![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Articles on single studies do not meet WP policies and guidelines AFAICT. Collect ( talk) 11:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
We have articles about liberalism and conservatism in various countries, and this jumps down not just to biological differences or brain differences, but structural brain differences. I think that this is too far to narrow it. I propose that the article be saved by including all measurable general differences in brain structure, function, and genetics, regardless of the modality of measurement used. This I think can be accomplished to some degree without even a change of title. I'll show you what I have in mind. Wnt ( talk) 20:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that someone trying to get the article deleted should be taking pains to keep out what he doesn't think is relevant to it - especially when that happens to undermine the reason given for the deletion attempt. Also, I think that claiming that an IQ test isn't about intelligence when the sources say "intelligence" a form of original research. Wnt ( talk) 02:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I just posted a short description of a study that was much in the news in 2007. I wasn't able to find the original article though, hoping that someone else can find it. I'm guessing it's this article published in Nature, but I can't get the full-text and the abstract doesn't give enough description. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this text ... However, a 1946 study of 6000 persons found that those more informed on current political issues had more years of formal education and were "more liberal in issues regarding Russia and atom-bomb control, but more conservative in their views regarding power for the workers and government guarantees."<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/39/2/65/|title=Liberalism and level of information|author=George Horsley Smith|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=39|issue=2|date=1948-02|pages=65-81|doi=doi: 10.1037/h0054514}}</ref> ... because it isn't related to brain differences - only educational differences. 71.185.49.174 ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't come up with anything on the first search, but has anyone looking at this seen any data on simple reading rate (not M and W, but finding a bit of information in a mass of text) vs. political orientation? It seems like data there might tie all the other data in this article together. (though I'm not necessarily saying it would turn out to be relevant to the current title) Wnt ( talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Not knowing if the article is stable or if the ref will only get challenged anyway, I don't feel like trying to pull something out of the following; yet they may be relevant. Search Google Scholar with conservative liberal fMRI political for the following and more:
[2] (specifically, references therein about DRD4) and [3] (amygdala)
[4] (need full text)
[6] (need full text - reviews fMRI studies on political beliefs as of 2006)
[7] (need full text - Google abstract describes fMRI data)
[10] (free review mostly covering existing studies, I think)
This is from the first 30 results out of 418. Wnt ( talk) 08:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts: Both the Amydala size differences and Anterior cingulate cortex size differences sections appear to be collections of indiscriminate information and their purpose is unclear. They should be either merged with the preceding section or removed. "Conservatives have larger amygdalas" is relevant to the article, but "According to some studies, the amydala is larger in males than in females." Really? Cool! Seriously, though, things like that aren't don't even make sense in the context of the article. The Political genome studies section regards genetics and not the brain. Perhaps the article should be renamed to 'Biological differences' if it's going to cover genetics as well, otherwise it should simply be removed. Regards, Swarm X 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
to Biology and political orientation as already contains §§ outside of (pure) brain research. In this case, the first three sections would become subsections of "Brain Studies". 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Support The new title is a bit more encyclopedic. OIFA ( talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The section on structural differences in the brain explicitly describes a reverse inference conclusion, namely that liberals may be better at processing ambiguity and conservatives at processing threat. This claim is directly referenced from some news sources and not an actual paper. It is not fully clear to me whether this presents primarily an NPOV problem or just an "i used shoddy news sources that don't understand science" POV problem. The section should be rewritten to emphasize that the structural findings represent science, and that the conclusion represents shoddy reverse inference not supported by a parsimonious interpretation of the scientific evidence. The sections on reasons for generic size differences have nothing to do with biology and political orientation, so I am removing them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens ( talk) 07:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I added the new study by Hodson, and sure enough, Collect was minutes behind. [11] I strongly suggest that the actual quote of the study's conclusion is the clearest way to convey what they authors have to say - things like revising "anti-homosexual prejudice" to "anti-homosexual attitudes", or leaving out the role of conservatism in mediating racist attitudes, clearly damages what the authors have to say. I also dispute that there is one word in WP:MEDRS saying that a competent popular news article about a story, written by someone careful enough to e-mail the authors for more information, should be taken out because it is "pop science". Readers have various levels of scientific literacy and sometimes may appreciate an easier to read reference. Wnt ( talk) 16:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Surely we're not in a position at this stage to say for certain that " biology IS linked with political orientation".
How about "A number of studies have found that biology may be linked with political orientation"?
HiLo48 ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The section Biology_and_political_orientation#Heritability is based on a political science journal. This isn't reliable for claims outside their expertise, and I suggest it be removed. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the section since there is acceptance that there is a large controversy with using this study and the methods have no quantitative significance. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a highly contentious field with large amounts of skeptical literature - this does not come across at all in the article making it fundamentally biased. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a reasonaly balanced review of the field of genetics and political behavior, which you could have found if you had looked.
This study also reviews the evidence and shows that influence of biology relative to socialization changes over the life course.
Since the technique has clearly been discredited, I propose removing the section. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Another critique of Alford, Funk & Hibbing:
Response by Hannagan & Hatemi Rebecca J. Hannaganan and Peter K. Hatemi. 2008. The Threat of Genes: A Comment on Evan Charney's “Genes and Ideologies” Perspectives on Politics (2008), 6 : pp 329-335 Rejoinder by Charney:
Another article about the topic from Charney: EVAN CHARNEY and WILLIAM ENGLISH. 2012. Candidate Genes and Political Behavior. American Political Science Review February 2012 106 : pp 1-34 ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V. Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K. & Hibbing, J. R. (2008) Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science Vol. 321 (19) September. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this before, but it seems that the behavior genetic stuff (twin and candidate gene studies, but not the linkage study) is duplicated at Genopolitics. It's a little better fleshed out, the only twin study missing is Hatemi et al. (2010) and it has all the candidate gene studies that have been published so far. Although, it doesn't engage with the critical back and forth (6 separate articles) that Alford, Funk and Hibbing (2005) spawned. -- 92.4.166.21 ( talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The acronym "SES" is used in this article, but never explained. I have added a clarify tag to its initial use. Attys ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to say but WP:MEDRS does apply. This is clearly an article about a medical explanation for political views. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
3O Response: It's possible to disagree on exactly how to interpret the wording of
WP:MEDRS but I think the underlying intent is quite clear; because medical article content may influence readers when they make very important personal decisions (do I take my child to a doctor, should I try homeopathy instead, &c) it's necessary to take a hard line on sourcing in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of articles. Now, I'm sure we'd all agree that this article should be accurate and reliable, but I don't think MEDRS applies in that sense. It would be a good idea to seek out more reliable sources and keep a tight grip on
fringe views or synthesis, simply because this topic has so much potential for controversy and drama, so MEDRS certainly helps point us in the right direction; but I don't think we are compelled to follow the letter of the law. If there is disagreement over the reliability of a source, it could be discussed on this talkpage, or maybe at RSN.
bobrayner (
talk)
11:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As Wikipedia articles are not to be based on WP:PRIMARY sources, I'll say this article is of very low quality. Here are some secondary sources I found by searching for "genetic" and "politics" as topics then narrowing to reviews in ISI Web of Knowledge:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I haven't read any of these secondary sources, so I don't know how much detail the Neuron review devotes to political leanings. From the journal name and citation count it looks like a reliable medical source. I don't think the other two from journals indexed by PubMed. The most recent primary study I saw was
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)From a glance it casts more doubt on the quality of this article. Primary studies, such as the PNAS one, can be used as secondary sources to cite information from other studies. I bet if this article was rewritten with these four sources, it wouldn't need any cleanup tags. The lay press is not reliable for biological information, so I don't know why we are citing it. Biosthmors ( talk) 23:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In other words, WP:SCIRS applies. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The edit was done on the basis of MEDRS. No one is saying it didn't have sources but 3 primary sources is very bad sourcing for conclusions about the brains of people with different political views. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 01:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I had a brief(ish) look for any reviews in the neuroscience literature proper that discuss studies relating to politics and couldn't find anything more than brief mentions except for a review of neuromarketing which discussed several relevant studies in that context (specifically Westen et al. (2006), Kato et al. (2009), Spezio et al. (2008) and Kaplan, Freedman and Iacoboni (2007)).
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Much of the politics related discussion in the neuroscience literature seems to be about the furore caused by this New York Times op-ed. -- 92.2.82.159 ( talk) 18:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Moving away from journals, I see two edited volumes which have some discussion of political attitudes/ideology and neuroimaging:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)The first cites Westen et al. (2006) and Amodio et al. (2007) (ref 6) and the latter cites Kaplan, Freedman and Iacoboni (2007), Westen et al. (2006), Kato et al. (2009), Knutson et al. (2006) (ref 10). -- 92.2.82.159 ( talk) 19:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970
"Liberals and conservatives exhibit different cognitive styles and converging lines of evidence suggest that biology influences differences in their political attitudes and beliefs. In particular, a recent study of young adults suggests that liberals and conservatives have significantly different brain structure, with liberals showing increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, and conservatives showing increased gray matter volume in the in the amygdala. Here, we explore differences in brain function in liberals and conservatives by matching publicly-available voter records to 82 subjects who performed a risk-taking task during functional imaging. Although the risk-taking behavior of Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives) did not differ, their brain activity did.... These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk, and they support recent evidence that conservatives show greater sensitivity to threatening stimuli"
Neo Poz ( talk) 16:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
A secondary source for this study could be this brief review of the field in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Actually, the short summary style of that review is something this article would do well to emulate; there is too much detail on primary studies in the current article. Amauahe ( talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"deology"? Really? I'd clean this up but I ain't no filth eater. Lycurgus ( talk) 08:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This whole biology thing is total trash. All of this is unfalsifiable just a lot of propaganda and has nothing to do with biology 98.254.198.111 ( talk) 02:40, 1 December 2015
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biology and political orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is written from a very US-centric view. It should be rewritten to provide a more general perspective or be given the subtitle "in the US." "liberal" and "conservative" are not the same across the world, and cannot be substituted for right- and left wing all willy-nilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.38.124 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Articles on single studies do not meet WP policies and guidelines AFAICT. Collect ( talk) 11:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
We have articles about liberalism and conservatism in various countries, and this jumps down not just to biological differences or brain differences, but structural brain differences. I think that this is too far to narrow it. I propose that the article be saved by including all measurable general differences in brain structure, function, and genetics, regardless of the modality of measurement used. This I think can be accomplished to some degree without even a change of title. I'll show you what I have in mind. Wnt ( talk) 20:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that someone trying to get the article deleted should be taking pains to keep out what he doesn't think is relevant to it - especially when that happens to undermine the reason given for the deletion attempt. Also, I think that claiming that an IQ test isn't about intelligence when the sources say "intelligence" a form of original research. Wnt ( talk) 02:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I just posted a short description of a study that was much in the news in 2007. I wasn't able to find the original article though, hoping that someone else can find it. I'm guessing it's this article published in Nature, but I can't get the full-text and the abstract doesn't give enough description. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this text ... However, a 1946 study of 6000 persons found that those more informed on current political issues had more years of formal education and were "more liberal in issues regarding Russia and atom-bomb control, but more conservative in their views regarding power for the workers and government guarantees."<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/edu/39/2/65/|title=Liberalism and level of information|author=George Horsley Smith|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=39|issue=2|date=1948-02|pages=65-81|doi=doi: 10.1037/h0054514}}</ref> ... because it isn't related to brain differences - only educational differences. 71.185.49.174 ( talk) 14:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I didn't come up with anything on the first search, but has anyone looking at this seen any data on simple reading rate (not M and W, but finding a bit of information in a mass of text) vs. political orientation? It seems like data there might tie all the other data in this article together. (though I'm not necessarily saying it would turn out to be relevant to the current title) Wnt ( talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Not knowing if the article is stable or if the ref will only get challenged anyway, I don't feel like trying to pull something out of the following; yet they may be relevant. Search Google Scholar with conservative liberal fMRI political for the following and more:
[2] (specifically, references therein about DRD4) and [3] (amygdala)
[4] (need full text)
[6] (need full text - reviews fMRI studies on political beliefs as of 2006)
[7] (need full text - Google abstract describes fMRI data)
[10] (free review mostly covering existing studies, I think)
This is from the first 30 results out of 418. Wnt ( talk) 08:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts: Both the Amydala size differences and Anterior cingulate cortex size differences sections appear to be collections of indiscriminate information and their purpose is unclear. They should be either merged with the preceding section or removed. "Conservatives have larger amygdalas" is relevant to the article, but "According to some studies, the amydala is larger in males than in females." Really? Cool! Seriously, though, things like that aren't don't even make sense in the context of the article. The Political genome studies section regards genetics and not the brain. Perhaps the article should be renamed to 'Biological differences' if it's going to cover genetics as well, otherwise it should simply be removed. Regards, Swarm X 19:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
to Biology and political orientation as already contains §§ outside of (pure) brain research. In this case, the first three sections would become subsections of "Brain Studies". 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 02:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Support The new title is a bit more encyclopedic. OIFA ( talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The section on structural differences in the brain explicitly describes a reverse inference conclusion, namely that liberals may be better at processing ambiguity and conservatives at processing threat. This claim is directly referenced from some news sources and not an actual paper. It is not fully clear to me whether this presents primarily an NPOV problem or just an "i used shoddy news sources that don't understand science" POV problem. The section should be rewritten to emphasize that the structural findings represent science, and that the conclusion represents shoddy reverse inference not supported by a parsimonious interpretation of the scientific evidence. The sections on reasons for generic size differences have nothing to do with biology and political orientation, so I am removing them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens ( talk) 07:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I added the new study by Hodson, and sure enough, Collect was minutes behind. [11] I strongly suggest that the actual quote of the study's conclusion is the clearest way to convey what they authors have to say - things like revising "anti-homosexual prejudice" to "anti-homosexual attitudes", or leaving out the role of conservatism in mediating racist attitudes, clearly damages what the authors have to say. I also dispute that there is one word in WP:MEDRS saying that a competent popular news article about a story, written by someone careful enough to e-mail the authors for more information, should be taken out because it is "pop science". Readers have various levels of scientific literacy and sometimes may appreciate an easier to read reference. Wnt ( talk) 16:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Surely we're not in a position at this stage to say for certain that " biology IS linked with political orientation".
How about "A number of studies have found that biology may be linked with political orientation"?
HiLo48 ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The section Biology_and_political_orientation#Heritability is based on a political science journal. This isn't reliable for claims outside their expertise, and I suggest it be removed. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the section since there is acceptance that there is a large controversy with using this study and the methods have no quantitative significance. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a highly contentious field with large amounts of skeptical literature - this does not come across at all in the article making it fundamentally biased. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a reasonaly balanced review of the field of genetics and political behavior, which you could have found if you had looked.
This study also reviews the evidence and shows that influence of biology relative to socialization changes over the life course.
Since the technique has clearly been discredited, I propose removing the section. IRWolfie- ( talk) 17:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Another critique of Alford, Funk & Hibbing:
Response by Hannagan & Hatemi Rebecca J. Hannaganan and Peter K. Hatemi. 2008. The Threat of Genes: A Comment on Evan Charney's “Genes and Ideologies” Perspectives on Politics (2008), 6 : pp 329-335 Rejoinder by Charney:
Another article about the topic from Charney: EVAN CHARNEY and WILLIAM ENGLISH. 2012. Candidate Genes and Political Behavior. American Political Science Review February 2012 106 : pp 1-34 ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 22:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V. Miller, J. L., Scalora, M., Hatemi, P. K. & Hibbing, J. R. (2008) Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science Vol. 321 (19) September. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed this before, but it seems that the behavior genetic stuff (twin and candidate gene studies, but not the linkage study) is duplicated at Genopolitics. It's a little better fleshed out, the only twin study missing is Hatemi et al. (2010) and it has all the candidate gene studies that have been published so far. Although, it doesn't engage with the critical back and forth (6 separate articles) that Alford, Funk and Hibbing (2005) spawned. -- 92.4.166.21 ( talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The acronym "SES" is used in this article, but never explained. I have added a clarify tag to its initial use. Attys ( talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to say but WP:MEDRS does apply. This is clearly an article about a medical explanation for political views. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 20:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
3O Response: It's possible to disagree on exactly how to interpret the wording of
WP:MEDRS but I think the underlying intent is quite clear; because medical article content may influence readers when they make very important personal decisions (do I take my child to a doctor, should I try homeopathy instead, &c) it's necessary to take a hard line on sourcing in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of articles. Now, I'm sure we'd all agree that this article should be accurate and reliable, but I don't think MEDRS applies in that sense. It would be a good idea to seek out more reliable sources and keep a tight grip on
fringe views or synthesis, simply because this topic has so much potential for controversy and drama, so MEDRS certainly helps point us in the right direction; but I don't think we are compelled to follow the letter of the law. If there is disagreement over the reliability of a source, it could be discussed on this talkpage, or maybe at RSN.
bobrayner (
talk)
11:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
As Wikipedia articles are not to be based on WP:PRIMARY sources, I'll say this article is of very low quality. Here are some secondary sources I found by searching for "genetic" and "politics" as topics then narrowing to reviews in ISI Web of Knowledge:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I haven't read any of these secondary sources, so I don't know how much detail the Neuron review devotes to political leanings. From the journal name and citation count it looks like a reliable medical source. I don't think the other two from journals indexed by PubMed. The most recent primary study I saw was
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)From a glance it casts more doubt on the quality of this article. Primary studies, such as the PNAS one, can be used as secondary sources to cite information from other studies. I bet if this article was rewritten with these four sources, it wouldn't need any cleanup tags. The lay press is not reliable for biological information, so I don't know why we are citing it. Biosthmors ( talk) 23:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In other words, WP:SCIRS applies. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The edit was done on the basis of MEDRS. No one is saying it didn't have sources but 3 primary sources is very bad sourcing for conclusions about the brains of people with different political views. CartoonDiablo ( talk) 01:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I had a brief(ish) look for any reviews in the neuroscience literature proper that discuss studies relating to politics and couldn't find anything more than brief mentions except for a review of neuromarketing which discussed several relevant studies in that context (specifically Westen et al. (2006), Kato et al. (2009), Spezio et al. (2008) and Kaplan, Freedman and Iacoboni (2007)).
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)Much of the politics related discussion in the neuroscience literature seems to be about the furore caused by this New York Times op-ed. -- 92.2.82.159 ( talk) 18:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Moving away from journals, I see two edited volumes which have some discussion of political attitudes/ideology and neuroimaging:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)The first cites Westen et al. (2006) and Amodio et al. (2007) (ref 6) and the latter cites Kaplan, Freedman and Iacoboni (2007), Westen et al. (2006), Kato et al. (2009), Knutson et al. (2006) (ref 10). -- 92.2.82.159 ( talk) 19:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970
"Liberals and conservatives exhibit different cognitive styles and converging lines of evidence suggest that biology influences differences in their political attitudes and beliefs. In particular, a recent study of young adults suggests that liberals and conservatives have significantly different brain structure, with liberals showing increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, and conservatives showing increased gray matter volume in the in the amygdala. Here, we explore differences in brain function in liberals and conservatives by matching publicly-available voter records to 82 subjects who performed a risk-taking task during functional imaging. Although the risk-taking behavior of Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives) did not differ, their brain activity did.... These results suggest that liberals and conservatives engage different cognitive processes when they think about risk, and they support recent evidence that conservatives show greater sensitivity to threatening stimuli"
Neo Poz ( talk) 16:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
A secondary source for this study could be this brief review of the field in Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Actually, the short summary style of that review is something this article would do well to emulate; there is too much detail on primary studies in the current article. Amauahe ( talk) 15:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"deology"? Really? I'd clean this up but I ain't no filth eater. Lycurgus ( talk) 08:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
This whole biology thing is total trash. All of this is unfalsifiable just a lot of propaganda and has nothing to do with biology 98.254.198.111 ( talk) 02:40, 1 December 2015
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biology and political orientation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is written from a very US-centric view. It should be rewritten to provide a more general perspective or be given the subtitle "in the US." "liberal" and "conservative" are not the same across the world, and cannot be substituted for right- and left wing all willy-nilly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.38.124 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)