the power of observation
Researchers have found, for example, that some humans are particularly alert to threats, particularly primed to feel vulnerable and perceive danger. Those people are more likely to be conservatives.
One experiment used electrodes to measure the startle blink reflex, the way we flinch and blink when startled by a possible danger. A flash of noise was unexpectedly broadcast into the research subjects’ earphones, and the response was measured.
The researchers, led by Kevin B. Smith of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, found that those who had a stronger blink reflex at the noise were more likely to take such conservative positions as favoring gun rights, supporting warrantless searches, and opposing foreign aid.
That makes intuitive sense: If you are more acutely sensitive to risks and more fearful of attack, you also may be more aggressive in arming yourself and more wary of foreigners.
An interesting spin, that conservative sorts were vulnerable, fearful, etc. I would think that they were just more observant and reacted to their surroundings more adeptly.
Or I could have some fun and spin it in the following Kristofian manner. Clearly, liberals are incapable of observing reality appropriately, hence their lollipop and rainbow solutions to things. It makes intuitive sense that if you’re proposing pie in the sky solutions to everything, you have no understanding of your basic surroundings and how the world works.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:33 am
So where do the libertarians fall? Gun rights and warrants for searches? Do we only hear with one ear?
February 16th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I’m thinking what the study proves is something that conservatives already know intuitively: Liberals are oblivious.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:37 am
“…favoring gun rights, supporting warrantless searches, and opposing foreign aid.”
Huh? One of these things is not like the others. Hint: it’s the one in the middle.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Apparently, if you spank your kids you hate minorities or something.
February 16th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Constitutionalists must fall all across the board or something, right?
What is it with agenda driven studies allowing only A/B solutions to their made up questions anyway?
February 16th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
It’s easier to manipulate the study to give you the answer you want if there are only two possible answers, that’s all.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“Liberals are oblivious.”
If you have situational awareness you see easily those people who do not posses the ability. Is it genetic? May be. Can it be taught? Not that I have seen. I don’t know if oblivious is the best word. Perhaps disconnected is better. There is also a hope element. It seems liberals will not believe their fellow man is capable of bad things. Another disconnect.
Modern life has made it easier for people without situational awareness to exist. In more rugged times chance favored those with situational awareness. If this is a genetic trait it seems as time goes on there will be more of the slow the react types.
Ever seen a traffic accident where some people react very quickly and take evasion defensive action where others just plow straight ahead into the pile up?
The downside of this will be those that have the ability will be considered throw backs to the liberal elite. It will not be seen as an ability, but a liability. Ironic, no?
February 16th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Blink and you are a racist.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
“What is it with agenda driven studies allowing only A/B solutions to their made up questions anyway?”
Agenda driven? It’s science, my friend, not a conspiracy. Plus, it’s really difficult to link physiology with abstract concepts like political affiliation. Using general terms like conservative/liberal rather than the political parties themselves helps better elucidate patterns that can later, with more research, become better defined. It’s a starting point. That’s how science works.
“I’m thinking what the study proves is something that conservatives already know intuitively: Liberals are oblivious.”
It also “proves” that conservatives are scared sissies who shouldn’t carry guns, because their brains are deformed and they see everything as a threat.
The above is definitely not my actual belief, but is just as valid an argument as your “liberals are oblivious” statement. Clearly both are asinine conclusions not supported at all by the evidence.
February 16th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
It seems that the movie Idiocracy is coming to life. If we keep allowing people with low IQ’s, and genetic deformities reproduce eventually the human race will become too weak to survive. We will breed ourselves into extinction.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
That’s funny… they really do think like sheep.
Does that make conservatives the sheepdogs?
February 16th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Hmmm. Well that does it. The science is settled. Blinkers=deniers=birthers.
There must be a hockey stick graph for this study.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Here’s a question for Mr. Kristof and the knuckleheads who think this bears any resemblance to reality:
February 16th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Were you born an asshole or did you have to work at it?
February 16th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I support lots of warrantless searches, myself.
Like ones at customs inspection, and searches incident to arrest for the legitimate safety of the arresting officer.
You know, the ones that the laws and the courts agree don’t need warrants.
Smitty: Not so much. The “science” is the part that measured responses. But “that response is explained by [some pop-psych shit that’s politically convenient]” is not the “science” part of the investigation.
Science is observations, and testable hypotheses. Explanations in loaded terms like “more fearful of attack” (rather than “reacting more strongly to a loud noise” or even “more acutely responsive to threat”… “fearful” is a sneaky attempt at loading, or at very least an unwitting one, and unscientific in any case) are not science.
February 16th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Since when are conservatives for warrantless searches???
February 16th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Uh smitty “The above is definitely not my actual belief, but is just as valid an argument as your “liberals are oblivious” statement. Clearly both are asinine conclusions not supported at all by the evidence.”
Gee! Ya think that was his point?????
February 16th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
“Science is observations, and testable hypotheses. Explanations in loaded terms like “more fearful of attack” (rather than “reacting more strongly to a loud noise” or even “more acutely responsive to threat”… “fearful” is a sneaky attempt at loading, or at very least an unwitting one, and unscientific in any case) are not science.”
Neither “fear” nor “fearful” appear in the paper once; that was in the op-ed. I agree that the op-ed is taking liberties with the science. My previous comment was aimed at the person who claimed that the scientific study itself was agenda-driven. It is not.
“Gee! Ya think that was his point?????”
Nope. He was making a dig at liberals that had no basis. I made a fictitious counterclaim to expose how that dig was not grounded in the evidence of the study.
February 17th, 2010 at 1:33 am
I suggest you are not as “nuanced” as you liberals pride yourselves on being. Because that was the point I took away from it. He showed how ridiculous it was by doing the exact same thing in mirror image.
You missed that?
February 17th, 2010 at 4:09 am
You think I’m a liberal? LOL
I’m a card carrying NRA member, voted McCain-Palin, and love guns and military history. I’m pretty far from the “liberal” you believe me to be. I am, however, a scientist and actually do work with eyeblink startle and other psychophysiological measures.
I have to wonder, do you think I’m talking about SayUncle’s original post (which DOES lampoon both sides and is quite astute at pointing out the op-ed’s poor argument) or anon’s post, which just digs at liberals? I was addressing the latter. There is nothing satirical or suggesting of irony within anon’s post, plain and simple. He appears serious. Prove otherwise.
February 17th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Prove otherwise.
Prove it is.
And for one commenting on the assinitity of coming to disparaging conclusions based on your own *interpretation* of neutral observations you seem to have no problem making them yourself.
Anon didn’t make an *additional* comments suggesting irony or satire, but then again, piling on wouldn’t need it. Maybe you are right, maybe SA is right. But there’s no proof either way until Anon comes back to tell us himself.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
“Prove it is.”
The default interpretation of a statement without any semblance of sarcasm is seriousness. If you get a text message from your spouse that says, “Call 911” without any other context to suggest that he or she is kidding, you will take that statement seriously. There is nothing satirical about his statement. The onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
Secondly, if a “disparaging conclusion” is based on true premises, there is nothing asinine about it. If you think that this study allows you to dig at either conservatives or liberals, you are incorrect. If you take that bias and make an asinine remark about it, I’m right to call you out for it, because that’s foolish and you’re making stupid comments. It’s the exact same as the folks who see mass shootings and then make snide comments about gun owners. Disparaging comments are perfectly valid when the target is deserving.
Finally, I’m done here, as there’s no way that Anon *can* come back. No matter who posts under his or her handle, no one here can verify it was actually him or her. This argument is finished. Goodbye.
February 17th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
If you get a text message from your spouse that says, “Call 911″ without any other context to suggest that he or she is kidding, you will take that statement seriously.
But if it’s done as a reply to “OMG, I’ve got a splinter!!!11!!!1” a simple response of “Call 911” doesn’t need any extra context. All the context you need is already there.
Yes, context is important, but not all context must be provided by the speaker. On a joke thread, seriousness is *not* the default.
I’m done here, as there’s no way that Anon *can* come back. No matter who posts under his or her handle, no one here can verify it was actually him or her.
Yet another case of not realizing that that was the friggin’ point. No one can *prove* it either way. Concluding that your interpretation is *fact* is exactly the kind of thing being made fun of, yet you still think it’s perfectly OK when *you* do it.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Yes, I actually did think you were responding to Uncle’s observation that the game could be played any way someone with an agenda wanted to, therefore making all assumptions suspect, since there was no scientific linkage between the observations and the conclusions.
I apologize for the misunderstanding.