According to a research study done by
Nature Neuroscience, people who describe themselves as liberal are generally a bit... well... smarter:
Quote:
|
We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.
|
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/...bs/nn1979.html
Lest anyone think I'm posting this just for its incendiary value, here is a well-reasoned rebuttal of the study from the very intelligent conservative William Saletan of slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965
Honestly, I'm hoping this will be fodder for some interesting discussion--and this isn't meant to be an opening salvo for some liberal vs. conservative pissing contest. Personally, I don't think much of social-psychological studies that over-generalize from their data--but it's equally pointless to dismiss the study altogether without looking at it on its merits--i.e. who's doing the study, and what might be the particular axe they're grinding, and is it methodologically sound? Whenever scientists extrapolate from something very minute, like performance of a specific task to something like "intelligence," for which there aren't really good definitions out there, I'm skeptical. I'm interested in hearing what others think as well.
Although he and I aren't exactly fellow travelers in an ideological sense, I'm a huge admirer of Saletan, and a regular reader of his column. (In fact, that's how I found this study in the first place.) But it seems to me that in this case, his critique sounds a bit.... well... defensive. I'm wondering if a better rebuttal to this study could be concocted from among the brighter conservative minds around here.