Both sides of the political spectrum will always have their fair share of idiots. But an argument I hear often that pokes at the intellectual integrity of the liberal ideology is this: Liberals make decisions with good intentions but are misguided by short-sighted benevolence. Liberals support decisions that are seemingly humanitarian without checking the potential unintended consequences of those decisions.
On the other hand, conservatives often claim that the evil most liberals seek to end is necessary to keep the system intact and offers more help to us than its absence would. For instance, liberals see poverty and want to raise the minimum wage, but conservatives think this would be too harsh on businesses and would ultimately lead to more unemployment and thus more poverty. When liberals see people swimming in college debt, they want to make college tuition-free. Meanwhile, conservatives think too many government handouts are crippling the American economy and incite laziness and entitlement.
On a grander scale, liberals tend to view unrestrained capitalism as horribly detrimental to our national welfare, whereas conservatives tend to think the benefits of such a system outweigh its downfalls.
In each of these examples, it seems as though the conservatives have the upper hand in terms of logic and reason. However, as a liberal, I do not find this to be the case.
A recent study that put applicants with an identified political ideology through functional MRIs found that liberals and conservatives have a key neurobiological difference. Liberals tend to have larger cingulate cortices, which are associated with adapting to new information via error detection and risk assessment. In contrast, conservatives tend to have larger right amygdalae, which are typically considered the fear center of the brain, responsible for activating the "flight" response to a stressful situation.
The researchers were then able to apply this finding by using the data from the procedure to predict ideology. The researchers based their predictions of political ideology purely on brain structure, and were correct 71.6 percent of the time.
The significance of this study lies in the functions performed by these two brain regions. Both of these brain regions are highly active during conflicts and risk-taking behaviors.
The implications of this and other studies are fairly straight-forward to me: Liberals tend to respond to arguments with open-minded consideration and adaptive behavior, whereas conservatives, when faced with some ideological threat, tend to react with immediacy and fear. Of course, this does not apply to everyone, and there are other factors, but it is sound data, based on multiple scientific studies and should be taken seriously.
Often in politics and sociology, as with many other areas of life, the best solution is neither the easiest nor the most immediate. Because of this, the reasons for choosing a more difficult and long-term solution may not always be so clear.
In altercations between conservatives and liberals, oftentimes liberals do not have the opportunity to explain the complex logic behind decisions such as raising the minimum wage before scaring their opponents away with new, perhaps risky ideas. Liberals may have already considered the conservative arguments (which often claim that certain evils are inevitable) and found a way around the obstacles at hand. Perhaps this is why so many people are getting behind decisions that, to conservatives, seem narrow-minded.
So, liberals, next time you are debating a conservative, try not to scare them away. And conservatives, try to be more open and less afraid of ideas that are new — including the idea that your right amygdala might be bigger than mine.