For anyone still interested in the original article, it might be helpful to read one of the initial reports, rather than just the sarcastic journalist's rebuttal on Slate. Here's a link to the version Agence France-Presse ran:
Homo politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs
I'd hardly dismiss his criticisms as merely "sarcastic". He made very valid points that the test had nothing to do with real-world mental agility.
I do not agree. Mental agility has much more to do with those decisions you make
without even being conscious of there being an option in the first place. If you test the "real world" stuff the author was after, you are not testing neurology at all, but merely psychology.
I thought the Slate article was, if not sarcastic, then perhaps a bit ignorant of the disciple. It is the sort of article which strikes a "common-sense" chord with people, whilst evading the more technical, scientific questions actually raised.
As for the topic itself, the matter of differences has been quite well established by now, though both liberal and conservative commentators have been loth to deal with it publically (for differing reasons) or even to admit that it might be the case.
Really?? can you point to any peer reviewed science that says this is the case?? Could it just be that this field of science is just dominated by people with p[olitical axes to grind??
Could it be? Sure. But I'll also agree that the moon could be made of swiss cheese; it's just not terribly likely.
Edward O. Wilson,
On Human NatureMatt Ridley,
The Agile GeneRobert Wright,
The Moral AnimalLarry Arnhart,
Darwinian Natural RightUllica Segerstrale,
Defenders of the TruthJohn Alcock,
The Triumph of SociobiologySteven Pinker,
The Blank SlatePeter Richerson & Robert Boyd,
Not By Genes AloneThe problem, however, is that the science of human nature is progressing despite such theories, and that the majority of data suggests that human nature is (somewhat) more naturally sympathetic to conservatism. Of course, like any part of human nature, political philosophy is primarily adopted through culture and environment, so there is no cause for celebration in the conservative camp over this one. Especially when so much of the recent research shows the conservative tendency to be less well adapted to the modern world...
This of course is only based on the notion that nuture trumps nature. I've always seen that the opposite is true.
Anyroad... It lacks the most recent studies, but Steven Pinker summarised much of the relevant research in 2002 in The Blank Slate. Also of interest might be the 2003 article 'Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition', wherein the authors (Jost, Glasser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway) review the existing literature on how differing cognitive styles line up with political philosophy. That article is why Sulloway was interviewed by the press for this latest finding.
Once again, you seem to be favoring those scientists who favor the nurture side of psycology. My experience is that nature plays a slightly larger role.
You mistake my position entirely. I think that the question itself is faulty; neither nature nor nurture are sufficient explanations for any part of what makes us tick.
For myself, I actually grant a very high degree of relevance to biology, which puts me in an awkward position given my career and personal politics! It is not a popular thing to trumpet, that we are not really 'free'. And I do challenge things like free will, routinely, as well as the supposed social construction of many facets of our psyches.
But by the same token, I do not think that nature gives us more than a good, solid start, and that
culture plays the decisive role in shaping that initial material into the individuals we become. The Richerson book is a good one for staking out that territory, but Wilson got there before practically anyone else and his insights are still beautiful.
be a sexist, racist or whatever non-PC belief you want to have
You can have whatever beliefs you want. You just can't force them on the rest of us. And we have as much right to the belief that you're an idiot for having them.
Brilliant!