NationStates Jolt Archive


Political Views "All In The Mind"?

Kyronea
20-09-2008, 18:09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7623256.stm

Political views 'all in the mind'
By Matt McGrath
Science reporter, BBC World Service

Scientists studying voters in the US say our political views may be an integral part of our physical makeup.

Their research, published in the journal Science, indicates that people who are sensitive to fear or threat are likely to support a right wing agenda.

Those who perceived less danger in a series of images and sounds were more inclined to support liberal policies.

The authors believe their findings may help to explain why voters' minds are so hard to change.

In the study, conducted in Nebraska, 46 volunteers were first asked about their political views on issues ranging from foreign aid and the Iraq war to capital punishment and patriotism.

Those with strong opinions were invited to take part in the second part of the experiment, which involved recording their physiological responses to a series of images and sounds.

The images included pictures of a frightened man with a large spider on his face and an open wound with maggots in it. The subjects were also startled with loud noises on occasion.

Conducting experiments

By measuring the electrical conductance of the volunteers' skin and their blink responses, the scientists were able to work out the degree of fear they were experiencing - how sensitive they were to the images and sounds.
Instead of political opponents thinking the opposite party are being wilfully bull-headed, you can say 'well ok, they see the world differently than I do'
John Hibbing

They found that subjects who were more easily startled tended to have political views that would be classified as more right wing, being more in favour of capital punishment and higher defence spending, but opposed to abortion rights.

The scientists explained that these political positions were protective of the volunteers' social groups.

"We focused primarily on things that we call 'protecting the social unit'," said John Hibbing from the University of Nebraska.

"So the idea is we have this unit - maybe it's the US - and we want to protect this from outsiders; so we might be opposed to immigration, we might advocate patriotism, and we like leaders who are strong and clear who are able to protect us from those outsiders.

"We might even be opposed to pornography or any kind of corrosive element that we see threatening the social unit.

"On the other hand, you have people who are more supportive of pacifism and who advocate gun control - and there are lots of areas where people who are less sensitive to threat would project those kinds of feelings into the political arena."

Different strokes

The researchers say there is no political relevance to their research - but Dr Hibbing feels it may help explain why it is so hard to change someone's mind in a political debate.

Different people, he said, started from a different psychological point.

"You have people who are experiencing the world, who are experiencing threat, differently.

"It's just that we have these very different physiological orientations. We're not sure where they came from, they may be genetic, they may be something from childhood; we do know, though, that they run deep because it's a reflex, it's not something you can change tomorrow, the depth of that may be something of an asset in figuring out why people are so stubborn in their political beliefs," he said.

"I even have the hope that this might facilitate understanding a little bit. Instead of political opponents thinking the opposite party are being wilfully bull-headed, you can say 'well ok, they see the world differently than I do'.

"People haven't just thought about things differently, they feel things differently."

Interesting stuff. It still, however, describes tendencies and typicalities, not everything as a whole, so far as I understand it, so I dearly hope no one takes this and uses it to claim that people can never change and therefore it's a waste of time and we should kill them all/whatever.
Exilia and Colonies
20-09-2008, 18:12
This is very interesting and worthy of further study.

We could eliminate that costly campaigning buisiness if people's views are fixed from the start :p
Vault 10
20-09-2008, 18:15
It's kinda already been posted, although w/o the article directly...

Either way, right-wing and left-wing concepts are already screwed quite a lot; they ignore a lot of people in other two corners of the "political compass".
Conserative Morality
20-09-2008, 18:16
46 is not enough. Do a thousand, and then I might pay attention to this.
Vault 10
20-09-2008, 18:18
We can have a test with 46 respondents right here.
Conserative Morality
20-09-2008, 18:21
We can have a test with 46 respondents right here.

46 is not enough. I could go out and do that same test with 46 people in my town, and I'd probably get different results. I realize that no test done without the entire group you're looking at is perfect, but about a thousand lessens the chance of the results being...Well, chance.
Forsakia
20-09-2008, 18:22
It's known already. It won't eliminate campaigning, just change it. Rather than send out generic leaflets what's happening now is messages are being tailored to an individual's concerns.

At least in the UK political parties have started buying consumer profiles and are beginning the process of targeting literature (you work out what issues they're likely to be most concerned about, or send out surveys to find out, then have a generic letter on each issue and target them).

It's stopped being about trying to convince people (and change their mind) that your ideas are right, and become convincing them that you agreed with them all along.
Vault 10
20-09-2008, 18:26
46 is not enough.
That was the point.


I'm somehow not convinced that liberals are more OK with images of maggots in a wound and stuff like that.
New Limacon
20-09-2008, 18:35
This should make conservatives excited. Yes, they are jumpier than liberals, but that means that liberals are also easier to kill.
Soleichunn
20-09-2008, 18:50
It's kinda already been posted, although w/o the article directly...

Either way, right-wing and left-wing concepts are already screwed quite a lot; they ignore a lot of people in other two corners of the "political compass".
Even then four points doesn't cover enough.
New Limacon
20-09-2008, 18:53
It's kinda already been posted, although w/o the article directly...

Either way, right-wing and left-wing concepts are already screwed quite a lot; they ignore a lot of people in other two corners of the "political compass".

That's absolutely true. In fact, even a two-dimensional compass makes a lot of cookie-cutter generalizations; the best one would include close to seven billion different points, one for each person on earth.
But for practical or sociological reasons, it is useful to aggregate people in smaller groups. In the United States, two is a useful number because there are only two major parties. It may be different in other places, but even there I can't imagine more than ten distinct political groups.

EDIT: The Pew Research Center has nine political "typologies," corresponding to three each for Republicans, Democrats, and independents. However, the three more conservative groups tend to vote Republican and the three more liberal groups tend to vote Democratic.
Vault 10
20-09-2008, 19:52
Even then four points doesn't cover enough.
Of course, practically, even a two-dimensional system needs 9 sectors (3x3), not 4. But as far as extremes are concerned, it goes.


That's absolutely true. In fact, even a two-dimensional compass makes a lot of cookie-cutter generalizations; the best one would include close to seven billion different points, one for each person on earth.
But for practical or sociological reasons, it is useful to aggregate people in smaller groups. In the United States, two is a useful number because there are only two major parties.
Yes, there are 6-7 bln different points, but two is another extreme. Why I see four points as a minimum is that the Dem/Rep can be roughly described as "Social liberty except for guns, state economy" versus "Social restrictions, market economy".

As such, there are two distinct reasons to vote for Dems - liberties and communism; and there are two distinct reasons to vote for Reps - morality and capitalism.

This pairing is not intuitive, and, actually, pretty ridiculous. Until lately, socialist countries also suppressed social freedoms; and capitalism was and is built upon rejection of morality and shift to monetary values.

The reverse, i.e. capitalism+freedom vs. socialism+morality, would make much more sense.

However, politically we're stuck with the choices offered. For many people, voting Dem or Rep is a difficult question or choosing either social or economic freedom, while they want both. And the opposite happens too. As such, these groupings are random and situational. Inside each group, there are people with radically opposed views, just that their priorities make them vote the same. But they vote for entirely different things, and have to suck up the shortcomings that for others are the whole point.
Kamsaki-Myu
20-09-2008, 20:06
-snip-
I stand by my earlier statement that Ulster-Scots cultural and biological heritage is at least partly to blame.
New Limacon
20-09-2008, 20:25
However, politically we're stuck with the choices offered. For many people, voting Dem or Rep is a difficult question or choosing either social or economic freedom, while they want both. And the opposite happens too. As such, these groupings are random and situational. Inside each group, there are people with radically opposed views, just that their priorities make them vote the same. But they vote for entirely different things, and have to suck up the shortcomings that for others are the whole point.
It is an odd pairing, but I think placing people on how they vote can actually be useful. If someone votes Republican, you can tell they feel economic freedom is more important than social freedom or social restrictions are more important than economic restrictions. The opposite is true with Democratic voters.
Doing this shows something many compasses ignore: how much a person cares about a particular issue. For example, I prefer elephants to donkeys, but that opinion shouldn't get weighted the same as my feelings on the war in Iraq.