quote:

The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.

Aristotle may have been more on the mark than he realised when he said that man is by nature a political animal.
Dozens of previous studies have established a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits.
Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances.

The affinity between political views and "cognitive style" has also been shown to be heritable, handed down from parents to children, said the study, published in the British journal Nature Neuroscience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Do you need a "permit" to vote?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PlayfulOne

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Do you need a "permit" to vote?

Yes, it is called voter registration.  No registration, no vote.

K

quote:

ORIGINAL: lucern

Well observed Susan, with regards for politics changing as people age.  They also change as people accumulate wealth, education, children, or travel abroad.  I wouldn't say there's any evidence for political views being hardwired here.  It suggests that people who think in certain ways might be more prone to one or the other way of political thinking.  Then again, political affiliation isn't a dichotomy, and the way this was set up seems to beg for such a dichotomy to be created.

Political affiliation is as socially embedded as politics are socially embedded.  The evidence of this that amuses me most at present is the dichotomy set up - or at least emphasized - by the article between liberal and conservative.  There's are social constructions and are results of a largely 2 party system of politics in the US idiom.  If you read the article and imagine the differences to be 'nurture' rather than 'nature', it makes a little more sense, at least to me.  The author does not come out and say what Level has asked in the OP, but they strongly hint at it.  Personality studies are often rooted in this kind of discourse, and they shamelessly references "Dozens" of studies (without referencing lol) that establish that link between personality and politics.  The biological root of personality has been at the least overblown, and at the worst fully misrecognized.  If personality and politics are social, as I contend, of course they'd be related. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

We really should have 7-10 partys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

We really should have 7-10 partys.

In 1989, India had 653 political parties.  None with a clear majority.

Not saying I disagree with you, popeye1250, simply pointing out that there are other issues which impact the political process no matter which way you go.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: lucern

Popeye - that's interesting about how travel changed your political views towards conservatism.  Statistically it's the other way around.  Then again, that's why you don't use stats when individuals are there for the asking.  FYI, of those I mentioned, the trend in the US is generally:

The more wealth you have, the more likely you are to be conservative.
The more children you have, the more likely you are to be conservative.
The more education you have, the more likely you are to be liberal.
The more you've travelled, the more likely you are to be liberal. 

The stats are fun to play with if you've got the knowhow and can be insightful if you're smart about it, but they of course have that caveat I mentioned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

We really should have 7-10 partys.

In 1989, India had 653 political parties.  None with a clear majority.

Not saying I disagree with you, popeye1250, simply pointing out that there are other issues which impact the political process no matter which way you go.

Sinergy

France has a decent compromise for the many party/few party problem.  In the simplest terms possible and my rudimentary understanding of it, they vote twice.  The first time through, people tend to vote for those they like most.  Those are tallied and only the two frontrunners are are in the next ballot.  This isn't perfect, but I'd take it over the winner-take-all approach, so that third parties in the US aren't considered 'spoilers' for the major party politics.  One might argue that the victors of their elections more acurately reflect the will of the majority than in the US system.  Of course, their terms are longer, so they had better get it right. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: lucern

Well Popeye - you're an 'against the grain' sorta fellow lol. 

I had access to the general social survey data and a nice stats program when I ran those tests.   I no longer have the program but that's the way the "Have you travelled abroad?" question came out, over the past 40 years.  In any case, the data could just as easily mean that people who are more liberal are more likely to travel abroad.  Probably a bit of both.  The stats don't answer questions like that, though it'd have been interesting if they had thought to have people identify as conservative or liberal fiscally and socially.   The stats are useful to find large-scale trends rather than 'the way things are' for everyone. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Well this might be true, and it is interesting. But then I wonder how would these folks explain why people's political views sometimes change as they get older? I know it can be true that many people can tend to become more conservative as they age, for example.

Or maybe that is explained in the part of the article that says nueral pathways are malleable and can change as the result of a person's experiences.

It is an intriguing article, IMO.

- Susan