Chris Mooney Discusses "The Republican Brain" with Jonathan Haidt and Chris Hayes
Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives
It's Hard to Gross Out a Libertarian: Jonathan Haidt on Sex, Politics, and Disgust
CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS
- Economists: 'People vote their pocketbooks' People: 'Yep' Sociologists: 'People vote their identities' People: 'Yep' Evolutionary psychologists: 'Also, people sometimes vote for their perceived reproductive & genetic interests' People: WHAT KIND OF CYNICAL MONSTERS ARE YOU?
nasty shauna
@goldengateblond San Francisco, CA- "Nasty women are gonna walk our nasty feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever." —
@SenWarren, American heroYOU WANT THESE NASTY ASS MOTHAFUCCAS RUNNIN' THE COUNTRY? VOTE FOR THAT NASTY ASS CRACCA ASS BITCH!
You're Liberal Cuz You A Nasty Ass MothaFucca! You Have A High Tolerance For Disgusting Shit! You Have A High Threshold For Gross Shit! That Means You're Not Bothered Or Troubled By Nasty Shit Cuz You A Nasty Ass MothaFuccin' Liberal!
HAIGHT!
Moral foundations theory is a project of social psychologists trying to figure out why moral norms vary with culture, yet still seem to reflect certain human universals. All cultures have seemingly idiosyncratic notions of what is right and wrong, yet clearly there also is evidence of universal ethics.
The morality of polygamy, infanticide, racism, and sex changes across
cultures and across time. The morality of incest and murder does not.
What gives? Moral foundations theory, developed primarily by
psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham, Argues that moral universals are rooted in "intuitive ethics." This
is the notion that all humans come equipped with a set of innate
psychological mechanisms that automatically trigger emotionally based
moral responses to the situations we encounter in our physical,
psychological, and social environments. Peel off the academic language and the core idea is one we all recognize. Most everyone experiences gut responses to ethical dilemmas (Should
I go back and tell the cashier he gave me too much change? Should I rat
out the person who is stealing from the supply chain?). In these
sorts of situations an inner voice often tells us, "Go make things
right with the cashier because otherwise he's going to be in trouble
when his register doesn't balance."
Haidt and Graham argue that these
sorts of ethical intuitions are based in five distinct universal
systems - termed moral foundations - that account for the vast majority
of moral decision-making across cultures. They identified
these foundations by asking people to reflect on the concerns relevant
to them when they determined whether something was right or wrong. Two
of these foundations deal with the unjust treatment of individuals,
specifically whether someones was harmed or treated differently from
others (respectively labeled the harm and the fairness
foundations) The other three foundations focus less on the individual
than on the group or community and deal with loyalty and betrayal,
respect for authority, and the desire to avoid that which is vile and
disgusting (labeled loyalty, authority, and purity, respectively).
From differential emphasis on particular sets of foundations, different
ethical systems can be constructed individually and socially.
Though
moral foundations theory starts from a different place than the
trait-based personality research - the search for a universal ethics as
opposed to the search for the qualities that form individual character -
it ends up in pretty much the same place, at least in terms of
politics. This is because the
moral foundations you use to decide what is wrong and what is right are
fairly accurate predictors of your political beliefs. What
Haidt, Graham, a number of collaborators, and an expanding set of
independent investigators find is not just evidence that these moral
foundations are identifiable across cultures, but also that they are indicators of political temperament. The quick summary is that liberals tend to place their emphasis on the foundations relating to the unjust treatment of individuals (harm and fairness) while conservatives are likely to rely more heavily than liberals on concerns for loyalty, authority, and purity. In other words, when it comes to deciding what is the morally correct course of action, liberals
are particularly sensitive to the way in which an individual is being
treated, while conservatives are more likely to factor in group
considerations.
A
liberal likely sees a moral wrong when an individual is being, say,
socially ostracized. A conservative is more likely to take into account
communal considerations in formulating a moral judgement. Is
that guy being ostracized because he is not one of us? Because he was
disloyal? Because he broke the rules or thumbed his nose at the accepted
way of doing things? Because he did something that everyone else finds
disgusting? If the answer to these sorts of questions is yes, maybe he
had it coming. One of the important implications of moral foundations theory is that liberals
and conservatives disagree not because they have rationally analyzed
their way to different issue positions but rather because they have
different reflexive responses to what is going on in their social,
psychological, and physical environments. These responses are
emotionally rooted cues to what is right and what is wrong. Our term
for these emotionally rooted, reflexive responses is predispositions.
Haidt
and Graham describe moral foundations as the "taste receptors of the
moral sense," and it is worth noting how these moral taste buds line up
with the personality research. Emphasis on harm and fairness is
positively associated with liberal orientations, positively associated
with the personality trait of openness, and negatively associated with
right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). This
makes sense; people high on openness are more likely to be sensitive to
anything that constrains individual expression and freedom. People with
high conscientiousness and RWA are more likely to be sensitive to
anything that violates group-oriented rules and regulations. Like
personality, moral foundations seem to be capturing something universal
- a set of dispositions that guide reactions to situations in our
physical, social, and psychological environments. Among other things,
those dispositions clearly influence our politics.
TRUMP BUMP
Moral
foundations theory also helps to explain why conservatives and liberals
differ on tastes and preferences that seemingly have nothing to do with
politics. For example, Haidt and Graham asked people what sort of dogs they wanted. Liberals wanted dogs that were gentle and related to their owners as equals. Conservatives wanted dogs that were loyal and obedient.
These pet preferences mapped directly onto differences in underlying
moral foundations, with liberals emphasizing traits associated with just
treatment and conservatives emphasizing traits reflecting loyalty and
authority. SIT, BOO BOO, SIT. GOOD DOG.
...
actually,
LIBERAL CRACKERS AREN'T DISGUSTED BY THINGS LIKE THIS. THEY LAUGH AT IT AND IN SOME CASES ARE AROUSED BY IT. THAT'S DISGUSTING AND THAT'S A TELL-TALE SIGN THAT THEY'RE LIBERAL CRACKERS! (YOU EVER SEEN ONE UH THEM CRACCA KIDS (TODDLERS) PASS GASS AROUND HIS/HER PARENTS OR OLDER SIBLINGS? THE PARENTS AND OLDER SIBLINGS LAUGH AT THAT NASTY SHIT. ("LIL JOHNNY MADE A FUNNY, HONEY!") THEY DON'T DISCIPLINE HIS CRACCA ASS OR TELL HIM TO NOT DO THAT AROUND THEM, INSTEAD, THEIR LAUGHTER AND SILENCE ABOUT IT ENCOURAGES LIL JOHNNY TO DO IT AGAIN. AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL TELL-TALE SIGNS THAT THEY'RE LIBERAL CRACKERS.)
THAT NASTY ASS FEMINIST CRACKER IN THE FOREGROUND IS PASSIN' GASS! THAT'S WHY THE CRACKER IN THE BACK OF HER IS LOOKIN' AT HER ASS! LIKE, "DAM, WHAT THE SHE GOT UP HER ASS?" THE HIPPIE'S JUST INHALIN' AND EXHALIN' OUT HER ASS! FEMINIST FARTER!
FRISCOOOOOO
Disgust
is a particularly interesting emotion to study. In chapter 4 we
discussed differences in tastes and preferences and pointed out that people
generally avoid things they find disgusting. Moreover, if you remember
the discussion of moral foundations theory, you might recall that
conservatives are more likely to emphasize purity and disgust as a foundation for moral and political orientations. Researchers have known for some time that self-reported
disgust sensitivity, not to mention the kinds of things found to be
socially or morally disgusting are related to political beliefs such
that those who report higher disgust sensitivity are more likely to
adopt conservative positions, especially on sex-related issues like
gay-marriage.
How do we get from disgust sensitivity to support gay marriage?
Well, let's start by recognizing that disgust is a very powerful
feeling, "the most visceral of all emotions." If you have ever gagged
after smelling or seeing something particularly vile, you know this to
be true. Good evolutionary
reasons exist for disgust being such a dominant action predisposition.
Feelings of disgust lead people to avoid the sources of pestilence -
that is what the gag reflex is all about. If a rotting carcass makes us
nauseous rather than hungry, we are less likely to eat it and thus more
likely to stay alive. Disgust, though, is not limited to avoiding rotting meat or to giving steaming piles of poop a wide birth. This
emotion, along with its powerful impact on attitudes and behaviors,
transfers to the social aspects of the environment. Most people in most
cultures, for example, find the thought of incest disgusting. That makes
good evolutionary sense. If Oedipal thoughts make you feel queasy, you
are less likely to end up with jug-eared kids playing one-stringed
banjos. Evolution, in short, seems to have used disgust as a means to
avoid the fitness cost accompanying the practice of close genetic
relatives producing offspring. It doesn't stop there. Disgust,
as we have already hinted, also plays a role in making moral
judgements. Some social actions - betrayal and support of out-groups -
can induce disgust. This is the general idea conveyed by the quote from
Sophocles at the beginning of this chapter, and when we find something
disgusting, be it in the domain of microbes, mating, or morality, we
seek to avoid and/or condemn it.
Like
pretty much everything else, though, there are individual differences
in disgust sensitivity in all three of these domains. Just
as some people have a gag reflex to foods that others wolf down, it is
not surprising that social behaviors or political positions passionately
supported by some people tend to make others feel queasy. What is
interesting here, however, is that we are not just talking about someone
who finds the thought of a same-sex couple getting it on disgusting but
rather that opposition to gay marriage is higher in people who are more
disgust sensitive regardless of whether that sensitivity is triggered
by stimuli connected to microbes, mating, or morality. Think of it like
this: People who are more disgust sensitive logically seem to be more
likely to take disgust/purity concerns into account when making a moral (read political) decision. Given the logic of moral foundations theory explored in Chapter 4, it follows that disgust
sensitivity should make people more likely to be conservative,
particularly on issues that combine mating with morality - topics like
abortion and gay marriage.
-
When Trump loses to Hillary, he better hope the Clintons don't build a Wall around Trump Tower in NYC & keep him confined there! LOLWHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH NIGGERS ON A DAILY BASIS AND TRYING TO USE THEM TO YOUR ADVANTAGE (GAIN STATUS AND COAX MONEY OUT OF THEM), YOU'RE ALMOST FORCED TO BE A DEMOCRAT BECAUSE IF YOU START TALKING THAT PRO-CAPITALIST, SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE, WHITE, REPUBLICAN SHIT THEY'LL EXCLUDE YOU. THEY WON'T CONSIDER YOU ONE OF THEM (ON THEIR SIDE). SO IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT THIS BIG, FAT, GREEK FAG CONTINUE TO CHAMPION THE LIBERAL CAUSE IF HE WANTS TO CONTINUE TO REAP THE REWARDS FROM HIS NIGGER PLAYERS.
Dinos Trigonis
THE LINK BELOW SHOULD GIVE YOU AND IDEA ABOUT THE PASSAGE BELOW. SO READ IT.
http://brainandevolution.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-does-disgust-induction-cause.html
http://brainandevolution.blogspot.com/2008/12/yuck-more-evidence-that-disgust.html
http://brainandevolution.blogspot.com/search/label/Morality
I'm going to focus on what is known about the psychology of liberals and conservatives - the two end points of a one-dimensional scale. Many people resist and resent attempts to reduce ideology to a single dimension. Indeed, one of the great strengths of Moral Foundations Theory is that it gives you six dimensions, allowing for millions of possible combinations of settings. People don't come in just two types. Unfortunately, most research on political psychology has used the left-right dimension with American samples, so in many cases that's all we have to go on. But I should also note that this one dimension is still quite useful. Most people in the United States and in Europe can place themselves somewhere along it (even if most people are somewhat near the middle). And it is the principal axis of the American culture war and of congressional voting, so even if relatively few people fit perfectly into the extreme types I'm going to describe, understanding the psychology of liberalism and conservatism is vital for understanding a problem that threatens the entire world.http://brainandevolution.blogspot.com/2008/12/yuck-more-evidence-that-disgust.html
http://brainandevolution.blogspot.com/search/label/Morality
Here's a simple definition of ideology: "A set of beliefs about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved." And here's the most basic of all ideological questions: Preserve the present order, or change it? At the French Assembly of 1789, the delegates who favored preservation sat on the right side of the chamber, while those who favored change sat on the left. The terms right and left have stood for conservatism and liberalism ever since.
Political theorists since Marx had long assumed that people chose ideologies to further their self-interest. The rich and powerful want to preserve and conserve; the peasants and workers want to change things (or at least they would if their consciousness could be raised and they could see their self-interest properly, said the Marxists). But even though social class may once have been a good predictor of ideology, that link has been largely broken in modern times, when the rich go both ways (industrialists mostly right, tech billionaires mostly left) and so do the poor (rural poor mostly right, urban poor mostly left). And when political scientists looked into it, they found that self-interest does a remarkably poor job of predicting political attitudes.
So for the most of the late twentieth century, political scientists embraced blank-slate theories in which people soaked up the ideology of their parents or the TV programs they watched. Some political scientists even said that most people were so confused about political issues that they had no real ideology at all.
But then came the studies of twins. In the 1980s, when scientists began analyzing large databases that allowed them to compare identical twins (who share all of their genes, plus, usually, their prenatal and childhood environments) to same-sex fraternal twins (who share half of their genes, plus their prenatal and childhood environments), they found that the identical twins were more similar on just about everything. And what's more, identical twins reared in separate households (because of adoption) usually turn out to be very similar, whereas unrelated children reared together (because of adoption) rarely turn out similar to each other, or to their adoptive parents; they tend to be more similar to their genetic parents. Genes contribute, somehow, to just about every aspect of our personalities.
We're not just talking about IQ, mental illness, and basic personality traits such as shyness. We're talking about the degree to which you like jazz, spicy foods, and abstract art; your likelihood of getting a divorce or dying in a car crash; your degree of religiosity, and your political orientation as an adult. Whether you end up on the right or the left of the political spectrum turns out to be just as heritable as most other traits: genetics explains about a third and a half of the variability among people on their political attitudes. Being raised in a liberal or conservative household accounts for much less.
How can that be? How can there be a genetic basis for attitudes about nuclear war, progressive taxation, and foreign aid when these issues only emerged in the last century or two? And how can there be a genetic basis for ideology when people sometimes change their political parties as adults?
To answer these questions it helps to return to the definition of innate that I gave in chapter 7. Innate does not mean unmmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience. The genes guide the construction of the brain in the uterus, but that's only the first draft, so to speak. The draft gets revised by childhood experiences. To understand the origins of ideology you have to take a developmental perspective, starting with the genes and ending with an adult voting for a particular candidate or joining a political protest. There are three major steps in the process.
After analyzing the DNA of 13,000 Australians [European Australians], scientists recently found several genes that differed between liberals and conservatives. Most of them related to neurotransmitter functioning, particularly glutamate and serotonin, both of which are involved in the brain's response to threat and fear. This finding fits well with many studies showing that conservatives react more strongly than liberals to signs of danger, including the threat of germs and contamination, and even low-level threats such as sudden blasts of white noise. Other studies have implicated genes related to receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine, which has long been tied to sensation-seeking and openness to experience, which are among the best established correlates of liberalism. As the Renaissance writer Michel de Montaigne said: "The only things I find rewarding...are variety and the enjoyment of diversity."
Jason Weeden The Clinton-Trump race has moved whites with degrees to the left and widened the non-degreed gender gap.
Where do our personalities come from? To answer this question, we need to distinguish among three different levels of personality, according to a useful theory from psychologist Dan McAdams. The lowest level of our personalities, which he calls "dispositional traits," are the sorts of broad dimensions of personality that show themselves in many different situations and are fairly consistent from childhood through old age. These are traits such as threat sensitivity, novelty seeking, extraversion, and conscientiousness. These traits are not mental modules that some people have and others lack; they're more like adjustments to dials on brain systems that everyone has.
Let's imagine a pair of fraternal twins, a brother and sister raised together in the same home. During their nine months together in their mother's womb, the brother's genes were busy constructing a brain that was a bit higher than average in its sensitivity to threats, a bit lower than average in its tendency to feel pleasure when exposed to radically new experiences. The sister's genes were busy making a brain with the opposite settings.
The two siblings grow up in the same house and attend the same schools, but they gradually create different worlds for themselves. Even in nursery school, their behavior causes adults to treat them differently. One study found that women who call themselves liberals as adults had been rated by their nursery school teachers as having traits consistent with threat insensitivity and novelty-seeking. Future liberals were described as being more curious, verbal, and self-reliant, but also more assertive and aggressive, less obedient and neat. So if we could observe our fraternal twins in their first years of schooling, we'd find teachers responding differently to them. Some teachers might be drawn to the creative but rebellious little girl; others would crack down on her as an unruly brat, while praising her brother as a model student.
But dispositional traits are just the lowest of the three levels according to McAdams. The second level is our "characteristic adaptations." These are traits that emerge as we grow. They are called adaptations because people develop them in response to the specific environments and challenges that they happen to face. For example, let's follow our twins into adolescence, and let's suppose they attend a fairly strict and well-ordered school. The brother fits in well, but the sister engages in constant battles with the teachers. She becomes angry and socially disengaged. These are now parts of her personality - her characteristic adaptations - but they would not have developed had she gone to a more progressive and less structured school.
By the time they reach high school and begin to take an interest in politics, the two siblings have chosen different activities (the sister joins the debate team in part for the opportunity to travel; the brother gets more involved with his family's church) and amassed different friends (the sister joins the goths; the brother joins the jocks). The sister chooses to go to college in New York City, where she majors in Latin American studies and finds her calling as an advocate for the children of illegal immigrants. Because her social circle is entirely composed of liberals, she is enmeshed in a moral matrix based primarily on the Care/harm foundation. In 2008, she is electrified by Barack Obama's concern for the poor and his promise of change.
The brother, in contrast, has no interest in moving far away to a big, dirty, and threatening city. He chooses to stay close to family and friends by attending the local branch of the state university. He earns a degree in business and then works for a local bank, gradually rising to a high position. He becomes a pillar of his church and his community, the sort of person that Putnam and Campbell praised for generating large amounts of social capital. The moral matrices that surround him are based on all six foundations. There is occasional talk in church sermons of helping victims of oppression, but the most common moral themes in his life are personal responsibility (based on the Fairness foundation - not being a free rider or a burden on others) and loyalty to the many groups and teams to which he belongs. He resonates to John McCain's campaign slogan, "Country First."
Things didn't have to work out this way. On the day they were born, the sister was not predestined to vote for Obama; the brother was not guaranteed to become a Republican. But their different sets of genes gave them different first drafts of their minds, which led them down different paths, through different life experiences, and into different moral subcultures. By the time they reached adulthood they have become very different people whose one point of political agreement is that they must not talk about politics when the sister comes home for the holidays.
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt, p. 277-281
THERE ARE MANY GOOD PASSAGES THAT I'M GOING TO EXCEPT FROM THIS BOOK AND THEY ALL HAVE TO DO WITH HOW EVOLUTION, GENETICS, AND GROUP SELECTION LEAD TO THE POLITICAL VIEWS YOU HOLD AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES THAT YOU IDENTIFY WITH. THESE OTHER PASSAGES WILL ALSO EXPLAIN WHAT MORAL FOUNDATIONS THEORY IS, WHAT THE SIX FOUNDATIONS OF THE MORAL MATRIX ARE, AND WHAT PUTNAM AND CAMPBELL FOUND AMONG RELIGIOUS PEOPLE (THEY'RE BETTER CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORS). (THESE LATTER CONCEPTS ARE REFERRED TO IN THE EXCERPT ABOVE AND I'M SURE MOST OF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE. SO I'LL ADD PASSAGES THAT EXPLAIN THEM LATER.)
We Make Decisions Based On Emotions (Gut Instincts) Rather Than Reason. Most Of Us Believe We Make Decisions Based On Logic, But We Don't. So When We See Someone We Don't Know And Interact With Them For The First Time, We've Already Made Up Our Mind About That Person Prior To That Person Even Speaking. In Other Words, If Your Emotionally Based, Gut Feeling Toward Someone Is One Of Contempt And Disdain You'll Tend To Treat Them This Way. Don't Believe ME? Think Of All Of The Times You As A Black Male Were Treated Unfairly And Unkindly By A White Female For No Particular Reason. You Did Nothing To Provoke Her And Evoke Those Emotions And Behavior From Her, Yet She Treated You That Way Anyway. Why? Because She Was Unconsciously Influenced By Her Gut Instincts To Treat You That Way Because You're A NIGGER And She's Not. Fuckin' Cracker! Read Some Of The Links In The Link Below As Well As The Paiges Below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO80GAwzdZw
Black Man, Listen To Dr. Beer From About The 48:15 - 49:50 Minute Mark In The Video Above. She'll Tell You Why The White Girl And Asian Girl And Hispanic Girl Don't Like You For NO REASON (They'll Look At You And Not Like You). Then Listen To Shane And Dr. Beer From About The 55:50 - 59:40. They'll Tell You Why That Po-Lease Man, That D.A. And That Judge Think You're Guilty Before You're Proven Guilty! (They Do This Because They Have Psychological Biases Against You, Black Man.)
http://methalashun.blogspot.com/2014/05/lets-get-something-straight-folkz-and.html
UNCONSCIOUS RACISM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO80GAwzdZw
Black Man, Listen To Dr. Beer From About The 48:15 - 49:50 Minute Mark In The Video Above. She'll Tell You Why The White Girl And Asian Girl And Hispanic Girl Don't Like You For NO REASON (They'll Look At You And Not Like You). Then Listen To Shane And Dr. Beer From About The 55:50 - 59:40. They'll Tell You Why That Po-Lease Man, That D.A. And That Judge Think You're Guilty Before You're Proven Guilty! (They Do This Because They Have Psychological Biases Against You, Black Man.)
http://methalashun.blogspot.com/2014/05/lets-get-something-straight-folkz-and.html
UNCONSCIOUS RACISM
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
The thought experiment—called the trolley problem—has over the past few years gotten enough attention to be approaching “needs no introduction” status. But it’s not quite there, so: An out-of-control trolley is headed for five people who will surely die unless you pull a lever that diverts it onto a track where it will instead kill one person. Would you—should you—pull the lever?
Now rewind the tape and suppose that you could avert the five deaths not by pulling a lever, but by pushing a very large man off a footbridge and onto the track, where his body would slow the train to a halt just in time to save everyone—except, of course, him. Would you do that? And, if you say yes the first time and no the second (as many people do), what’s your rationale? Isn’t it a one-for-five swap either way?
Greene’s inspiration was to do brain scans of people while they thought about the trolley problem. The results suggested that people who refused to save five lives by pushing an innocent bystander to his death were swayed by emotional parts of their brains, whereas people who chose the more utilitarian solution—keep as many people alive as possible—showed more activity in parts of the brain associated with logical thought.
If you put Greene’s findings in general form—human “reasoning” is sometimes more about gut feeling than about logic—
.jpg)
Do People Naturally Cluster into Liberals and Conservatives?
Speaking Of Politics, Who Is More Likely To Date And Mate Outside Of Their Political Affiliation? Republicans Or Democrats?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-hidden-agenda-the-political-mind/201504/do-most-people-fit-in-liberal-and-conservative
I'M GOING TO EXCERPT SOME POLITICAL PASSAGES FROM THE FOLLOWING BOOKS IN THE NEAR FUTURE (AROUND THE TIME THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BEGINS TO HEAT UP):
https://www.amazon.com/Our-Political-Nature-Evolutionary-Origins/dp/1616148233/
https://www.amazon.com/Personality-Foundations-Political-Cambridge-Psychology/dp/0521140951/
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Tribes-Emotion-Reason-Between/dp/0143126059/
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Nature-Political-Animal-Evolution/dp/0226319105
http://www.amazon.com/Predisposed-Liberals-Conservatives-Political-Differences/dp/0415535875
. I'VE GOT SOME GOOD POSTS COMING FROM THIS BOOK SOON. YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY YOU'RE GENETICALLY WIRED TO BE A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT OR MODERATE (i.e. WHY YOU HOLD THE POLITICAL BELIEFS YOU HOLD).
theories and findings from political neuroscience with an emphasis on four brain regions that have emerged as important neural substrates of political ideology: the amygdala, the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex, and the prefrontal cortex..
https://twitter.com/Avi_Tuschman
avi
