, the researchers looked at the participants’ “ideology” from various angles, including their political identity and stance on socioeconomic issues, which allowed them to compare brain structures along different dimensions of progressivism and conservativism.

The researchers paired the brain data with a questionnaire about the participants’ politics, which included questions about their social and economic identity (e.g., how they view themselves on a sliding scale of progressive to conservative, and which political party they identify with), and questions pertaining to their social and economic ideology (e.g., where they stand on different social and economic issues, such as women’s and LGBQT rights, income inequality, and profit sharing).

“We see ideology as a complex, multidimensional product; that includes different attitudes on social and economic matters, as well as identification with progressive or conservative ideals; it’s really not just about the left or the right,” says Petropoulos.

In agreement with the original study, the researchers found an association between conservatism and the volume of gray matter in the amygdala; however, this association was three times weaker compared to the original study.

“The amygdala controls for the perception and the understanding of threats and risk uncertainty, so it makes a lot of sense that individuals who are more sensitive towards these issues have higher needs for security, which is something that typically aligns with more conservative ideas in politics,” says Petropoulos.

The association between amygdala size and conservatism also depended on the political party that the individual identified with—for example, participants who identified with the socialist party, which has radically left-wing economic policies but more conservative social values, had on average more gray matter in the amygdala compared to other progressive parties.

“The Netherlands has a multi-party system, with different parties representing a spectrum of ideologies, and we find a very nice positive correlation between the parties’ political ideology and the amygdala size of that person,” says Petropoulos. “That speaks to the idea that we're not talking about a dichotomous representation of ideology in the brain, such as Republicans versus Democrats as in the US, but we see a more fine-grained spectrum of how political ideology can be reflected in the brain’s anatomy.”

However, in contrast to the original study, the team did not find any association between conservatism and a smaller volume of gray matter in the ACC, a brain region involved in error detection, impulse control, and emotional regulation.

The researchers also extended their analysis to examine potential associations between political identity and other regions of the brain. This analysis uncovered a positive association between the gray matter volume in the right fusiform gyrus, a region in the temporal lobe that is essential for visual and cognitive functions, and economic and social conservatism.

“These regions have to do with facial recognition, so it makes sense that they might be involved when one is thinking about political issues, because political issues often remind us of the political personas that represent ideology on those issues,” says Petropoulos. “Just the memory of the face of a politician, for instance, might make the fusiform gyrus light up a little.”

The MRI scans used in this study provide information only on the anatomy of different brain regions, but the researchers say that future work should integrate information about the functional connections between the amygdala and different parts of the brain.

“I think the future of this endeavor to identify political orientations in the brain will be to look more towards functional connectivity network and neural synchrony studies—how brain networks organize and synchronize between individuals, and whether there are differences in this synchronization when individuals with difference political ideologies consume similar content,” says Petropoulos.
I thought I had already seen a study showing that conservatives have more connectivity:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72980-x
The amygdala is a small, almond-shaped part of the brain that plays a key role in processing emotions, especially fear, anxiety, and rage. It's located in the temporal lobes of the brain, just above the ear. It makes sense that conservatives would have a larger one since their running narrative is one of endless outrage and unfair persecution by the ubiquitous all-powerful leftists.
No, it makes sense that conservatives are better able to estimate threats (like actual terrorists slipping through a porous border) than leftists (who imagine conservatives are the biggest threat). This is because a larger amygdala with more connections to other parts of the brain allows for more reason and better emotional regulation. This is why you have leftists literally howling and screaming when Trump is elected. They lack emotional regulation. They're policies also reflect their lack of self-regulation, where they want to legalize drugs, abortion, etc..

But you'd know that if you were intellectually honest enough to be bothered to read either study I posted. Which just affirms why it's a complete waste of time to placate your whining about not posting studies. You'll whine "prove me wrong," but will never read, or comprehend, anything that does so.
It sounds like total bullshit to me.
Quote:This is because a larger amygdala with more connections to other parts of the brain allows for more reason and better emotional regulation.


"In a study released on Nov. 20, 2013, researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine have found that measuring the size and connectivity of the amygdala—a part of the brain associated with processing emotion—can predict the degree of anxiety a young child is experiencing in daily life.

Prolonged stress and anxiety during childhood increase the risk of someone developing anxiety disorders and depression later in life. In the breakthrough study, the researchers at Stanford found that the larger the amygdala—and the stronger its connections with other regions of the brain responsible for perception and the regulation of emotion—the greater the amount of anxiety a child was experiencing. This study was published online in Biological Psychiatry."---- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...ts-anxiety
That study didn't actually compare the children studied to their later life outcomes. It only makes a correlation between amygdala size/connectivity between two disparate demographics. As children, earlier life anxiety would be more apt to cause the earlier development of coping skills and emotional self-regulation. Especially when long term outcomes for such children is greater well-being, per my earlier cited study (patently ignored by MR). Cherry-picking "adults suffering from anxiety disorders" to compare disregards whether their amygdala size/connectivity happened later in life, without the early opportunity to develop coping skills and emotional self-regulation... or without the positive benefit of a conservative upbringing.
"An enlarged amygdala is associated with a number of psychopathologies, including:

Anxiety and depression
In children with autism, ADHD, or OCD, an enlarged amygdala may lead to more anxiety and depression.

Behavioral problems
A study of 300 autistic children found that those with behavioral problems had a larger right amygdala.

Major depressive disorder
Functional imaging studies have shown higher metabolism in the amygdala of people with major depressive disorder.

Pathological fear
Studies have shown that an enlarged amygdala volume is associated with pathological fear."

https://www.google.com/search?q=Enlarged...s-wiz-serp
Again... as if someone here can't read... since conservatives in general have greater well-being and life satisfaction, it does not follow that a larger amygdala is, itself, causative of psychological problems. That would actually be a contradiction. Instead, again... almost as if someone can't even read... that would seem to indicate that those mentally ill are lacking in the conservative upbringing that instills the emotional self-regulation that allows for a rational understanding of threats and the corresponding ability to deal with them. There's also evidence of larger amygdala providing protective factors following trauma:

The vast majority of individuals experience trauma within their lifetime. Yet, most people do not go on to develop clinical levels of psychopathology. Recently, studies have highlighted the potential protective effects of having larger amygdala and hippocampal volumes, such that larger volumes may promote adaptive functioning following trauma.
...
These findings provide initial support for potentially protective effects of larger right amygdala and hippocampal subregion volumes against internalizing symptomology concurrently and longitudinally during adolescence.
...
Specifically, greater levels of childhood trauma related to larger volumes, and larger volumes were associated with fewer internalizing symptoms.
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9079354/


But even just looking over the protective factors against mental health problems, it is fairly clear which political side would provide more: https://theconnectprogram.org/resources/...e-factors/
(Sep 21, 2024 04:23 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Again... as if someone here can't read... since conservatives in general have greater well-being and life satisfaction,

Have greater well being and life satisfaction? Who says?

Here's some more interesting studies on conservatives:

"Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are generally more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.

1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative.

In a 2012 study, liberal and conservative participants were shown collages of negative and positive images on a computer screen while their eye movements were recorded. While liberals were quicker to look at pleasant images, like a happy child or a cute bunny rabbit, conservatives tended to behave oppositely. They’d first inspect threatening and disturbing pictures—things like car wrecks, spiders on faces, and open wounds crawling with maggots—and would also tend to dwell on them for longer.

This is what psychologists call a “negativity bias.” If you think about it, this makes sense. When attention is biased toward the negative, the result is an overly threat-conscious appraisal of one’s surroundings. To many conservatives, the world may look like a much scarier place. This would seem to explain why so many major conservative viewpoints tend to be rooted in fear—fear of the president, immigrants, vaccinations, etc.

2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threats.

A 2008 study published in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological response to startling noises and graphic images. This adds to a growing body of research that indicates a hypersensitivity to threat—a hallmark of anxiety. But why exactly would those who scare more easily tend to support conservative views?

One social psychologist from the University of Central Arkansas, Paul Nail, has a pretty interesting answer: “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living. The fact is we don’t live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.” This could explain the two parties’ different stances on gun control. It makes sense that those who startle more easily are also the ones that believe they need to own a gun.

3. Conservatives fear new experiences.

A 2008 study cataloged items found in the bedrooms of college students and saw that while liberals owned more books and travel-related items, conservatives had more things that kept order in their lives, like calendars and cleaning supplies.

This suggests that liberals more often seek adventure and novel experiences. Conservatives, on the other hand, may prefer a more ordered, disciplined lifestyle. This could help explain why they can be resistant to change and progressive policies.

4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear.

Using MRI, scientists from University College London have found that students who identify themselves as conservatives have a larger amygdala than self-described liberals. This brain structure is involved in emotion processing, and it's especially reactive to fearful stimuli. It is possible that an oversized amygdala could create a heightened sensitivity that may cause one to habitually overreact to anything that appears to be a potential threat, whether it actually is one or not. This disproportionate fear response could explain how, for example, Bush’s administration was able to gather wide public support amongst conservatives for invading Iraq. Maybe if they said the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” enough times, it wouldn’t matter whether they existed or not.

Empirical evidence suggests that conservatives and liberals don’t just have different outlooks and opinions—they also have different brains. This means that our choice of political affiliation and overall worldview may not really be all that much of a choice. Still, we must work to understand these psychological and biological distinctions so that we can ultimately use this knowledge to work together and find middle ground. Such information may also make us less vulnerable to those who want to exploit these dispositions for their own selfish agendas by using tactics like fear-mongering.

Furthermore, knowing why someone is the way they are can help us to be more tolerant and patient with one another. But we must also be honest about the situation. When important choices are being made based on gut instinct rather than logical reasoning, it is everyone’s responsibility to point this out so that it doesn’t result in catastrophe."----
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-attitudes
Pages: 1 2 3