The neuroscience of intellectual openness (brain politics)

[C C]

https://areomagazine.com/2021/06/21/the-...-openness/

INTRO: How is it that some people feel energised by the thought of fierce debate and keen to have their beliefs challenged and their minds potentially changed, while others appear unwilling to listen to even the most benign differences of opinion, even regarding the experience as violent or oppressive? What makes some of us free speech absolutists, while others demand ever more limits on language?

For those of us who believe that freedom of speech is foundational to a democratic society, it’s all too easy to ascribe malicious intent to those who argue otherwise. We’re certain of their intentions: right-wingers who refuse to engage with progressives must be bigoted and authoritarian; while any leftist who exhibits such intolerance is probably an ignorant snowflake intent on bringing western democracy to its knees.

But what if a person’s stance on free speech—her willingness to tolerate opinions she doesn’t like—is linked to her brain function, and how she perceives the world? Perhaps opposition to free speech is less based on malevolence than on mindset.

In his lecture “The Infallible State Of Mind,” Norman Doidge unveils the intricate relationships between political correctness, free speech and the biological functions of the brain. After carefully examining the functional differences between our left and right brain hemispheres, Doidge demonstrates how over-reliance on one side can affect our ability to mentalise, listen to others and ultimately tolerate opinions different from our own. This article draws heavily on Doidge’s lecture throughout. Please note that, due to the embryonic nature of the field of neuroscience, all descriptions of brain states and mechanisms here are conjectural.

So, what may be going on in your mind when you can’t bear to hear alternative opinions?

The Divided Brain. The idea that people are either left- or right-brained is far too simplistic. However, the two brain hemispheres specialise in different tasks, take very different approaches to the world and process what they see in different ways.

While the right hemisphere sees things as a whole, the left, Doidge explains, has a narrower focus: instead of perceiving complex individuals and relationships, it tends to work with categories of people, making abstractions and divorcing things from their context. “Whenever people are over-generalising about people,” claims Doidge, “it has a left hemisphere flavour.” Since it schematises the world into familiar categories, the left part of our brain is probably linked to bigotry.

The right side of the brain is far better at connecting things and seeing them holistically, taking in their intricacies and complexities. The right hemisphere seeks novelty, remaining open- and broad-minded in its vigilant search for the unknown, while the left hemisphere tries to reduce all experience to something it already knows. The right side better understands context, humour, metaphor, subtlety and nuance, Doidge explains, and possesses a greater capacity for empathy, the understanding of emotions and the reading of body language.

When it comes to free speech, whether you see the world as a series of complicated, unpredictable individuals or abstract categories matters.

Today’s social justice culture, for instance, is a prime example of left-brained thinking. It wrenches individuals out of their more nuanced context, ranks them according to their degree of societal privilege and divides them into categories based on arbitrary characteristics like race, gender or sexuality. By carving the world up into two classes—the oppressors and the oppressed—today’s identitarian left justify speech restrictions and the shutting down of debate in the name of equality and fairness, in order, they argue, to give a voice to the marginalised and stifle the speech of the culturally privileged. Rather than being curious about the unknown, they try to condense the wide variety of unique human experiences into a single narrative, ostracising anyone with an opinion that doesn’t neatly align with theirs. They see only power and oppression, and—evocative of the left hemisphere—often seem unable to empathise with people as individuals... (MORE)

[Syne]

some people feel energised by the thought of fierce debate and keen to have their beliefs challenged and their minds potentially changed...
free speech absolutists...

Those on the right.

...others appear unwilling to listen to even the most benign differences of opinion, even regarding the experience as violent or oppressive
...demand ever more limits on language?

Those on the left.

right-wingers who refuse to engage with progressives must be bigoted and authoritarian

No such animal outside of threats of cancel culture to ruin their lives and livelihoods. You know, actual violence or oppression the left whines about.

But what if a person’s stance on free speech—her willingness to tolerate opinions she doesn’t like—is linked to her brain function, and how she perceives the world? Perhaps opposition to free speech is less based on malevolence than on mindset.

Opposition to free speech is based on fear. And the left's underdeveloped amygdala, and its connections, makes them much more susceptible to irrational and misplaced fear.

While the right hemisphere sees things as a whole, the left, Doidge explains, has a narrower focus: instead of perceiving complex individuals and relationships, it tends to work with categories of people, making abstractions and divorcing things from their context. “Whenever people are over-generalising about people,” claims Doidge, “it has a left hemisphere flavour.” Since it schematises the world into familiar categories, the left part of our brain is probably linked to bigotry.

Apropos that it's the left, who deal in identity politics, generalize who's "really black," etc.. They have always been the bigots, from the KKK and Jim Crow to the present day.

The right side of the brain is far better at connecting things and seeing them holistically, taking in their intricacies and complexities. The right hemisphere seeks novelty, remaining  open- and broad-minded in its vigilant search for the unknown, while the left hemisphere tries to reduce all experience to something it already knows. The right side better understands context, humour, metaphor, subtlety and nuance, Doidge explains, and possesses a greater capacity for empathy, the understanding of emotions and the reading of body language.

And seeing holistic connections is likely related to the having an amygdala better connected to the frontal cortex, etc..

Today’s social justice culture, for instance, is a prime example of left-brained thinking. It wrenches individuals out of their more nuanced context, ranks them according to their degree of societal privilege and divides them into categories based on arbitrary characteristics like race, gender or sexuality. By carving the world up into two classes—the oppressors and the oppressed—today’s identitarian left justify speech restrictions and the shutting down of debate in the name of equality and fairness, in order, they argue, to give a voice to the marginalised and stifle the speech of the culturally privileged. Rather than being curious about the unknown, they try to condense the wide variety of unique human experiences into a single narrative, ostracising anyone with an opinion that doesn’t neatly align with theirs. They see only power and oppression, and—evocative of the left hemisphere—often seem unable to empathise with people as individuals...

There's a reason more people in large cities are leftists. They generally have more potential sources of fear, and are more apt to develop a lot of superficial profiling to ward off danger. People with fewer fears are, themselves, considered more dangerous, hence the left dividing the country so vehemently.