A recent study in Israel used brain scans to explore the differences in empathy between political liberals and conservatives. The researchers found that when imagining other people suffering, liberals showed stronger brain reactions associated with empathy compared to conservatives. This pattern of brain activity was linked to participants’ self-reported political beliefs and their acceptance of right-wing values. The study was published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. …
Politics for me reduces to how much and to what degree you want to not hurt people or for people to hurt. It’s kinda simple even when the choices I’m front of us are complex.
Rightwingers like to punish and hurt as a means of control.
What a surprise.
Listen to any liberal and that much is obvious since it is literally their entire stance.
Overlooking how reductionist and incorrect that statement is: why is a political stance based around empathy a bad thing?
Who said it was a bad thing and why would you assume it was? And it’s not incorrect: you can prove it in the liberal stance on social issues. All of those stances require empathy. The same is not true of conservative stances which are based around ideology to the point that it allows human suffering.
I read your statement completely contrary to your intent, that’s how it’s a bad thing!
My oops
That’s what defines “conservative”. They are sheltered and are afraid of everything that’s different, so they’re trying to conserve some distorted ideal of what they alone think is “normal”. That’s why they’re racists, gender bigots, and hate other religions. That’s why most conservatives live in rural areas, while most people who live in cities are liberal— because exposure to a variety of people and experiences creates empathy.
I’m surprised not more people have caught onto this by now.
Now do socialists.
Both the popular article linked in the op as well as the actual paper seem to use the terms “liberal/conservative” and “leftist/rightist” interchangeably. Quote from the paper:
It is necessary to note that, first, similar to previous studies on this topic that consider the left–right dimension equivalent to the liberal–conservative dimension (Fuchs and Klingemann, 1990; Hasson et al., 2018), throughout this paper, the terms leftist and liberal (and similarly, rightist and conservative) were used interchangeably. The liberal–conservative dimension is often used in the United States, whereas the left–right dimension is commonly used in Europe and Israel (Hasson et al., 2018).
There were “only” 55 participants, but I assume that if some of them identified as socialist, they would already be included under “leftist/liberal” for the purpose of the study.
I’d be interested in seeing if there’s any difference between liberals and actual leftists. I’d assume so because liberals aren’t egalitarian, but there may not be a measurable difference.
Leftists are just liberals who are bad at math, so it probably would scale them about the same
It’s liberals who keep insisting that trickle down economics is good for the economy actually.
Small sample size of 55 participants that were gathered online and all from Israel. They are all ~25 yrs old and were split up based on what newspaper they read. The participants were free to label themselves but it was backed by asking questions of how they feel about their current administration policies. Kind of odd study.
I found the Trumper!
This isn’t reddit
It doesn’t have to be but suuuure people are doing their darndest to make it similar
Well he’s not wrong. Would you back shitty facts if they follow your political leaning? I prefer real facts you can stand on that something that can be easily debunked later on.
Would you back shitty facts if they follow your political leaning?
I would if I was a Trump supporter, since its functionally a requirement.
Bro, if you can’t even discuss a scientific study seriously I don’t even know what we are doing anymore
I hate to say this. Really. But as a scientist (in vaccine development), the broader public may never be able to have real discussions of science. I don’t ask my neighbor’s opinion about the surgery my Hopkins trained doctor recommended. That isn’t how science works in the public discourse. I wish it was closer to reality that we were all educated enough that it would be productive.
Yeah well we all were born uneducated and someone cared enough to cram data into our skulls. Not your responsibility, fair enough, just saying not take everything in the worst possible way if you know you are willing to not correct the other person
I agree, and you responded to someone being an ass-clown. I was just putting a few cents in.
He (maybe she judging by username) brings up a good point with the study though. It is important to look at all the data and factors. I am biased toward the results. Meaning I agree with them, but it is a small study. We should be able to discuss these facts without it being a big deal.
What facts
The size of the study and the bias of the students themselves. Plus the type of person that would participate in the study might be more empathetic to begin with. Meaning the result could skewed just a bit higher percentage than an average.
Oh yeah that yes
And also a significantly higher percentage of mental illnesses.
Edit: Uh oh, lol. The conformist hive mind got upset at facts. Again, actual scientific facts, not my opinion.
I’ll remove the downvote if you cite the facts.
I don’t disagree or disbelieve, but you can’t make that claim without backing it up without being a part of the problem.
