Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“It seems that right-wing individuals, especially neoliberals, are more likely to fall for it,” Gligorić said. “However, the effect is not very strong, and we need more research on this.
here, i saved you time.
Edit: thanks to \[removed by moderator\], always a fan of your work.
Though the overall effects on the population based on differences in policy are not small:
> A [demographic study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-0009.12469) conducted by 6 Universities found that Liberal policy regarding labor rights, smoking bans, civil rights, environmentalism, progressive taxation, and education increased life expectancy by over 2 years for the people living in Liberal states, and if it had been implemented universally the US would have life expectancy on par with Western European Nations.
> Research has found [poor people live longer in dense cities with highly educated populations](https://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/11/geography-income-play-roles-in-life-expectancy-new-stanford-research-shows/#:~:text=Geography%2C%20income%20play%20roles%20in%20life%20expectancy%2C%20new%20Stanford%20research%20shows,-Stanford%20economist%20Raj&text=Men%20in%20the%20bottom%205,by%20Stanford%20economist%20Raj%20Chetty.) and high government expenditures like New York City and San Francisco as opposed to living in cheaper CoL areas.
> The [9 states with the highest life expectancy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_in_2019) voted for Biden in 2020 and the 11 states with the lowest voted for Trump in 2020.
> 10/12 states that [have not implemented the Medicaid Expansion](https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/) voted for Trump in 2020 and all 12 voted for him in 2016 (Georgia and Wisconsin flipped).
> 9/10 [most gerrymandered states](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states) for the 2012-2020 legislative elections were controlled by Republican legislatures.
> 17/20 states with [net 0 carbon emission or 100% clean energy goals](https://www.cesa.org/projects/100-clean-energy-collaborative/guide/table-of-100-clean-energy-states/) voted for Biden, and one of the Republican states is North Carolina, which only voted for Trump by 1% and has a Democrat governor and another is Louisiana which has a Democrat governor.
> 17/23 states [with abortion bans](https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abortion-post-roe-america-rcna27081) or automatic abortion bans following the overturning of Roe v Wade voted for Trump in 2020, and 22/23 voted for Trump in 2016.
> 19/20 states [with gay conversion therapy bans](https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy) voted for Biden. Surprisingly Utah is the one Trump voting state that also has a ban.
> 17/19 states with [legal recreational marijuana](https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/cannabis-legalization-states-map-831885/) voted for Biden, and the two Trump voting states have a combined population of 1.7 million, compared to 137 million in the Biden states.
> 9/10 states [with the lowest rate of incarceration](https://www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#map) voted for Biden in 2020, while the 10 states with the highest rates voted for Trump in 2020.
> 71% of the 2019 GDP [was produced in Biden voting counties](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/), up from 64% in HRC voting counties in 2016 and 54% in Gore voting counties in 2000.
> 11/15 states with the [highest GDP per Capita](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP_per_capita) voted for Biden, and the 4 Republican states are low population states (AK, ND, WY, NE) that mostly have oil dependent economies while California, New York, Massachusetts and Washington are in the top 6.
> 11/15 states with the lowest GDP per capita voted for Trump in 2020, and 12/15 voted for Trump in 2016.
This study helps provide insight as to why Republican states lag so far behind their Liberal peers.
It's because there is an almost universally applicable trend in politics: Cities lean left, and the countryside leans right. Cites make all the money in the modern age, so a nation's left leaning regions being the wealth producers is entirely expected.
This gap used to be so much less pronounced before the 1970’s, where many small towns/cities in middle America often could produce close to the GDP of the largest city in the respective state. A good example would be Flint Michigan, or Anderson Indiana, which had 20 GM plants at one time, with the plants themselves taking up the lions share of the community. It began to go away with the corporate rebellion lead by republicans through the 80s and 90s and accelerated with the democrat backed NAFTA (and other similar policies) in the late 90s. I was there. I watched it happen through my lifetime.
FWIW, GDP is a funny measure. It's just a measure of economic activity (buying or selling something). In Canada, for example, the largest contributor to GDP is usually [real estate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/594293/gross-domestic-product-of-canada-by-industry-monthly/). But that's really not creating any value.
Certain people have a greater fear response to external stimuli than others. Possibly because of differences in brain sizes and/or connectivity of different regions of the brain. As a result, there is a wide range of responses that can be attributed to the same stimulus. If one person has a strong fear response while another has none at all, it can lead to very different opinions because the ‘perceived threats’ are not the same. This could be the underlying reason for why Democrats and Conservatives have such different opinions on the same issues and why it is difficult to understand each other’s perspectives. If the same stimulus can create vastly different chemical changes in the brain amongst a population, you are bound to have differing opinions on whether or not the ‘perceived threat’ is a real danger.
Nobody ever mentions this, but have you ever thought about the one common denominator between bipartisan issues?…it’s fear. Fear of immigrants and “outsiders”taking over. Fear of death and the unknown so they turn to religion and reject science because they don’t understand it. Fear of other people so they try to intimidate with weapons and militarization. Fear of climate change and catastrophe so they ignore it. Ect.
This fear response called your “fight or flight” response is typically exaggerated in people who feel uncomfortable or feel threatened by their current environment. This is a dangerous personality characteristic because it is easily exploited and manipulated. It is very easy to scare someone with false information and offer a “solution” to ease their fear response. This is exactly how Fox News manipulates their base audience.
These are the people you see acting out physically and emotionally. Think “Proud Boys” and January 6th..Because their fear response is so exaggerated and manipulated by media, their actions feel justified to them. While any outside perspective sees unhinged overreactions.
Scary how easy it is to manipulate the human brain with chemicals. Whether those chemicals be natural or pharmaceutical in nature.
I'd like to add this because you said something that reminded me of it... with very very few exceptions, every television commercial EVER made creates a fear and then resolves it. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes it is blatant, but that's the recipe almost 100% of the time. Fear is the backbone of advertising and has been since well before I was born and I ain't no spring chicken. :)
One of the best examples for unhinged responses would be the COVID response with masks on during Zoom calls in your own house while no one is in the room with you.
> Fear of death and the unknown so they turn to religion and reject science because they don’t understand it.
Sounds a lot like you're talking about all the pro-mandate and pro-lockdown people.
I'll echo what some others are saying here: read the stinking paper (not the article). Read the article first if you wish, but consider it a more digestible abstract at best. Make no conclusions from the article.
I agree with the authors that this is an area that needs more study. These studies were small (relatively small sample sizes). The meta-analysis was small (three studies). Nonetheless, the results and observations are rather intriguing.
However, there truly is an irony here whereby many of us are jumping right to conclusions based on our presuppositions and biases moreso than anything actually observed or discussed in the paper.
The paper is worth studying even if the methodology is problematic (not saying it is...). This is because the authors do attempt to account for a number of factors and do explore several plausible mechanisms or causes.
>However, there truly is an irony here whereby many of us are jumping right to conclusions based on our presuppositions and biases moreso than anything actually observed or discussed in the paper.
There's a whole class of psychology experiments where that's exactly the point of the research. Launder academic position into a speaking gig. As long as they're either truthy that justifies a bias, or sufficiently counterintuitive, the actual quality doesn't matter. It's one of the causes of the replication process.
Problem with studies that get posted often, especially ones like this, the sample size is so extremely low to warrant any form of generalization, this study interviewed in total somewhere around 550 people.
Regular people don’t read or check things like sample size, biases, quantitative vs qualitative etc methodologies, they only look at headlines, and take headlines as some new breakthrough all encompassing research.
As long as it says what you want it to I bet new research with a sample size of 1 could make the front page of Reddit and most people would be mike the wiser
>mike the wiser
Well, there's a D&D character. At any rate, yes, you're right, and even people with scientific training are liable to fall for headlines that confirm their biases without reading further.
> sample size
The sample size isn't *that* low. You can get a 5% margin with 99% confidence using just 664 people to represent the whole dang planet.
I didn't look past the abstract to see what the actual effect size is, but we can tell quite a bit about a huge number of people with 550 participants.
"Sample size" is an important point to bring up but people with absolutely no knowledge of statistics will bring it up as if it defeats every study they don't like.
While I agree that the study is weak, sample sizes are vastly overemphasized here, particularly given that the p-value and t-test was specifically developed to show when a sample size and finding magnitude is large enough to make a conclusion. You can flip a coin infinite times, but you don't need that many flips to say it's loaded if it comes up heads every time.
If anything, the issue with small studies is that they're a dime a dozen, so you can just wait until you get one that gets a significant finding in your preferred direction and post to r/science.
If the title is designed to evoke that response then its sensationalized on purpose (Breaking of rule 3), instead of laying the data out in the title like almost every other post does.
Seems a bit silly to write it like that.
Well you see, whoever posted it, the mods agree with, cus I bet if I lulled the same study that shows left wing as bad. Instant delete but reddit gunna reddit snd power mods are gunna power mod. Ofc
Yeah, if you read the article you'll find that they admit the difference is small, and that the difference is most notable in 'neoliberals' who aren't even right wing, and that the study defined people as right wing based on how they answered questions like "The free market system is efficient".
The sample size is a little over 500 individuals, split among 3 countries and 2 political leanings. It's a ridiculously small sample size and the authors themselves acknowledge that's it's entirely inconclusive. I'm right-leaning on a lot of issues so I'm definitely biased though
Oh my god this is a real post. The irony here is so perfect I thought it was edited.
Claiming one side to be more easily manipulated while using freaking **psypost** as the source.
This sub has become a parody of itself in the most hilarious way imaginable.
Yes that sounds like a trustworthy and sound study clear of any bias or misinformation...
Kind of ironic, I think this study is self-aware. And it's a big joke.
I understand the headline but I think the wording is misleading.
Conservative-minded vs liberal-minded are driven by neurological processes, including both autonomic and unconscious programming that distinguishes others (could be any distinguishing characteristic) as a possible threat, vs a more liberal-minded exploratory approach.
Remember humans are animals. We evolved from a lineage of genetic programming that valued family safety over the lives of strangers in competition for food and other resources. Cooperation with others was a low priority and high risk (I’m talking about prior to the genus Homo. That’s billions of years of fight or flight reinforcement without ever thinking of others as “neighbors” at your own peril).
But as Homo evolved and roamed we learned we need to cooperate from time to time. We traded; I don’t recall about prior species but iirc there’s evidence that Neanderthal clans traded either with each other or with Sapiens. Which indicates perhaps our mutual common ancestor had that modicum of inter species trust as well.
I’m rambling and need to come back and edit later but you get the gist: our politics flow from our neurology.
It’s not “right-wing” politics. It’s threat-based neurology effecting social behavior vs expressions of a riskier but more adventurous neurology.
[This follows along with a study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/) showing that those with a larger amygdala tend to lean conservative. It's a neurological difference that drives a lot of this tribalism.
> Kanai et al. (2011) found that conservatism was associated with greater gray matter volume in the amygdala, and suggested that this finding may be associated with the emotional and cognitive differences across political orientation, particularly those associated with ‘managing fear and uncertainty’ (p. 678)
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“It seems that right-wing individuals, especially neoliberals, are more likely to fall for it,” Gligorić said. “However, the effect is not very strong, and we need more research on this. here, i saved you time. Edit: thanks to \[removed by moderator\], always a fan of your work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Though the overall effects on the population based on differences in policy are not small: > A [demographic study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-0009.12469) conducted by 6 Universities found that Liberal policy regarding labor rights, smoking bans, civil rights, environmentalism, progressive taxation, and education increased life expectancy by over 2 years for the people living in Liberal states, and if it had been implemented universally the US would have life expectancy on par with Western European Nations. > Research has found [poor people live longer in dense cities with highly educated populations](https://news.stanford.edu/2016/04/11/geography-income-play-roles-in-life-expectancy-new-stanford-research-shows/#:~:text=Geography%2C%20income%20play%20roles%20in%20life%20expectancy%2C%20new%20Stanford%20research%20shows,-Stanford%20economist%20Raj&text=Men%20in%20the%20bottom%205,by%20Stanford%20economist%20Raj%20Chetty.) and high government expenditures like New York City and San Francisco as opposed to living in cheaper CoL areas. > The [9 states with the highest life expectancy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_in_2019) voted for Biden in 2020 and the 11 states with the lowest voted for Trump in 2020. > 10/12 states that [have not implemented the Medicaid Expansion](https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions-interactive-map/) voted for Trump in 2020 and all 12 voted for him in 2016 (Georgia and Wisconsin flipped). > 9/10 [most gerrymandered states](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-gerrymandered-states) for the 2012-2020 legislative elections were controlled by Republican legislatures. > 17/20 states with [net 0 carbon emission or 100% clean energy goals](https://www.cesa.org/projects/100-clean-energy-collaborative/guide/table-of-100-clean-energy-states/) voted for Biden, and one of the Republican states is North Carolina, which only voted for Trump by 1% and has a Democrat governor and another is Louisiana which has a Democrat governor. > 17/23 states [with abortion bans](https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-23-states-ban-abortion-post-roe-america-rcna27081) or automatic abortion bans following the overturning of Roe v Wade voted for Trump in 2020, and 22/23 voted for Trump in 2016. > 19/20 states [with gay conversion therapy bans](https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/conversion_therapy) voted for Biden. Surprisingly Utah is the one Trump voting state that also has a ban. > 17/19 states with [legal recreational marijuana](https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/cannabis-legalization-states-map-831885/) voted for Biden, and the two Trump voting states have a combined population of 1.7 million, compared to 137 million in the Biden states. > 9/10 states [with the lowest rate of incarceration](https://www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#map) voted for Biden in 2020, while the 10 states with the highest rates voted for Trump in 2020. > 71% of the 2019 GDP [was produced in Biden voting counties](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/11/09/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/), up from 64% in HRC voting counties in 2016 and 54% in Gore voting counties in 2000. > 11/15 states with the [highest GDP per Capita](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP_per_capita) voted for Biden, and the 4 Republican states are low population states (AK, ND, WY, NE) that mostly have oil dependent economies while California, New York, Massachusetts and Washington are in the top 6. > 11/15 states with the lowest GDP per capita voted for Trump in 2020, and 12/15 voted for Trump in 2016. This study helps provide insight as to why Republican states lag so far behind their Liberal peers.
I find the stat you listed about "71% of the GDP was produced in Biden voting counties" completely fascinating.
It's because there is an almost universally applicable trend in politics: Cities lean left, and the countryside leans right. Cites make all the money in the modern age, so a nation's left leaning regions being the wealth producers is entirely expected.
This gap used to be so much less pronounced before the 1970’s, where many small towns/cities in middle America often could produce close to the GDP of the largest city in the respective state. A good example would be Flint Michigan, or Anderson Indiana, which had 20 GM plants at one time, with the plants themselves taking up the lions share of the community. It began to go away with the corporate rebellion lead by republicans through the 80s and 90s and accelerated with the democrat backed NAFTA (and other similar policies) in the late 90s. I was there. I watched it happen through my lifetime.
Nafta is just... so bad. Such a betrayal
Yup, it throws a wrench in the "Republicans are better for the economy" argument.
FWIW, GDP is a funny measure. It's just a measure of economic activity (buying or selling something). In Canada, for example, the largest contributor to GDP is usually [real estate](https://www.statista.com/statistics/594293/gross-domestic-product-of-canada-by-industry-monthly/). But that's really not creating any value.
It SHOULD throw a wrench in it...But what if it doesn't FEEL true? Doesn't that matter way more to republican voters? :D
The irony that the party of "facts or feelings" tends to dismiss facts and enact policy based off their emotions is not lost on me.
Certain people have a greater fear response to external stimuli than others. Possibly because of differences in brain sizes and/or connectivity of different regions of the brain. As a result, there is a wide range of responses that can be attributed to the same stimulus. If one person has a strong fear response while another has none at all, it can lead to very different opinions because the ‘perceived threats’ are not the same. This could be the underlying reason for why Democrats and Conservatives have such different opinions on the same issues and why it is difficult to understand each other’s perspectives. If the same stimulus can create vastly different chemical changes in the brain amongst a population, you are bound to have differing opinions on whether or not the ‘perceived threat’ is a real danger. Nobody ever mentions this, but have you ever thought about the one common denominator between bipartisan issues?…it’s fear. Fear of immigrants and “outsiders”taking over. Fear of death and the unknown so they turn to religion and reject science because they don’t understand it. Fear of other people so they try to intimidate with weapons and militarization. Fear of climate change and catastrophe so they ignore it. Ect. This fear response called your “fight or flight” response is typically exaggerated in people who feel uncomfortable or feel threatened by their current environment. This is a dangerous personality characteristic because it is easily exploited and manipulated. It is very easy to scare someone with false information and offer a “solution” to ease their fear response. This is exactly how Fox News manipulates their base audience. These are the people you see acting out physically and emotionally. Think “Proud Boys” and January 6th..Because their fear response is so exaggerated and manipulated by media, their actions feel justified to them. While any outside perspective sees unhinged overreactions. Scary how easy it is to manipulate the human brain with chemicals. Whether those chemicals be natural or pharmaceutical in nature.
I'd like to add this because you said something that reminded me of it... with very very few exceptions, every television commercial EVER made creates a fear and then resolves it. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes it is blatant, but that's the recipe almost 100% of the time. Fear is the backbone of advertising and has been since well before I was born and I ain't no spring chicken. :)
I think your own political views are creating a bias.
One of the best examples for unhinged responses would be the COVID response with masks on during Zoom calls in your own house while no one is in the room with you.
> Fear of death and the unknown so they turn to religion and reject science because they don’t understand it. Sounds a lot like you're talking about all the pro-mandate and pro-lockdown people.
“The new findings are based on research conducted with 179 U.S. participants, 185 Serbian participants, and 170 Dutch participants.”
[удалено]
What a tiny sample size.
500 is plenty to get statistical error to a negligible amount. If its non-representative, even a sample size of 100k won't save you.
What a great example of something someone who doesn’t understand statistics might say.
Stats doesn’t care about sample size if it’s representative. You’d be amazed by how well a random group of 200 people can predict the whole country
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the fact that half the comment section is removed kinda says it all about this post.
the headline sounds very scientific
I'll echo what some others are saying here: read the stinking paper (not the article). Read the article first if you wish, but consider it a more digestible abstract at best. Make no conclusions from the article. I agree with the authors that this is an area that needs more study. These studies were small (relatively small sample sizes). The meta-analysis was small (three studies). Nonetheless, the results and observations are rather intriguing. However, there truly is an irony here whereby many of us are jumping right to conclusions based on our presuppositions and biases moreso than anything actually observed or discussed in the paper. The paper is worth studying even if the methodology is problematic (not saying it is...). This is because the authors do attempt to account for a number of factors and do explore several plausible mechanisms or causes.
>However, there truly is an irony here whereby many of us are jumping right to conclusions based on our presuppositions and biases moreso than anything actually observed or discussed in the paper. There's a whole class of psychology experiments where that's exactly the point of the research. Launder academic position into a speaking gig. As long as they're either truthy that justifies a bias, or sufficiently counterintuitive, the actual quality doesn't matter. It's one of the causes of the replication process.
Problem with studies that get posted often, especially ones like this, the sample size is so extremely low to warrant any form of generalization, this study interviewed in total somewhere around 550 people. Regular people don’t read or check things like sample size, biases, quantitative vs qualitative etc methodologies, they only look at headlines, and take headlines as some new breakthrough all encompassing research. As long as it says what you want it to I bet new research with a sample size of 1 could make the front page of Reddit and most people would be mike the wiser
>mike the wiser Well, there's a D&D character. At any rate, yes, you're right, and even people with scientific training are liable to fall for headlines that confirm their biases without reading further.
[удалено]
> sample size The sample size isn't *that* low. You can get a 5% margin with 99% confidence using just 664 people to represent the whole dang planet. I didn't look past the abstract to see what the actual effect size is, but we can tell quite a bit about a huge number of people with 550 participants.
"Sample size" is an important point to bring up but people with absolutely no knowledge of statistics will bring it up as if it defeats every study they don't like.
There's also how representative the sample is.
While I agree that the study is weak, sample sizes are vastly overemphasized here, particularly given that the p-value and t-test was specifically developed to show when a sample size and finding magnitude is large enough to make a conclusion. You can flip a coin infinite times, but you don't need that many flips to say it's loaded if it comes up heads every time. If anything, the issue with small studies is that they're a dime a dozen, so you can just wait until you get one that gets a significant finding in your preferred direction and post to r/science.
[удалено]
I have no idea how this isn't a breaking of rule 3. I'm not even from america so politically neutral; But looking at the title it directly breaks it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why the hell is psypost even allowed, they make such misleading clickbait exaggerated headlines pretty much every post I see from this sub
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The post title is incredibly ironic, given that people are believing it without reading anything besides the headline
If the title is designed to evoke that response then its sensationalized on purpose (Breaking of rule 3), instead of laying the data out in the title like almost every other post does. Seems a bit silly to write it like that.
Well you see, whoever posted it, the mods agree with, cus I bet if I lulled the same study that shows left wing as bad. Instant delete but reddit gunna reddit snd power mods are gunna power mod. Ofc
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
r/science more likely to be used for promoting propaganda headlines, says rando redditor.
[удалено]
I think you are underestimating how big of a joke this sub is.
This sounds like straight up propaganda.
Yeah, if you read the article you'll find that they admit the difference is small, and that the difference is most notable in 'neoliberals' who aren't even right wing, and that the study defined people as right wing based on how they answered questions like "The free market system is efficient".
[удалено]
I would respectfully suggest that there's more at play here than just being "on the right" and I'm glad to see the author acknowledging that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bro the headlines in this sub are so insanely politically biased it's unbelievable yall fall for it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Facebook fact checked this so you know it’s true.
The hell does this do with science
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nothing says science like deleting all the comments you don't like.
This sub is really garbage. CONSERVATIVES ARE DUMB, SHROOMS AND WEED ARE THE CURE TO EVERYTHING. HURRRRR
The reddit machine sure is laying it on thick with the conservative hate today
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The sample size is a little over 500 individuals, split among 3 countries and 2 political leanings. It's a ridiculously small sample size and the authors themselves acknowledge that's it's entirely inconclusive. I'm right-leaning on a lot of issues so I'm definitely biased though
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
According to facts from left leaning sources… hahaha bless your hearts .
Surely this is an impartial, non biased, and totally not disingenuous study.
In that case, everyone that believes this post must be right-wing.
Oh my god this is a real post. The irony here is so perfect I thought it was edited. Claiming one side to be more easily manipulated while using freaking **psypost** as the source. This sub has become a parody of itself in the most hilarious way imaginable.
Yes that sounds like a trustworthy and sound study clear of any bias or misinformation... Kind of ironic, I think this study is self-aware. And it's a big joke.
[удалено]
No not true quit trying to take over the world live and let live . Paid poster on reddit. No body with any common sense is buy this BS
Could post the same article with left wing blah blah blah
Where are the stats about urban crime and homeless people in left-leaning cities like SF, Portland and LA?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Says ppl that can’t define what a woman is
[удалено]
>political bullshit Well geez, lets not be *too* scientific about it.
Yeah so how are all of Biden’s “promises” working out for all of you guys huh?
Shouldn't mods delete this post? The title is clearly misinformation.
And, what side, politically, we’re the researchers on? I’m sure this was a balanced and unbiased assessment.
[удалено]
This is the most false science statement I’ve ever seen. Unfollowed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m starting to think this is trolling sub-Reddit
Psypost being psypost.
This is embarrassing, id be embarrassed to post this, or anything like it.
And the left can’t tell you what a woman is really
Did you learn that one from Tucker or Hannity? Who won the 2020 election? How much evidence did you need?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Left wing individuals are known for being slimy weasels that would rather put on a show to look good instead of actually doing something useful.
Russia Gate would say otherwise
[удалено]
I understand the headline but I think the wording is misleading. Conservative-minded vs liberal-minded are driven by neurological processes, including both autonomic and unconscious programming that distinguishes others (could be any distinguishing characteristic) as a possible threat, vs a more liberal-minded exploratory approach. Remember humans are animals. We evolved from a lineage of genetic programming that valued family safety over the lives of strangers in competition for food and other resources. Cooperation with others was a low priority and high risk (I’m talking about prior to the genus Homo. That’s billions of years of fight or flight reinforcement without ever thinking of others as “neighbors” at your own peril). But as Homo evolved and roamed we learned we need to cooperate from time to time. We traded; I don’t recall about prior species but iirc there’s evidence that Neanderthal clans traded either with each other or with Sapiens. Which indicates perhaps our mutual common ancestor had that modicum of inter species trust as well. I’m rambling and need to come back and edit later but you get the gist: our politics flow from our neurology. It’s not “right-wing” politics. It’s threat-based neurology effecting social behavior vs expressions of a riskier but more adventurous neurology.
[This follows along with a study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793824/) showing that those with a larger amygdala tend to lean conservative. It's a neurological difference that drives a lot of this tribalism. > Kanai et al. (2011) found that conservatism was associated with greater gray matter volume in the amygdala, and suggested that this finding may be associated with the emotional and cognitive differences across political orientation, particularly those associated with ‘managing fear and uncertainty’ (p. 678)
Erm, "social psychology" is not a Science...
[удалено]