Adventures in brains: Liberal ones may not be like conservative ones

Brains 25¢!

AI can predict your political ideology using just a brain scan:

A deep learning AI running on a supercomputer was able to link patterns of brain connectivity to political ideology.

• The AI was about 70% accurate, which is roughly equivalent to predicting a person's political beliefs based on their parents' ideology.

• While the study certainly is stimulating, it's essentially pattern-hunting with big data. Revealing the neurological roots of ideology will be much harder.

Scientists have used brain scanning techniques to delve into the neuroscientific underpinnings of political beliefs before. For example, researchers have found previously that conservatives tend to have more gray matter volume in their amygdala (a region associated with fear, anxiety, and aggression), while liberals tend to have more in their anterior cingulate cortex (tied to, among other things, ethics and morality). Another experiment showed that the brains of liberals and conservatives react differently to “charged” words in political videos.

In the current study, the researchers observed and recorded functional connectivity in the brains of 174 healthy young adult subjects as they performed various simple tasks, such as pressing a pop-up button as quickly as possible for a monetary reward, pairing names with faces, or answering true/false questions about a story they had just read. Subjects also had their brains scanned in a resting state — awake and relaxed, with their eyes closed.

Measuring functional connectivity (FC) is somewhat rare in political neuroscience. FC refers to how different parts of the brain can concurrently show similar activity, as if they are communicating with each other. The researchers utilized a state-of-the-art AI deep learning technique called BrainNetCNN, running on supercomputers at the Ohio Supercomputer Center, to analyze the functional connectivity data from all of the tasks and to correlate them with the subjects’ self-reported political ideology, which was scored on a one to six scale from very liberal to very conservative.

While the study certainly is stimulating, it is essentially pattern-hunting with big data. That’s fine, but a model is only robust and widely applicable if it is based on a large, diverse study group. In this case, the subjects were all young adults, seven out of ten of whom were liberal. So the model may not work if tested on other Americans (or people, in general). Moreover, the AI cannot tell us anything about the neurological roots of ideology; it wasn’t designed to do so. Answering that will be a much taller task.

This is another suggestion, not proof, that there are fundamental differences in liberal compared to conservative brains. If this data could be confirmed and the underlying neurology better understood in bigger studies and different studies, that might point to ways to increase the relative power of messaging based on fact, truth and sound reasoning (honest speech) compared to lies, falsehoods and crackpot motivated reasoning (dark speech, free and unfree). 

Personal thoughts

A personal estimate is that if one says for the sake of argument that the power to persuade, evoke true beliefs and evoke corresponding overt behavior is X, it feels reasonably accurate to think that dark speech has about 3X power to persuade, evoke false beliefs and evoke corresponding overt behavior. That estimate or intuition is based on hints in the data that conservatives might be responsive to triggers to fear, anxiety, and aggression, while liberals may be more responsive to  triggers to ethics and morality. 

The reason I'm interested in possible ways to better understand messaging and how to boost the power of honest speech to elicit beliefs and behaviors, e.g., voting vs. not voting. A basic assumption I base that on is that, in my firm opinion, it is usually better for politics, political outcomes and civilized social progress for most people to believe and act based on honest speech than on dark speech. That accords with my limited knowledge of history and my lifetime of experiences with politics. 

If I am right, then finding ways to elevate the power of honest speech relative to dark speech just might be a factor in reducing the odds of destruction of modern civilization, or on a really bad day, self-annihilation and extinction of the human species. Of course, all of that is also just personal opinion.

I doubt that more than maybe ~10% of adults would disagree with that personal belief. Those who would agree, probably ascribe, consciously or not, to a moral value that the means justify the ends, including using dark speech to deceive and manipulate. Where the currently intractable liberal vs. conservative disagreement lies is in what is fact, truth and sound reasoning and what isn't. The rank and file on both sides firmly believe they usually or almost always rely on honest speech, while the opposition does not. 

Hence my belief in the importance of understanding the neurology of political ideology and the nature and frailty of honest speech (as PD discussed here a couple of days ago) compared to dark speech. If the advantage of the demagogue wielding dark speech relative to a speaker with weaker honest speech could be mostly neutralized, the odds of better outcomes arguably increase somewhat.

Most conservatives will quite probably reject that characterization of the conservative brain and possible neurology as nonsense. Maybe in time those criticisms will be vindicated and those inconvenient possibilities eliminated by reliable data. So in the meantime, we're still stuck with fascinating possibilities but not yet able to draw firm, data-based conclusions. We still don't know about the neurology of political ideology. We also still don't know if it is even possible to empower honest speech so it is at least fairly close to par with dark speech, assuming honest is less powerful than dark. 

One thing we do know. America will remain awash for years or decades in radical right dark speech from trusted but immoral, corrupt Republican elites. That is just not going to change. Maybe that alone is a barrier that any tactic or form of honest speech can never overcome. If so, I'm barking up the wrong tree.

That's where I left that darned thing

Acknowledgment: Thanks to Larry Motuz for point out this article -- it gave me a chance to talk about what this blog is about

Washington Post editors opinion: Our church-state barrier is crumbling

The editors argue:

A conservative Supreme Court majority is redefining the constitutional order — dismissive of Americans’ privacy rights, committed to dangerous pro-gun dogmas and, as the court showed twice this month, alarmingly permissive of mixing religion and government.

The latest example comes in the case of Joseph Kennedy, a high school football assistant coach in Washington state who led prayers on the 50-yard line after games. As they got increasingly ostentatious, the school district asked him to stop. He toned down his prayers, but refused to stop using his privileged access to the 50-yard line to engage in public religious displays in the middle of an official school event while wearing team attire.

The court’s six conservatives sided with the coach, rather than the school district that tried to persuade him to perform his religious observances on his own time and without implying that the school endorsed them. In so doing, the justices practically encouraged school officials to engage in showy displays of religious practice on school grounds, arguing that doing so promotes “learning how to tolerate diverse expressive activities.” The court reached its conclusion only by ignoring massive parts of the factual record. The majority claims Mr. Kennedy’s prayers were “quiet” personal acts during a “brief lull” in his duties following football games. In fact, he was on the clock, supposed to be supervising students after games.

Until the final few games of the season, after the district had threatened to discipline him, Mr. Kennedy’s prayers were not personal, as the coach invited students and even opposing teams to join him. They were not limited to the field or the post-game “lull”; he led prayers in the locker room. His acts were not quiet; he gave religious-themed speeches as players knelt around him. . All the while, Mr. Kennedy was supposed to be supervising students in the locker room.

The justices deemed these facts irrelevant, saying the school punished Mr. Kennedy only for his conduct after the season’s final three games, following which he made no lengthy public speeches and did not lead prayers in the locker room, just silently prayed on the 50-yard line as others joined him. The coach, of course, was able to stage his religious display on restricted public property only because he was a school employee working during an official activity core to his employment. 

It is obvious the justices did not put themselves in the shoes of a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or agnostic student watching from the literal and social sidelines, facing the decision of whether to join a coach on the field or stay true to their religious or nonreligious convictions. Along with another court decision earlier this month, in which the justices ordered the state of Maine to finance tuition at religious schools under a statewide voucher program, the majority appears determined to rule in favor of those seeking to use government resources to advance their religious beliefs — and against those who object to dismantling the wall between church and state.

That lays out the neo-fascist, Christian nationalist attack on church-state separation. 

My criticism is this: Instead of writing "A conservative Supreme Court majority is redefining the constitutional order ....", that should read "A radical right, Christian nationalist Supreme Court majority is redefining the constitutional order ...." 

That incompetence is another example of the mainstream media (i) not seeing the situation we are in, and/or (ii) being subverted or coerced by profit demands into not seeing reality. 

I've said it before and say it again, 

the MSM is duped by the radical right and just doesn't get it.

In normal, unspun reality:

In the faux reality that radical right propaganda has convinced the mainstream media and most of the public is reality, the window is pushed far to the right:

Truth the 1/6 Committee dug up

The testimony in the last couple of hours from the Democrats 1/6 investigation make it clear and undeniable what T**** wanted on 1/6. He wanted to go to the capitol to personally lead the overthrow of the 2020 election and democracy.[1] He physically attacked one his own Secret Service bodyguards in his attempt be to be present in the attack on the Capitol in 1/6. Some observers have argued that he needed to be physically present with the traitors if his coup attempt was to have any chance of success.

The testimony is clear that in 2020, a sitting Republican US president physically attacked one of his own bodyguards in his attempt to overthrow democracy. No doubt, his Christian nationalist and laissez-faire capitalist supporters will spin this new evidence into something that gives the radical right base an escape from the awful reality of Republican Party despotism. Now, more than ever, the GOP base needs an escape from the horrors of inconvenient truth. They need to see T****'s attack on democracy, truth and what is good as a patriotic defense of democracy, truth and good.

Get Rupert Murdoch and Faux News on the klaxon!! Tucker, spin this Republican treason into righteous democracy and truth, right now!! Tucker the bloviator be the right man for the job to save the GOP base from inconvenient truth!

Now, on the neo-fascist agenda is devising the spin needed so that morally rotted neo-fascists like Ron DeSantis can step into T****'s rotten shoes and carry the neo-fascist torch for the neo-fascist GOP.

Or, am I over the top?

Christian crusader wars diversify and intensify

How Christian nationalism deals with

truth, respect, secularism and democracy

Overturning Roe was just the first cannon blast from Christian nationalist theocrats. That was just the opening attack. Remember those crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) I wrote about last week? They're baaack and on the attaaack! Blooomberg writes:

Anti-Abortion Centers Find Pregnant Teens Online, Then Save Their Data

The so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ are turning to social media, including Snap Maps, to lure young people

When Lisa suspected she was pregnant, she did what other teenagers might: She Googled her options to terminate. One of the first links that popped up in the search engine was a clinic in Volusia, Florida, where the 19-year-old lived. The offer of a free pregnancy test tempted Lisa into booking an appointment and she drove there with her boyfriend, parking across the street. It was a small town, and she did not want to be recognized.

The consultation room was filled with posters depicting fetuses with speech bubbles, as if they were asking to be born. Lisa sobbed as one of the women running the clinic confirmed she was pregnant; they had refused to let her take a test home. Lisa needed to return for an ultrasound in four weeks to be certain, and then they could discuss options. But until then, they told her, she absolutely should not go to an abortion clinic. “Maybe you’ll miscarry and then you won’t have any problems,” the woman suggested.

As Lisa started to realize it wasn’t a medical facility, she became terrified for her privacy. “This information can’t go anywhere, right?” she begged a receptionist on her way out the door. “No one is gonna know that I was here?”

The answer wasn’t reassuring. “I remember her saying: ‘Well, honey, this is what happens when you have sex.’”

Lisa, who asked not to be identified by her real name, did manage to get an abortion from a different provider. But she also ended up in a database. The center continued to call her every few weeks to ask for an update on the baby and offer parenting classes. And as women like Lisa around the country are led unsuspectingly into anti-abortion centers, known as “crisis pregnancy centers,” academics and advocates for reproductive rights are concerned about what happens to this potentially incriminating data — especially after abortion becomes illegal in many states following Friday’s Roe v. Wade ruling.

Once states pass laws making abortion and helping someone to get an abortion a felony, maybe first degree murder, then people's social media will lead enraged avenging Christians right to their victims. Who would have ever thought that a blither on a person's Facebook page or a Google search could get a pregnant woman or someone helping her put on death row? 

As far as respect goes, CPCs could not care less about respecting a woman's privacy. Roe was based on a right to privacy that the Christian nationalist God says does not exist. So why would a CPC respect other kinds of privacy, except for their own of course?

Speaking of disrespect, here is some disrespect from Clarence Thomas, along with gigantic hypocrisy: "Clarence Thomas says American citizens are seemingly 'more interested in their iPhones' than 'their Constitution. .... They're interested in what they want rather than what is right as a country. .... Thomas said Scalia had similar sentiments as him about a lack of urgency in protecting liberties." 

Thomas talking about what is right for the country or lack of urgency in protecting liberties?? Thomas and his fellow Christian nationalist theocrats are attacking civil liberties and they say they are the defenders?? 

Give me an effing break. What a lying hypocrite. Thomas wants to convert the US from a secular democracy to a Dark Ages Christian fundamentalist theocracy. Thomas' vision of what's right for the country is cruel, bigoted, iron fisted Christian Sharia law at the center of it all. 

Although he has been criticized for hypocrisy in saying this because he was a radical right Christian fundamentalist himself, Barry Goldwater once warned:

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

The Republican Party Christian fundamentalism is undeniably engaged in an all-out war against democracy, secularism, pluralism, two-party rule, and inconvenient fact, truth and sound reasoning. There is no possibility of compromise or mercy from these cruel, enraged, vengeful, Christian warriors. And it is cruelty to treat people like terrified Lisa with callous contempt like ‘Well, honey, this is what happens when you have sex.’ 

Well people, that is the contemptuous disrespect that Christian nationalism shows to everyone who crosses their sacred lines. God does not tolerate miscreants or their bad behaviors. He will smite them hard. Miscreants will be re-educated, shut up, discriminated against, oppressed, put in jail and/or put to death.

What about Loving, and the due process and establishment clauses?

The Christians elites, bigoted and racist as they are, will probably not overturn Loving v. Virginia for now. The 1967 Loving decision made interracial marriage legal. That decision held that bans on interracial marriage violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since Thomas is a Black married to a White wife, the bigoted White theocrats on the Supreme Court will probably let that minor inconvenience in the eyes of God slide, as long as Thomas is alive. 

But make no mistake, high priority Christian nationalist legal goals include gutting the due process clause and the establishment clauses of the Constitution. Both stand squarely in the way of establishing the bigoted, (I really do mean bigoted) kleptocratic theocracy that God demands America to be. After Thomas is gone, Loving will probably be gone too.[1] 

The establishment clause is now pretty close to being obliterated. Just a few more pro-Christianity Supreme Court decisions will finish it off for good. 

People, we are at war!

Footnote: 

1. Maybe that overstates the case, but maybe it doesn't. These people are hard core fundamentalists. That sacred ideology that includes the central dogma that White people are morally superior and chosen by God to rule over all others. The Christian nationalists will vehemently deny all of the criticisms I am levelling at them here. Their arguments are that they are defending liberty and making America into what it should be in accord with the Constitution. They say the US Constitution is a religious document, but that is a colossal lie. It is a secular document.

One of the core problems here is that Christian nationalists are chronic, shameless liars. To get put on the bench, they all told us that Roe v. Wade is settled law. Like hell it was settled law. Christian nationalists lie about their religious crusade to make America theocratic and kleptocratic again. This is not new. Christian nationalists have been liars for decades. Liars deserve no credibility or trust because they earned none.

I'll keep warning in defense of democracy until they come for me and force me to shut up. Then, I suppose I'll shut up.

Thomas' concurrence in Dobbs, 

the case that overturned Roe v. Wade

Due process cases that Thomas wants to overturn

or as he puts it, "reconsider":

Griswold: The Constitution protects the right of marital privacy 

against state restrictions on contraception

Lawrence: criminal punishment laws against sodomy are unconstitutional

Obergefell: same-sex marriage is a constitutional right

That is only part of the poison the on the 

Christian nationalist legal agenda