Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Research: Partisanship Could Re-Wire Your Brain

February 15, 2013 by  

Research: Partisanship Could Re-Wire Your Brain
PHOTOS.COM

Research from a group of political scientists and neuroscientists reveals that political preference can have an impact on how the brain functions.

The findings, published in PLOS ONE, demonstrate that Democrats and Republicans rely on different parts of the brain when they make decisions that could be considered risky. Though the researchers suggest that parental influence and genetics play the biggest role in brain development, they contend that political affiliation also influences the brain’s function.

To find out how much politics affect how the brain works, Darren Schreiber, Ph.D., a researcher in neuropolitics at the University of Exeter, examined the brain activity of groups of Americans in a lab environment as they played a simple gambling game. He and his team then looked up the political party registration of the 82 participants in public records. They found that Democrats and Republicans take similar risks, but differ greatly in what parts of the brain lead them to do so during a high-risk activity.

Schreiber concluded, seemingly appropriately, that liberals are more likely to concentrate with the left side of the brain (insula) and conservatives (amygdala) with the right. According to the researchers, neuroscientists often associate the left brain with social and self-awareness and the right brain with fight-or-flight reflexes.

The researchers believe that by simply monitoring brain activity, they could determine whether a person is a Democrat or a Republican with 82.9 percent accuracy.

“Although genetics have been shown to contribute to differences in political ideology and strength of party politics, the portion of variation in political affiliation explained by activity in the amygdala and insula is significantly larger, suggesting that affiliating with a political party and engaging in a partisan environment may alter the brain, above and beyond the effect of heredity,” Schreiber said.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Research: Partisanship Could Re-Wire Your Brain”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    WHAT IN THE WORLD IS, “NEUROPOLITICS?” THIS “SCIENCE” IS PROOF OF RESEARCHERS HAVING TOO MUCH IDLE TIME; AND, A DESPERATION TO CONTINUE “ORIGINALITY” IN FACT-SEEKING.

    • Mike in MI

      Wrong. Wrong.
      And,…wrong.
      Neuropolitics has its basis in neurosciences. It deals with why people make their decisions about politics and socio-cultural matters in the manner they do. It’s based in neurology and which brain centers they use. The old question used to be is it nature or nurture. Now to great extent things are seen to be moved by genetics and to a degree by environment, neurotransmitter synthesis, and willingness or willfulness.
      As to politics, some people can see what has traditionally been shown to have and produce social benefits now and long term. Other people are blind to itand see onle what is in front of them and what they want right now ( no comprehension of delayed gratification)

      • eddie47d

        That must mean that anyone who is spoon fed a daily dose of propaganda on the left or the right has serious mental cognisance. We all take sides but some entrench themselves so far to the left or the right they have a hard time rationalizing life around them. Its always best to be an Independent or moderate without being pulled in one direction or another. I can be Conservative on financial issues but very Liberal on social issues. Republicans seem to be more fearful on issues like the future and Democrats are too lackadaisical on financial issues. Neither is right or wrong yet I don’t like either approach.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Mike in MI,”

        IT IS GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOU, SIR.

        BUT, YOU ARE W-R-O-N-G!!!

        THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BIO-MECHANISM IN THE BRAIN WHICH IMPACTS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. THAT IS, BULL—-!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CAH, you shouldn’t start sounding like Frank Kahn here, and start speaking out on things of which you have little knowledge or understanding. Nearly all of what Mike said is “good political psychology–political neuroscience”. He only got really off base when he tried to “politicize” the neuroscience in his very last sentence. Go read The Republican Brain and then come back and talk to us.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        PH.D CANDIDATES MUST WRITE DISSERTATIONS AND PRESENT RESEARCH AT COLLOQUIA. ORIGINALITY IS THE MANTRA. SO, TRYING TO FIND [REALLY, MANUFACTURE] NEW DATA IS THE “BACKBONE” OF THIS NEUROPOLITICAL “MUMBO-JUMBO.”

        “Right Brain Thinker,” I RESPECT YOUR ADMIRATION OF, “NEUROPOLITICS,” BUT, NATURAL SCIENCE NEEDS TO “STICK TO” GENERAL- BIOLOGY, -CHEMISTRY, -GEOLOGY AND -PHYSICS – AND, THEIR INTERACTIONS. FINDING THINGS IN THE BRAIN WHICH IMPACT THE BODY’S FUNCTION IS ACCEPTABLE AND “PROPER;” FINDING THINGS WHICH IMPACT EXTERNAL FORCES – WHICH ARE IMPORTANT TO A FEW – IS “IMPROPER” AND DESTROYS INFORMED REASON.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CAH,

        You shouldn’t equate the attention-seeking “originality” of the world of fashion, car styling, and pop music with the “originality” of academic research. No one gets rewarded much just for again proving something that is already known, unless they do it in a unique and “elegant” way. The “originality” of academic research is usually not particularly sensational—-it’s just a plodding series of steps that add up over time to new (and sometimes very big) understandings. Very few apples falling out of trees and hitting Newtonian heads these days.

        I don’t quite understand all that you say leading up to “IMPROPER AND DESTROYS INFORMED REASON”, but neuroscience and political psychology are, in my mind, VERY important topics to explore in this day of insane politics and wing nut political psychology. If we can’t understand what goes on in the brains of the right wing nuts and the techniques used by the 1% to co-opt them, we will be unable to counter them and will be in real trouble down the road.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        I WAS REFERRING TO NEW RESEARCH WHICH IS ORIGINAL AND BASED ON THE UNKNOWN BIOLOGICAL-PROCESSES OF THE HUMAN BRAIN AND OTHER PARTS OF THE BODY. YES – UNIQUE RESEARCH; BUT, R-E-A-L RESEARCH.

        “Right Brain Thinker,” IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THESE RESEARCH FINDINGS WERE PUBLISHED ONLINE. THE INTERNET IS A PLAYGROUND FOR YOUNG SCHOLARS. THERE IS A LOT OF, “HOKEY-POKEY SCIENCE,” ONLINE. I GUARANTEE, “SEASONED” RESEARCHERS WOULD CALL THESE PEOPLE, “QUACKS.”

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        “INFORMED REASON” IS THE OPPOSITION TO THIS “NEUROPOLITICAL THEORY.” AS YOU KNOW, IN SCIENTIFIC METHOD, YOU FORM AN HYPOTHESIS – THEN, YOU SEEK-OUT THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH MAKES THE HYPOTHESIS A TRUE REALITY. THEREFORE, “REASON” COMES INTO PLAY WHEN AN ACKNOWLEDGED “TRUTH” IS CHALLENGED. “NEUROPOLITICAL THEORY” CAN NOT WITHSTAND THIS TEST.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Sorry, CAH, but you are still making no sense. I don’t catch what distinction you’re trying to make with “R-E-A-L”. Your use of “new”, “original”, “unknown”, and “unique” only clouds the issue rather than clarifying anything.

        The site this article was posted on has some detractors but is generally accepted as better than “hokey-pokey” (whatever that means anyway).. Schreiber is also not “unseasoned” and has published a number of papers, some of which have been referenced in other studies and in books like The Republican Brain. I read about him before I ever heard about you and PLD.

        From what I’ve seen of your posts on PLD, I think you are WAY out of line making a comment like “I GUARANTEE, “SEASONED” RESEARCHERS WOULD CALL THESE PEOPLE, “QUACKS.”.

        If anyone is quacking here it’s YOU (as well as the duck in the “Lord love a duck!” that your comment has earned).

        Stop talking to hear yourself talk and make some sense soon, or I’m done talking to you.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON is writing to me while I’m writing to him He again makes no sense. It sounds to me as if he has borrowed Frank Kahn’s “Scientific Method for Dummies” book and interpreted it as badly as Frank would have. What CAH says to us here “cannot withstand the test” of logic and rational thinking. Period.

        “SEEK-OUT THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH MAKES THE HYPOTHESIS A TRUE REALITY”

        “INFORMED REASON” IS THE OPPOSITION TO THIS “NEUROPOLITICAL THEORY.”

        “REASON” COMES INTO PLAY WHEN AN ACKNOWLEDGED “TRUTH” IS CHALLENGED.

        “NEUROPOLITICAL THEORY” CAN NOT WITHSTAND THIS TEST.

        What does any of that mean? Is some material “intangible”? Is reality ever untrue? What neuropolitical “theory” are we talking about? Can there be “uninformed” reason? What “test? are we talking about?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        I CAN NOT BE MORE SPECIFIC BECAUSE I KNOW NOTHING OF NEUROPOLITICS – BUT, ITS NAME RINGS-OUT ALARM BELLS.

        YES – “Right Brain Thinker,” YOUR EGO WILL ENJOY DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE WITH SOMEONE WHO ALSO ENJOYS, “SCI-FI.”

        [Liberals love to end a discussion when reason walks in the door].

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        I UTILIZED THE WORD, “TANGIBLE,” BECAUSE RESEARCH RESULTS ON THE insula AND amygdala IS BASED ON A FALSE STANDARD WHICH CAN NOT BE DEFINITIVELY PROVEN.

        THOSE RESEARCHERS ARE POLITICAL “HACKS” WHO ARE TRYING TO FIND A BIOLOGICAL CAUSE FOR WHY POLITICAL KILLERS LIKE, Timothy McVeigh, DID THEIR “THANG” IN THE NAME OF A PARTICULAR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.

        LIBERALS HATE THE FACT THAT THE WORD, “EVIL,” HAS A Biblical connotation. SO, RESEARCHERS ARE TRYING TO FIND A BIOLOGICAL REASON WHY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY LEADS TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. I GUARANTEE, IF THESE RECENT POLITICAL KILLINGS – INCLUDING, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 – HAD NOT HAPPENED, NEUROPOLITICS WOULD NOT EXIST.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON ends our little side chat here with his last two comments. Not only has he gone beyond logic and rationality in what he says, but he even sounds a bit drunk. One of the favorite sayings of the many police officers I worked with when I was in school administration was “never argue with a drunk”. So, I will follow their advice. Farewell CAH. I leave the last word to you, with one loud LORD LOVE A DUCK!. in parting.

        You say “[Liberals love to end a discussion when reason walks in the door]“. Actually, if it’s me you’re accusing of being a “liberal”, I usually end discussions when reason walks OUT the door, as it has here, and I am leaving with it. Sober up and come back when you have gotten the below out of your system. .

        I CAN NOT BE MORE SPECIFIC BECAUSE I KNOW NOTHING.

        ITS NAME RINGS-OUT ALARM BELLS.

        BECAUSE RESEARCH IS BASED ON A FALSE STANDARD WHICH CAN NOT BE DEFINITIVELY PROVEN.

        THOSE RESEARCHERS ARE POLITICAL “HACKS” WHO ARE TRYING TO FIND A BIOLOGICAL CAUSE IN THE NAME OF A PARTICULAR POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.

        YES – “Right Brain Thinker,” YOUR EGO WILL ENJOY DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE WITH SOMEONE WHO ALSO ENJOYS, “SCI-FI.”

        And my very favorite piece of CAH loony talk.

        I GUARANTEE, IF THESE RECENT POLITICAL KILLINGS – INCLUDING, 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 – HAD NOT HAPPENED, NEUROPOLITICS WOULD NOT EXIST.

        May I suggest to CAH that “neuropolitics” exists just because man has a brain and scientists study it, as they do other parts of the body? And that it is a worthwhile endeavor because we allow folks like CAH to vote and need to understand why they will so often vote so badly?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        YOU TYPE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH MY COMMENTARY. SO, YOU SHOULD KNOW I AM NOT LIBERAL – NOR, CONSERVATIVE. SINCE I AM ATHEISTIC HOMOSEXUAL – AND, TO SOME, A “SLEAZEBALL” – I AM PROBABLY CONSIDERED A RADICAL. I VOTED FOR, Governor Gary Johnson.

        NOW – “Right Brain Thinker” – I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE I AM AN “UNDIAGNOSED” ALCOHOLIC. DURING EACH TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR PERIOD, I AM DRINKING (AT LEAST) FOR FIFTEEN OF THOSE HOURS. SINCE MY ARRIVAL AT, Personal Liberty Digest ON 6 JUNE 2012, I HAVE NEVER MADE COMMENTARY WITHOUT MY SCOTCH-WHISKEY BOTTLE [AND, MY CIGAR], BY MY SIDE. [My father drove an "eighteen-wheeler" for thirty-two years, with his whiskey bottle by his side - he was NEVER "DUI'd"].

        SO, “Right Brain Thinker,” YOU WILL NEVER FIND ME SOBER – BUT, MY MIND IS “SHARP AS A TACK!”

  • Mike in MI

    Sam Rolley,
    How did these Exeter scientists make their decisions about what generated what and was this “gambling game” something that can reliably be correlated with the affairs of life?
    Are/were the risks in the game real, as they are in life? Or was it “Monopoly money” risks?
    Do they generate the same kinds of passions in the game as in life?
    How do they determine which direction the behavior is primarily generated from, which brain centers or centers of the will are in operation?
    Is this school one that does or does not believe that mind is above and outside the brain? Or, do they believe mind is an emergent property of the functions going on within the meat?
    I don’t know what was said in their study or what their worldview proceeds from and to. However, if the statements made in your article are faithful paraphrasings of their studies you might benefit from researching information being dug up as a result of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Phenomena investigations.
    But, most of all, how much of any information is reliable if it is generated in institutions of reductionistic learning? Most/many of the traditional teaching and theorizing of the last 300 years is being shown to be either inconsistent with deeper, Truer truths being divulged by Quantum Theories and mathematics or “natural” processes are being shown to move from what used to be called “B” toward “A”, instead of from “A” to “B”. In other words reductionistic science is repeatedly being demonstrated to have wrongly assumed that what they could see and quantify has anything to do with material realities. In actuality, their assumptions have been erroneous since what they couldn’t see or refused to consider is now demonstrably more true than their shallow thinking. But, the centers of learning and research are still, for the most part, under control of the reactionary old guard.
    This has very deep ramifications throughout the universe of human events since if one proceeds on the basis of error, does it too long and often enough, to the detriment of too many people ultimately the results of the error will (can only) be chaos, stress, chronic diseases and tumult permeating the systems where the error has been practiced.
    As I see it there are two primary ways things will go (barring divine intervention):
    1). A period of tumultuous upheaval, leading to tyranny and repression with reversion to conditions similar to the Dark Ages or even tribalism; or,
    2). Somehow people will become knowledgeable of the new knowledge (Wisdom) in, of and about the Universe and tap into it. That would lead up, out and away from our present difficulties. But, this is unlikely since the feudal lords have an exceedingly strong hand on the reigns. Added to that the masses are depressed and anesthetized, propagandized and compliant.
    Actually, I expect the intervention scenario. That’s my hope – the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Ted Crawford

    I can’t verify the left brain- right brain issue, however it’s empirical fact that all information into, and out of the Progressive brain(?) is controled by the sphincter muscle!

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Ted Crawford demonstrates another “empirical fact” for us with his “sphincter” comment. The fact that some who visit PLD are attention seekers who have the same sense of humor as a slightly dim-witted twelve-year-old boy.

      CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON also goes off half-cocked this morning. CAH shoud try to learn more about political neuroscience and political psychology, because the right wing in this country is working on everyone’s amygdala with their fear-mongering, and those of us who fight them with our anterior cingulate cortex are outnumbered (at least on PLD).

      • Gary L

        According to the finding listed in the article above, you may need to change your moniker to Left Brain Thinker.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        EVERYTHING THAT IS, Christopher Allen Horton, LOVES INTELLECTUALISM. BUT, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW SOME BORED SCIENTISTS TO “SNOW-ME.”

      • Andy

        Hark! I do believe I just heard a far!ing sound coming from above…

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Actually, Gary, that is not quite the joke you may have intended it to be. When I first took RBT as a handle, I was referring to somewhat outdated ideas about brain “sidedness”. I have since done more study in the area of political neuroscience and political psychology, and it’s far more complicated than simple “right-left” view and the simplistic view that folks like Elda think says it all. A better handle in view of the new understandings would be Anterior Cingulate Cortex Thinker. That doesn’t have the same “ring” as RBT, though, and the “right” part of RBT seems to make those on the right who are so WRONG go bananas (but of course, they are Amygdala thinkers and much of their political neuroscience is wrapped up in brain functions that mirror patterns of rather primitive fear reactions, denial of science and rational thought, and general resistance to change).

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “Ted Crawford” – YOU ARE E-X-A-C-T-L-Y ON POINT!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CAH Are you that familiar with progressive sphincter muscles that you can comment so authoritatively?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        I ASSUMED “Ted Crawford” WAS ATTACKING ME BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALS PRACTICE ANAL SEX.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        You have sex with “progressives”? Aren’t you afraid you’ll catch something incurable? Like a respect for truth and open mindedness?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Right Brain Thinker,”

        OLD CONSERVATIVES ARE THE BEST LOVERS; LIBERALS ARE ALL
        “H-Y-P-E!”

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Sam seeks to be seeking a bit of “sensational” in the wording of his title. Upon accessing and reading the study, it seems to be more than a bit of a reach to say “Research: Partisanship Could Re-Wire Your Brain”. Smacks a bit of Lamarck and Lysenko, even. It might have been better to title the article “Research shows a connection between partisanship and the ‘wiring’ of the brain”. Schreiber titled his study “Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans”, and that’s NOT saying what Sam said.

    “Research from a group of political scientists and neuroscientists reveals that political preference can have an impact on how the brain functions” might be better stated as “how brain functions and activity can be demonstrated to correlate with political preference”. I have recommended the book “The Republican Brain” a number of times on various threads. It’s a good place to start looking at some of the latest thinking about political neuroscience and political psychology, and is much broader than the study that Sam cites.

    PLOS ONE, although by no means an “unreliable” site, is kind of like the Wal-mart of peer-reviewed sites. It publishes vast numbers of studies with minimal peer review, and is a favorite of journalists looking for articles with a catchy title to :”hook” readers with. Perhaps Sam was in a hurry and just looking for a “hook” title?

    Sam states, “The findings, published in PLOS ONE, demonstrate that Democrats and Republicans rely on different parts of the brain when they make decisions that could be considered risky. Though the researchers suggest that parental influence and genetics play the biggest role in brain development, they contend that political affiliation also influences the brain’s function”. Using the word “rely” ignores the fact that the brain functions as a very complex whole—-just because a particular part “lights up” when doing a particularly narrow and specialized thing, one shouldn’t go too far. And “contend” is also not a good word for Sam to use as he did here (see later remarks).

    “They found that Democrats and Republicans take similar risks, but differ greatly in what parts of the brain lead them to do so during a high-risk activity.” Same thing here—the brain doesn’t “lead them”, the activity leads to the use of certain parts of the brain.

    Sam needs to pay attention to the difference between the ‘abstract” and “discussion” sections of papers like these. The abstract will show what the authors perhaps “contend”—-what they think they may have “proven” and what fits strongly with accepted knowledge. The abstract tends to be “conservative”. The “discussion” will be a bit more “way out” (often quite a bit), and will suggest some possibilities for further research. The use of words like “may”, “suggests”, “further untangling” are all leading to the author’s expanded view of how his research “fits” with present understandings and where others might do future research. What Sam quoted below will be interpreted incorrectly by many who read this article. Again—-place heavy emphasis on the “suggesting” and “may” in the last sentence.l

    “Although genetics have been shown to contribute to differences in political ideology and strength of party politics, the portion of variation in political affiliation explained by activity in the amygdala and insula is significantly larger, suggesting that affiliating with a political party and engaging in a partisan environment may alter the brain, above and beyond the effect of heredity,” Schreiber said.

  • Elda

    How silly this article is. They see facts and jump to the very conclusion it is claims to be exposing. It is not your politics that shape your brain, it is the other way around. People that focus on fact tend to be conservative and people that focus on their feelings, or rather are ruled by their feelings, head left. When you use your feelings to rule your world you tend to try to change the facts to fit your feelings and it never goes well. That is why it is so hard to deal with the left because you are working with people that are emotionally toddlers. The best thing we can do it take back our children from the left and stop causing developmental arrest which leaves them to be the next generation of narcissists.

    • Grammy

      Well said!

  • meteorlady

    If a Republican doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
    If a Democrat doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
    If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
    If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
    A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a Republican doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    Democrats demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
    A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

    If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
    A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a Republican reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
    A Democrat will delete it because he’s “offended”.

    I guess that proves something….

    • http://www.facebook.com/darwan.winkler.3 Darwan Winkler

      It does! It proves that all Republican’s are not like you! For if they were, we would not be having this discussion.

    • Ed

      Great wisdom

  • http://www.facebook.com/darwan.winkler.3 Darwan Winkler

    Good article, ~ I have always maintained that ones “self image” that is developed during the early bonding process of mother and child is responsible for the perpetually “offended ones” . How they view the importance of self in relationship to the rest of the world.

    That my view are unflattering to those that experienced a less then stellar mother/child bonding experience that can not be changed , that can’t be undone and can’t be ignored ~I find it best left unspoken and just deal with it.

    It is, ~ what it is ~ a mental birth mark.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    The low number of responses to this article illustrates clearly how the vast majority of PLD denizens do NOT want to get anywhere near the topics of “brains” and “thinking” as they relate to politics. It’s like holy water to a vampire. Most are motivated reasoners who will only believe what they want to believe—–that which reinforces and supports their prior beliefs—–and refuse to look at anything that may contradict their beliefs in the slightest..

    Fully 20 of the 33 comments came from just two people, and one of them is a self-admitted “sharp-as-a-tack” drunk. There is little hope for the future of the nation.if PLD denizens are anything more than a very small minority of the population.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      I HEAR ‘YA, “Right Brain Thinker;” BUT, THIS TOPIC IS TOO “SCI-FI-ISH.”

  • Dad

    Gee, there may be something to this… all of the psycotics and deviants that I know are liberals… ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha

  • http://www.facebook.com/angcrete Angela Jones

    It’s simple logic actually, doesn’t take a scientist to figure this one out. The two parts of the brain they are talking about is : there are those with a conscience, and those without! See how simple that was.

  • Ed

    I believe Churchill spoke of a much better predictor.
    He said:”If you are 19 and not a liberal you have no heart; but if you are 39 and still a liberal you have no brain.”

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.