Alteration of Political Belief by Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

[Nathanial.Dread]

People generally have imperfect introspective access to the mechanisms underlying their political beliefs, yet can confidently communicate the reasoning that goes into their decision making process. An innate desire for certainty and security in ones beliefs may play an important and somewhat automatic role in motivating the maintenance or rejection of partisan support. The aim of the current study was to clarify the role of the DLPFC in the alteration of political beliefs. Recent neuroimaging studies have focused on the association between the DLPFC (a region involved in the regulation of cognitive conflict and error feedback processing) and reduced affiliation with opposing political candidates. As such, this study used a method of non-invasive brain simulation (tRNS) to enhance activity of the bilateral DLPFC during the incorporation of political campaign information. These findings indicate a crucial role for this region in political belief formation. However, enhanced activation of DLPFC does not necessarily result in the specific rejection of political beliefs. In contrast to the hypothesis the results appear to indicate a significant increase in conservative values regardless of participant's initial political orientation and the political campaign advertisement they were exposed to.

Alteration of Political Belief by Non-invasive Brain Stimulation

People generally have imperfect introspective access to the mechanisms underlying their political beliefs, yet can confidently communicate the reasoning that goes into their decision making process. An innate desire for certainty and security in ones ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Blessings
~ND

 

[Psybin]

I've been thinking lately that perhaps it's not coincidence that most college students and faculty are liberal and modern conservatism shares many similarities with child-like thought (ie. emphasis on personal property, disdain for redistribution of resources). Perhaps ultra-conservatism like is a mental health crisis, or maybe I'm just biased in my worldview. I guess liberalism could just as easily be its own mental health disorder in extreme cases, so to each their own. But maybe political ideology in a broad sense is more hardware based than we thought...

EDIT: I find it interesting as well as logical that the DLPFC is indicated strongly in the A-not-B task as well as deception and lying...

 

[Chan]

Perhaps ultra-conservatism like is a mental health crisis, or maybe I'm just biased in my worldview. I guess liberalism could just as easily be its own mental health disorder in extreme cases, so to each their own. But maybe political ideology in a broad sense is more hardware based than we thought...

EDIT: I find it interesting as well as logical that the DLPFC is indicated strongly in the A-not-B task as well as deception and lying...

There's an argument that many of our current existential problems are a result of old men — in cognitive and hormonal decline, but supported by advanced medical technology — remaining in charge of things, far beyond their years of usefulness to the wider community...

And only one of the many things they really, really hate, is anything resembling change...

Liberals have a (youthful?) suppleness in their ideals, conservatives...not so much. Maybe this is what's highlighted by transcranial stimulation of the DLPFC?

Let's try it on Trump, and see what happens!

 

[Praxis.]

:shock: Whoa.

This is really interesting, but also kind of terrifying. Makes me think of some kind of dystopian future where humans are literally programmed to adhere to certain political beliefs. Maybe that's far-fetched but nonetheless it makes me shudder.

 

[hixidom]

Cool article.

I've been thinking lately that perhaps it's not coincidence that most college students and faculty are liberal and modern conservatism shares many similarities with child-like thought (ie. emphasis on personal property, disdain for redistribution of resources). Perhaps ultra-conservatism like is a mental health crisis, or maybe I'm just biased in my worldview. I guess liberalism could just as easily be its own mental health disorder in extreme cases, so to each their own. But maybe political ideology in a broad sense is more hardware based than we thought...

Modern liberalism has its own ugly side. IME with liberal folks, if you question PC assumptions, then you might as well be Hitler.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

Cool article.

I've been thinking lately that perhaps it's not coincidence that most college students and faculty are liberal and modern conservatism shares many similarities with child-like thought (ie. emphasis on personal property, disdain for redistribution of resources). Perhaps ultra-conservatism like is a mental health crisis, or maybe I'm just biased in my worldview. I guess liberalism could just as easily be its own mental health disorder in extreme cases, so to each their own. But maybe political ideology in a broad sense is more hardware based than we thought...

Modern liberalism has its own ugly side. IME with liberal folks, if you question PC assumptions, then you might as well be Hitler.

I just graduated from a very left wing school and consider myself pretty steeped in left-wing culture and thought. I also happen to be very white and male presenting.

I've never had someone compare me to Hitler for my identity or beliefs (at least, in real life). I've had people call me out for saying racist/sexist/transphobic things, but that's a perfectly OK thing and I learned from the experience to become a better person.

All this PC-scaremongering is just another moral panic by the older generation that doesn't connect with the younger one. It's no different than concern over rock n' roll, hippies, or whatever happened in the 80s.

That is to say, completely disconnected from any on-the-ground reality.

Blessings
~ND

 

[Chan]

IME with liberal folks, if you question PC assumptions, then you might as well be Hitler.

Don't know that I would have invoked Godwin quite so quickly, Hixi, buuuut...here, where free speech is not enshrined in law, and we have no constitution either, there is definitely a chill wind blowing. Most often, it takes the form of someone claiming that someone else has offended them, and they deserve redress i.e. an apology/retraction and silence from the other party. And whatever was deemed 'offensive' seems to then set a precedent, and that's it, down the memory-hole with that idea. It's an easy game for idiots with nothing better to do to play, and it definitely shrinks the visible spectrum of ideas, over time. It's sometimes called "creating a safe-space"...which is a beautiful bit of Orwellian double-speak.

Anything which can't be challenged, isn't worth defending, IME.

 

[Praxis.]

IME with liberal folks, if you question PC assumptions, then you might as well be Hitler.

...

Anything which can't be challenged, isn't worth defending, IME.

But isn't that exactly what "PC Culture" does to offend you so much?

More people are beginning to see that our experience of the world doesn't have to be needlessly confined by arbitrary (and often violent) frameworks that have no grounding in reality. Younger people are challenging outdated concepts, challenging dysfunctional and harmful behaviors that have become customary and "normal" in our culture. The only people who I see routinely getting offended are those who can't seem to handle their fragile sense of reality being questioned, and who totally shut down at the notion of having to do any kind of critical self-reflection.

Difficult conversations shouldn't be avoided because they make certain people uncomfortable. It doesn't seem ironic, blaming other people for being too sensitive when all they're doing is pushing others to consider stepping outside of their own comfort zone? Who is actually refusing to engage? Who is really being too sensitive?

All that said, yeah liberalism is chock-full of ugly--I'd be just as curious to see what it looks like in the brain.

 

[Psybin]

Cool article.

I've been thinking lately that perhaps it's not coincidence that most college students and faculty are liberal and modern conservatism shares many similarities with child-like thought (ie. emphasis on personal property, disdain for redistribution of resources). Perhaps ultra-conservatism like is a mental health crisis, or maybe I'm just biased in my worldview. I guess liberalism could just as easily be its own mental health disorder in extreme cases, so to each their own. But maybe political ideology in a broad sense is more hardware based than we thought...

Modern liberalism has its own ugly side. IME with liberal folks, if you question PC assumptions, then you might as well be Hitler.

Oh, absolutely. I think that sort of extreme leftism is a result of logical flaws and magical thinking to an extent, steeped in black-and-white absolutes, in a similar way as extreme conservatism, though for different reasons and motivations.

 

[Psybin]

IME with liberal folks, if you question PC assumptions, then you might as well be Hitler.

...

Anything which can't be challenged, isn't worth defending, IME.

But isn't that exactly what "PC Culture" does to offend you so much?

More people are beginning to see that our experience of the world doesn't have to be needlessly confined by arbitrary (and often violent) frameworks that have no grounding in reality. Younger people are challenging outdated concepts, challenging dysfunctional and harmful behaviors that have become customary and "normal" in our culture. The only people who I see routinely getting offended are those who can't seem to handle their fragile sense of reality being questioned, and who totally shut down at the notion of having to do any kind of critical self-reflection.

Difficult conversations shouldn't be avoided because they make certain people uncomfortable. It doesn't seem ironic, blaming other people for being too sensitive when all they're doing is pushing others to consider stepping outside of their own comfort zone? Who is actually refusing to engage? Who is really being too sensitive?

All that said, yeah liberalism is chock-full of ugly--I'd be just as curious to see what it looks like in the brain.

Wish I could have communicated my perspective, which is largely the same, as eloquently.

 

[Chan]

But isn't that exactly what "PC Culture" does to offend you so much?

Ummm, no.

I love to discuss ideas, to debate them, and so I resent being told "there's no discussion on this", especially if the word "policy" is invoked, as if everything has already been settled and agreed, in a society where free speech is not enshrined in law. [<<< Hint: this last bit is important. I know it's probably easy for some of you to overlook, but try to remember we are not all free to express ourselves unconditionally...]

Example: in conversation with some self-proclaimed "ecologically-aware" people, I suggested that the root cause of many of our problems could be over-population. They responded with horror, and demanded to know what business other people's fertility is of mine. How dare I over-reach? Isn't this just what the Nazis wanted to do etc etc. Was I not a hypocrite? What about my kids? Why was I special? In short, they got very offended.

When I explained that, actually, I have elected not to have kids, largely for this reason, they didn't re-engage, let alone apologise, they just mumbled something like "Well, imagine if everybody did that, we'd all be extinct in no time." i.e. a fatuous non-reply which utterly failed to address either the issue at hand, or their fully paid-up membership of the ComfortZoneTM.

AKA "simplify, exaggerate, destroy."

This is childish, has no place in adult discourse, and extinguishes debate. I'm all for tearing down arbitrary frameworks, as they definitely are an impediment to progress, so it bugs me when people seek to extend them with, essentially, (self-)censorship...while attempting to claim they are in fact dismantling them! For the record, I tolerate everything, except intolerance and double-speak.

And Psybin, where are you finding these "extreme left" types? That term is severely deprecated in the 21st century, where anyone who looks askance at a policeman is suddenly "challenging state authority". This picture shows the approximate balance of left vs right power at the moment.

Paris, last week:

 

[Psybin]

And Psybin, where are you finding these "extreme left" types? That term is severely deprecated in the 21st century, where anyone who looks askance at a policeman is suddenly "challenging state authority". This picture shows the approximate balance of left vs right power at the moment.

Paris, last week:

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm a lefty myself. But in college I met some people who took it to extremes and applied ideology where it didn't make sense. Refusing to use pronouns altogether in the name of "equality" is an example of what I'm talking about, or throwing bricks through a starbuck's window to "fight the corporations" - both of which are behaviors I've witnessed from a handful of people, some of whom I was even close friends with and lived with for several months, whom I'd consider extreme liberals.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

And Psybin, where are you finding these "extreme left" types? That term is severely deprecated in the 21st century, where anyone who looks askance at a policeman is suddenly "challenging state authority". This picture shows the approximate balance of left vs right power at the moment.

Paris, last week:

Refusing to use pronouns altogether in the name of "equality" is an example of what I'm talking about,

What exactly is wrong with that? I get that pronouns are linguisticly useful, but there's no reason they need to be tied up with the cultural construct of gender.

I just call everyone 'they.'

Blessings
~ND

 

[Praxis.]

I love to discuss ideas, to debate them, and so I resent being told "there's no discussion on this", especially if the word "policy" is invoked, as if everything has already been settled and agreed, in a society where free speech is not enshrined in law. [<<< Hint: this last bit is important. I know it's probably easy for some of you to overlook, but try to remember we are not all free to express ourselves unconditionally...]

Everyone has a right to say and think whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that anyone else has to sit there and listen if nothing being said is grounded in reality. If you were trying to have a serious conversation about geography or solar systems with someone who insisted that the Earth is flat or that the planet was seeded by some alien cult, when would you draw the line and simply cut the conversation off? We've lived most of our lives steeped in certain ideas about the world that align neither with objective fact or lived experiences, and by no means should anyone be forced to sit there and listen to harmful drivel simply for the sake of "freedom of speech" or "cognitive liberty" or any other form of intellectual masturbation.

When it comes to issues that directly impact people I think you tend to see folks react with less patience because the issues aren't just intellectual concepts or ideas, but real situations that have real consequences for real people.

As for extremes, I'm pretty critical of liberalism in general but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a lefty. My own line of thought is that drastic situations call for drastic measures and so I don't really have a problem with abrasive political tactics. But being subversive is seen as "edgy" and therefore trendy, and consequently attracts a lot of people who treat social/environmental justice like any other trend. In my experience these people tend to be the ones who get the most visibility, and they also tend to be the ones throwing around big words and humiliating people for not being as PC as them. And yeah they suck. There's a difference between calling someone out to shame them for the sake of your own ego, and pointing something out to someone in a way they might actually respond to.

When people complain about PC warriors I think they are almost always talking about people engaging in the former. And to that I'd just suggest listening and responding to what they are saying instead of simply reacting to how they are saying it.

 

[Psybin]

And Psybin, where are you finding these "extreme left" types? That term is severely deprecated in the 21st century, where anyone who looks askance at a policeman is suddenly "challenging state authority". This picture shows the approximate balance of left vs right power at the moment.

Paris, last week:

Refusing to use pronouns altogether in the name of "equality" is an example of what I'm talking about,

What exactly is wrong with that? I get that pronouns are linguisticly useful, but there's no reason they need to be tied up with the cultural construct of gender.

I just call everyone 'they.'

Blessings
~ND

Well, when you become hard to understand and start getting bad grades on papers because they lack all pronouns, it becomes a bit of an issue. Not saying I don't agree with the underlying motivation, but the behavior and justification is extreme and impractical. I agree they don't need to be tied up with gender, but then this person took it to the extreme to the point it didn't make sense anymore, which is really what I was trying to construe.

 

[Chan]

If you were trying to have a serious conversation about geography or solar systems with someone who insisted that the Earth is flat or that the planet was seeded by some alien cult, when would you draw the line and simply cut the conversation off?

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

 

[hixidom]

Compassion and humility are key in resolving the sorts of arguments that we are all referring to.
1. People who disagree with us are not evil. They may just be misinformed. Encourage them to provide evidence and hear them out. Address the information that they provide if you disagree with it.
2. Know that you yourself may be misinformed. Know the weaknesses of your own views and be ready to accept new valid information for the other side when it is presented.

I think that, if we follow these guidelines, our worldviews can come to be relatively righteous. We should also remember not to use labels so much. If someone asks me if I am conservative/liberal, I would have to ask what particular topic they want to know my view on. Nothing is black and white. Every individual has a rich history which has shaped their political views. Get to know the person and there will be less hate, I suspect.

(I'm talking to myself as much a to anyone else)