David Amodio responds to The Neurocritic's post about his hot study on [American] political thinking, Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism, published in Nature Neuroscience.
While criticism in the blogosphere was mostly based on newspaper reporting (and a Slate article), The Neurocritic examined merits of the study itself. Amodio says,
Though I've generally not worried about the "lay" coverage (how can you argue science with pundits?), it might be worthwhile to respond to a blog that is read by neuroscientists (including myself from time to time).
Check it out if you're interested in detailed, technical, expert opinion with many footnotes and links. Or if not, there's plenty of stuff like this.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Reading an article in the LA Times today, I learned something exciting: political differences in thought happen in the brain. At least that's what a new study published in Nature Neuroscience(1) purports to show, though I hear that the next issue of the journal will contain critical responses from…
David Amodio and his colleagues have taken a lot of heat across the internet for their recent brief report on brain and behavior correlation with political views (see here for one of the more strident pundit reactions). The Neurocritic was able to track down Amodio himself and get his responses to…
A recent report in Nature Neuroscience has gotten a lot of press. The headlines proclaim that "left-wing" brains are different from "right wing" brains. Are our brains literally hard-wired to be conservative or liberal? The article in the L.A. Times sure seems to suggest it:
Sulloway said the…
Research suggests that liberals and conservatives have different personality traits and "cognitive styles": while liberals are more intellectually curious and tolerant of ambiguity, conservatives have a greater desire to reach decisions quickly and are more consistent in the way they make those…