© Charles D. Hayes
For
many years I’ve been fascinated by discoveries in neuroscience and evolutionary
psychology, especially by what they suggest about our political nature. Much
has been learned in the past couple of decades about how our political minds
work. We know, for example, that politics can have a definite imprint on brain
structure and that the brains of liberals and conservatives can reflect such
differences. Unfortunately, so far at least, there appears to be no public
benefit as a result.
People
who self-identify as partisan liberals tend to have a greater volume of gray
matter in an area known as the anterior cingulate cortex. This brain structure
enables a person to be more comfortable in the face of uncertainty. By
contrast, self-identifying partisan conservatives tend to have a larger right
amygdala, making them more alert to the possibilities of threat or impending
harm. Both dispositions are necessary for achieving and maintaining social
equilibrium.
What
we know for certain is that people on the far left and far right see the world so
differently that they have great difficulty arguing because very often they
can’t even agree on the meaning of simple words. We know that when it comes to
political argument, people with strong political views are adept at tuning out the
other side. A flood of emotion effectively blocks reception of the opposition’s
view, allowing one to work on a counterargument while the other party drones on
unaware.
We
know further from split-brain studies that human beings are particularly good
at rationalization. We are experts at coming up with explanations for our
behavior that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with our real reasons for acting,
regardless of the situation or circumstance. It is not an exaggeration to say
that when pressured to explain our behavior in any number of circumstances, we
will just pull reasons out of a hat.
We
also know with some confidence that in children as young as three or four it
may be possible to predict with a high degree of accuracy whether they will
grow up to be liberals or conservatives. The main criterion is their
disposition for being open to new experience. Liberals are inclined to be more
curious while conservatives are more cautious, fearful, or less trusting, as
the earlier finding about structural brain differences suggests.
We
know from studies of twins that humans have a genetic predisposition for left
or right political positions, but that this inclination is not destiny. It can
be overridden by culture. In other words, a child predisposed toward liberalism
can grow up as a conservative in a conservative family, and the reverse can
occur with a child prone toward conservatism who is raised as a liberal.
It
should be clear from our history that both liberal and conservative values and
behaviors are necessary for sustaining culture. Conservatives are
demonstratively more tribalistic than liberals, while liberals are explicitly more
concerned with achieving fairness and justice. The former brings the group
closer together while the latter increases its membership. But moving too far
in either direction is a recipe for tyranny. That we strive for balance and
appreciate the values of both liberalism and conservatism is crucial for our
continued existence. We know these things, but we are not very good at
demonstrating that we do.
Neuroscience
raises far more questions than it answers, but the questions, by nature of their
profundity, should require that we pay close attention to them. From what has
been presented so far, it should be considered a no-brainer that we can't be
trusted to do politics without safeguards and mediators to make sure that we
are listening to our opposition instead of simply concentrating on conjuring a retort.
This may not seem so important for you and me, but for the politicians who
represent us it is of profound importance. For all practical purposes, though, our
political houses of government appear oblivious to the discoveries in behavioral
science.
If
a child's natural predisposition for politics can be overridden by culture, is
that not proof that all of the parts of one's brain can be utilized if
attention is given to subjects that involve a particular part of the brain? Shouldn’t
this be an educational objective? If not, why not? If each of us has a part of
our brain that hasn't been fully developed, then we are cheating ourselves by not
seeing to it that it gets a proper amount of stimulation.
I
have a theory—for which I have no proof, only personal experience and
observation—which is that people whose natural predisposition has been
overwhelmed by their culture and who have assumed a political posture that
conflicts with their inborn temperament are very likely to be the most extreme partisans
on the left or right. What they are relying on is conflicted emotion to begin
with, and I suspect they may harbor an unacknowledged and subconscious resentment
for having had their natural inclinations thwarted. This emotional conflict
sets up a pressure-cooker that causes them to suffer exceptional anxiety
without knowing why or what is really bothering them.
I
don’t know of any research that supports this view or even how researchers
might proceed to test for it. I think, however, that this may have been true for me personally. Raised
a hard-right conservative, I used to be intolerant, contemptuous, and very
angry when it came to the subject progressive values. Now that I’ve embraced
them, I no longer feel conflicted.
If
liberalism and conservatism are both necessary to attain and sustain
civilization, and if citizens cannot learn to appreciate this reality within
their own minds, does this not mean in some way that we have been addled,
misguided, or ill-educated? If something is demonstrably factual and yet we are
unable to acknowledge it as being true in any sense, have we not been injured
by culture or circumstance? While it may be to our advantage that people can have
predispositions that favor one part of the brain over another, it is not to our advantage to the extent that
one becomes completely closed off to recognizing the values of the others.
Where
is the Socratic influence to come from if not from science, which clearly
demonstrates that our very existence is threatened if we can’t maintain some
equilibrium toward political objectivity and the wisdom we gain through the study
of human behavior? In my view, the discoveries in neuroscience suggest we have
completely fumbled the ball in public education by focusing too much on
creating human doings and not human beings.
If
one's political opposition is necessary by design but we can’t see our
opponents as being anything but evil, is this not, in and of itself, a psychological
short-circuit that undermines the very idea of democracy and representative
government?
My Books and Essays on Amazon
New Fiction: The Call of Mortality
My Other Blog
Follow me on twitter: @CDHWasilla
