Spiders, Maggots, Politics

As others have pointed out, there are many holes here. One that I see is where gun control fits in. The author tags it as a liberal position, and it is, but wouldn't a person who is less sensitive to threats, as the author assumes liberals must be, to be less sensitive to the idea of another person having a weapon? And what about speech codes, criminalizing of verbal harrassment, etc- also liberal positions, also apparently threat oriented.

I wonder. Has anyone thought of repeating the experiment, but with threatening sounds- gunshots, abusive language- in lieu of images?

Ah yes, the old nature vs nuture arguments are back. Or is it nature PLUS nurture?

As many have already noted, there are many problems with this study, including small sample size (can you make vast conclusions about humanity based on only 43 white mid Western Americans?), and the apparent assumption that physiologic respones is purely inherited, instead of resulting from life experience. Ask any war veteran if he/she has a greater "startle" response, since being in the war. I think you'll find that life experiences after a person's physiologic startle response.

And training can affect startle response. For example, I have a naturally high startle response, look for danger, carry my pepper spray, arm my house at least with a Rottweiler, am trained in self-defense. I am competitive, and my "juices get flowing" when faced with a threat. Yet externally I appear calm under stress (even though my pulse may race.) And I am a Liberal. Hmm, doesn't fit their nice neat little picture, does it?

What;s amazing about this study is that the "findings" touted in the headline and text eterminstic biology or genetics) are in no way proven by the actual results. All the results show is that conervatives and liberals have different emotional reactions to different stimuli, and the the reactions manifest themselves in a physical reaction measured by a mchine. There is absolutely no proof about predetermined biology or genetics being the root of those emotions. Suggesting otherwise is the height of junk science. It appears that the only purpose of this articles is to stimulate the predictable left/right back and forth on this comments board. Don't fall for the bait, folks! This study is meaningless and we should be united in our dimissal of it.

This is an interesting study, but seems like the researchers are jumping pretty far in their conclusions, using such a small study, as to what is causing the differences in reactions (I'm not disputing the findings, just the hypothesis). My brother and I are only a year and a half apart, have the same biology, same education (different doctorates, but both have them) and childhood experiences, and yet are pretty far apart on the political spectrum.

This is pretty interesting, especially since my brother and I are quite far apart on the political spectrum, and yet, being only a year and a half apart, have the same upbringing, education and biology, yet would score quite differently on this test.

The stimulus was a picture, not a spider. The involuntary reaction would be based on the stimulus, not the object pictured by the stimulus. From my perspective, pictures are information and spiders are arachnids. If you disagree, then you might consider the possibility that we have "opposite" responses (as it relates to this study). I believe the study showed fairly well that "liberals" and "conservatives" respond to the stimulus differently; the authors are even surprised at the result. It seems logical to suggest a broad difference in the subject's relationship to the stimulus.

In fact, that is more logical than the inane suggestion that "Liberals" wouldn't even check out a noise in their home at 3 AM.

Threads as microcosims: many people react to their own fear with anger.

Not meaning to be racist, but everyone in the study was white. Could we expect the same reactions from Blacks and Latinos? Surely a conservative Latino isn't going to be in favor of anti-illegal immigration policies, in fact I would think they would see THAT as a threat. I think that biology is an influence, but one that can be tempered or even changed by personal experience. Would it not be safe to say that someone who wanted security in a conflict might see withdrawal from Iraq as a means of safety? Or perhaps would be fearful of the Georgian conflict escalating and getting dragged into it, and see that as a threat? I'm just speculating here.

The study was *not* too small to be taken seriously. It is too small to be definitive. There is a difference, and understanding that requires that you live in a world that isn't polarized.

There would be no reason to polute an initial study with the probable noise found in "independents". The study was only to see if any difference could be found. The study's authors clearly expected a less obvious result (good science is conservative). Further study might show "indpendents" to have a "middle" response biologically - or it might not.

What disturbs me is the author's statement at the end. Of course liberals understand the difference between a spider on someone's face and a bunny - they just aren't weak enough to respond with fear.

Serously - what kind of spider was it?

If you aren't any more afraid of spiders than bunnies, then perhaps (like me) you have played with a variety of spiders, and even let them crawl on your skin awhile. Perhpas (like me) you worked in an ER while putting yourself through college, so "bloody face" might not scare you either.

"Liberals" are less likely to react in a knee-jerk fashion (based on fear) - and the author is worried that liberals might not understand the threat. There was no threat - only 2D images. The author apparantly prefers someone who is afraid - even when the threat doesn't warrant fear.

In short - the study design was fine, but the conclusions as presented in this article are biased.

I think the study may also show a correlation with the liberals ability to control their emotions. Afterall, they were shown pictures - not real subjects. The liberals seemed to realize that hey...these are just pictures. The spider on that girls face is not a threat...it's a photo. The conservatives on the other hand lacked the emotional intelligence to control their fears.

What I do not like about this article is that it did not address the many independents we have in this country. Not everyone is liberal or conservative.

So, the more liberal comments express belief about the bad things suggested about conservatives, but have alternate (more appealing) explanations for the bad things suggested about liberals. Why no neutral response on this? Just goes to show that even people with few convictions can still be hypocrites.

I can see that he is right about why conservatives don't understand liberals' point of view. If your own reaction is irrational fear and anger, then a thoughtful, reasoned response will naturally seem incomprehensible and cold-blooded.

Biology, including in humans, is about the survival of groups, it???s not about winning elections. And clearly no strategy (being the most reactive or being the least reactive) will work for every situation. However, most conservatives do seem to be fundamentally anti-science, e.g., conservatives are more likely to make the connection Homosexual = Evil even though we biologists know that humans don't all fit biologically into the two-sex, male-female scheme. Does that mean all conservatives are anti-science? No, in fact science-literate conservative leaders (e.g., Newt Gingrich) have often misused science to influence the disbelieving masses. Finally, does this mean that liberals are somehow pro-science? No, in fact many liberals have a romantic, not realistic, view of science.

Interesting - I don't buy the 'mammal on a hot rock' scenario. What I think ti means is that those who are liberal take a more neutral overview of things - and don't allow stirring images to determine what is overall a more realistic way of looking at things. The reactionary behaviors of conservatives seems to be what drives their policy-making, not calm reasoned thinking.

I agree - conservatives see threats where there aren't any. From what I can tell liberals have evolved to have an ability to look at a sitiuation logically and neutrally, while conservatives seem to react more viscerally and primitively. 'Me, mine.' 'Aww cute bunny'. 'Bad man, kill.'