The a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating a difference in disgust sensitivity between liberal and conservatives. Evidence suggests that Conservatives have a increased sense of disgust and the following are a few studies that I've pulled from Google Scholar that demonstrate the point.
Study 1.
Study 2.
Study 3.
Indeed, the link appears so strong that fMRI responses to disgust can quite accurately predict political orientation. From the the same paper;
Accumulating evidence suggests that cognition and emotion are deeply intertwined and a view of segregating cognition and emotion is becoming obsolete. People tend to think that their political views are purely cognitive (i.e., rational). However, our results further support the notion that emotional processes are tightly coupled to complex and high-dimensional human belief systems, and such emotional processes might play a much larger role than we currently believe, possibly outside our awareness of its influence. Despite growing evidence from various fields, including genetics, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology, many political scientists remain skeptical of research connecting biological factors with political ideology, arguing variously that biology is irrelevant to central political questions, that the theoretical basis for expecting biology to be relevant is weak and murky that acknowledging a role for biology is reductionist, and that recognizing the relevance of biology to human beliefs and behaviors is potentially dangerous. We hope some of this skepticism can be alleviated from our demonstration that fMRI data, even from a single stimulus, can serve as a strong predictor of political ideology.Smarter neuroscientists are beginning to see that a lot of the political divide is due to a phenomenon known as motivated cognition, in other words the rationalisation hamster justifying emotional response. And a lot of the Left/Right divide may have nothing to do with principled opposition to certain positions rather they are a rationalised gut response to them. Liberals intuitively respond differently to conservatives on many issues. It is not thought per se which is driving the political debate rather it is biocognition.
Furthermore, repeated scientific studies which that conservative and liberals tend to differ on a host of personality factors. Broadly speaking, conservatives prefer order, authority and homogeneity and regularity whilst liberals are more messy and independent. The bottom line is that temperamentally the two groups are different. But it needs to be remembered that this difference needs to be seen as differing along a spectrum rather than being strictly polar.
The philosphical treatment of Rationality tended to view it as a sort of single entity of varying potentcy. i.e. Man was rational, but some men were better rationalists that others. What's becoming apparent in in psychocognitive reasearch is that there are different "modes" of intelligent action and there appear to be different types of intelligence.
Now, here I'm not talking about social or emotional intelligence, rather, there appears to be modes of thinking within the class of activity that we call rational which are different in their natures. The Dual Process theory of the mind postulates that there is a difference with System 1 and System 2. With System 1 being the "intuitive" mode of thought, and the modality of "thought" employed by the average cognitive miser.
The concept I want to explore is the idea of an emotional response being a type 1 type of process, as is the cognition generated by it. So for example, disgust is a type 1 response, as is hypergamy, threat perception, order and novelty preference and so on. Indeed, what makes the difference between liberal and conservative is the type of type 1 response generated by a specific stimulus. One could almost say that conservatives and liberals have different "operating systems" or different "natures" as the old philosophers used to say.
Take for example hypergamy. One of the startling things about the features of the female response to Alpha males is just how consistent it is across cultures. Women prefer the stronger, taller and socially adept male in all cultures and the question is why? The response, much like the response to disgusting stimuli, is not consciously thought out (System 2), rather is intuitively felt. The point being that hypergamy, much like disgust, homophily, preference for fairness and colours are hard wired into our brains. Hypergamy and disgust are a form of "machine cognition" where our biology does our thinking for us with our sensation of it being an emotional (hedonic) response. One way of thinking about it is that the "software" that ensures hypergamic response is front loaded onto the female genome as is part of the female operating system. System 1, to a large degree is what gives us our "natures."
So why is System 1 so important? Because human beings are, by their natures, cognitive misers, and the nature of System 1 "thinking" is to a large extent going to determine the responses humans give to a given question. More on this in later posts.
But it also appears that this type of thinking seems malleable to some degree, particularly through the process of conditioning and can be influenced by externalities to a degree.
Study 4.
Study 5.
Study 6.
I think when all of this stuff is finally nutted out we will see different levels of System 1 malleability. With primal needs which are vital for replication being strongly resistant to change while less "replication contingent" elements of our natures will probably have a significant degree of malleability.
Or, as the old saying goes, man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.
ReplyDeleteLiberals and conservatives apparently also smell different.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that the tendency to avarice to be found in so many women plays a large part in this. After all the stronger, taller and more well-spoken fellow is likely to have more money than one who lacks these qualities. They look at men like one used to look at horses in the old days; which one can they get the most use out of? They'll use him until he is too broken-down to go on, and then it's off to the knacker's yard. The assumption made by so many that women are for the most part sweet and nurturing by nature is quite wrong. Some are, but then many others are as cold-blooded as a death adder and just as capable of disguising themselves, biding their time and delivering a lethal bite at the opportune moment when it best suits their purposes.
ReplyDeleteThere may be something in this "conservatives are more easily disgusted" thing. Instinctively, I am a born conservative. I notice I hate to see things (and people) out of place. Finding a sock in the kitchen will upset me. It is "in the wrong place". Little things and big things.
ReplyDeleteI am on Facebook and the constant parade of pictures of men kissing (in support of homosexual marriage) has been quite disturbing for me. I suspect conservatives just find the idea of homosexual behaviour disgusting. It is a classic case of things being out of place and disordered.
I have been puzzled by the apparently high acceptance of homosexual marriage among even relatively conservative women. I have a couple of theories, one of which is that women identify with passive homosexuals, since they share the life experience of being penetrated. Another is that women are simply less prone to disgust in some areas at least, having to deal with their own menses, with dirty nappies, and - let it be said - the experience of sex with men and the presence of semen in their vaginas.
As I said before, the more love a woman feels for a child or a man, the more she will put with becoming intimate with their bodily side. It is observable, even with one woman in a single relationship, that her willingness to do rather distasteful and even degrading acts depends very much on her level of love and respect for the man, as it changes over time, even cyclically, and therefore on her level of arousal.
There is something deeply ironic and almost comical in observing a ladylike and demure grandmother, and reflecting that she would not have attained that status unless she had sometimes lain naked and writhing under a man.
A good series of essays doctor. They made me think of two women I know - both devout Catholics of the sort you describe doing all the right things - who felt "disgust" for their husbands. The thing is, the marriages probably could have been improved if the two men had simply worked on themselves a bit (one had the problem of being way too possessive and insecure; the other was way too eccentric).
ReplyDeleteI wish your critics had made more of an effort to engage your arguments, since what you wrote is very important, I think. Generally speaking, men need to be more masculine and women more feminine, two blades of the scissors that are both necessary. Yes, there's a lot of problems with women, especially in America, but there's still a lot that men can do to change things and make their relationships (and marriages) better. While American males surely face difficult obstacles, they're hardly powerless.
@Tom
ReplyDeleteIt appears that most men are rationalising animals but some are actually rational.
@Michael.
Are libs allergic to soap?
@Jason
While American males surely face difficult obstacles, they're hardly powerless.
That's what I think, but many don't seem to want to change at all. I think there is such a strong cognitive bias in some aspects of the manosphere that they cannot countenance that there is any problem with men whatsoever. It's a shame because a lot of this is low hanging fruit.
@Julian.
ReplyDeleteThere is something deeply ironic and almost comical in observing a ladylike and demure grandmother, and reflecting that she would not have attained that status unless she had sometimes lain naked and writhing under a man.
I've often thought the same thing as well. What's also funny to contemplate is,given the historical hostility Christianity towards the flesh, is that the carnal union, and its mechanism, was designed by God himself.
I have been puzzled by the apparently high acceptance of homosexual marriage among even relatively conservative women. I have a couple of theories, one of which is that women identify with passive homosexuals, since they share the life experience of being penetrated.
I agree, I think there is a strong element of this, I spoken to many women about this and they just don't understand the male revulsion. Years ago I was at a urinal when I felt a hand on my backside. I'm not a violent man but instinctively made a fist and swung around. It was my friend having a lark but he nearly got a punch in the face. I was quite surprised at myself with regard to the ferocity of my response. It was, quite literally, reflexive.
But I think the important thing here is that a lot of "morality" isn't principled but rather intuitive and rationalised from intuition. There is literally a "law written on our hearts" which seems to reside in our System 1 mode of thought. Very few people are system 2 moralists, and even then, given the propensity to error of System 2, most of these moralists are wrong.
I find this intuitive response quite interesting because it is not a response that is learned but is innate, effectively it's part of the Human Operating System. In our DNA is coding which allows for the arrangement of neurons, neurotransmitters and receptors to code for disgust, hypergamy, desire, and other complex human behaviours. Human beings aren't blank slates.
that her willingness to do rather distasteful and even degrading acts depends very much on her level of love and respect for the man,
True that.
But the definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative" varies considerably from decade to decade. For example:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, repeated scientific studies which that conservative and liberals tend to differ on a host of personality factors. Broadly speaking, conservatives prefer order, authority and homogeneity and regularity whilst liberals are more messy and independent."
There is nothing very "independent" about most of the American "progressives" on view these days. They are quick to form sheeplike herds (homogeneity), and they are easily steered by media figures (authority.) They do, however, tend to *talk* about how independent their thinking is.
@David Foster
ReplyDeleteBut the definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative" varies considerably from decade to decade.
This is true. However, I think there is fair amount of empirical evidence to demonstrate that there are differences between people who regard describe themselves as conservatives and liberals.
The fact that liberals form hierarchies and attack in groups does not take away from the fact that the two groups are temperamentally different.
What's dawned upon me over the past year is that there are many System 1 conservatives, very little System 2 conservatives and hardly any Rational conservatives. Keep visiting, I plan to expand on these thoughts.
Instapundit linked this article by a woman who took testosterone:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/06/30/what-i-learned-when-i-lived-like-a-man-for-a-couple-of-weeks/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b&hpid=z3
...what I thought was especially interesting was this assertion at the end of her article:
"Some people transition though, and some, like me, spend time with the wrong prescription. We then process the world through a different lens of emotion and analysis. Yet, the lens is the transient thing. It is possible to live as either male or female. Which means, of course, underneath the high-pitched whine of our sex hormones, underneath the lens, we are neither."
That's one way to look at it--that we are at our core androgynous, with hormonally-driven sexual identity overlaid on that core. But alternatively: if the process of changing gender behavior had involved actual re-wiring of part of her brain, would she still have said this was something ancillary to her "core"? In establishing our core identity, is there really a valid argument for privileging *electrical* phenomena over *chemical* phenomena?
David Foster, I suspect that masculinity and femininity is encoded in the neural systems of the brain (there is quite a lot of evidence for structural differences in the male and female brain). So, no, not just hormonal differences.
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, I have not read this woman's account, but I would need a lot of convincing that, say, taking testosterone would make a woman feel exactly like a man.
It is very much the fashion to claim that "gender" is fluid; which is ironically at a time when the science is tending to run the other way.
On the other hand, I know a man quite well who did some cross-dressing for a short period, just to see what it was like, and he reported being surprised at how easily he "fooled" people. But that is perhaps like a magician's trick really, since people tend to "see" only what they expect to see.
New Scientist has an interesting article on assertive females in the latest issue. It seems to touch on some of the rather "red pill" themes, for example that females are not purely innocent and receptive in the mating game. It also mentions the Mosuo, the Asian "matriarchal" tribe. It seems to me that if the Mosuo is the best and (apparently) only case of matriarchy they can find among humans, the idea of patriarchy as natural to humans is fairly safe.
Her argument for 'feeling like a man' was fairly thin...mainly, she says she felt a lot hornier and a lot more irritable, did not comment on other dimensions typically associated with gender identity. My main point in my previous comment, though, is a philosophical one: are our hormone sets really less "us" than our brain wiring?
ReplyDeleteDavid, I have written a few relevant things here:
ReplyDeletehttps://independent.academia.edu/JulianODea
This is probably the most relevant:
https://www.academia.edu/11894672/Even_a_worm_is_not_a_computer_an_incredibly_short_note_
in which I argue that both hormones and brain wiring would be essential to "feeling like a woman".
It perhaps relate to that old conundrum about "what is it like to be a bat?":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F
(This then leads on to questions about consciousness.)
It must "feel like" something to be a woman. On the other hand, I don't go around self-consciously "feeling like a man". Sometimes, when I am sexually interested in a woman, or I notice how powerful my shoulders are, I feel "like a man"; but mostly I just feel like myself as a person.
The cross-dresser I mentioned said that the main things that surprised him were how much time a person dressed as a "woman" has to spend "primping" and worrying about her clothes. And also at how "her breasts" got in the way. But maybe women come not to notice these things over time and with experience. If "being a woman" is a "performance" as gender theorists like to say, it is one that women seem to carry off with aplomb. (I have noticed how very rare it is for a woman to obviously struggle with carrying off her feminine presentation.)
But, despite the media absurdity about "Caitlyn" Jenner, I doubt that a man could feel like a woman in any real sense, especially if, like Jenner, he still has his penis and testicles. The "shemales" who seem most convincing have clearly had hormonal treatment in many cases. (There are some young men who, apart from their penises, look just like girls, and indeed like particular "types" of girl. It is striking to see the way in which a genetic male can use hormones to look like his "shadow" girl. One sometimes sees this in families, with both male and female versions of the same basic "look" and there are some women - not necessarily unattractive - in whom one can see the shadowy lineaments of the man they might have been but for the lack of a Y chromosome).
But those are young people, and "Caityln" Jenner grew to manhood and is not young. Surely too, personal identity includes memories, and I have indeed read complaints from "transsexual" men that they will never be able to look back on the experience of having grown up female. Caitlyn Jenner may have "bolt-on tits" but he never grew breasts as a teenage girl.
@David and Julian
ReplyDeleteThat's one way to look at it--that we are at our core androgynous, with hormonally-driven sexual identity overlaid on that core
No we're not. The "default" core is actually feminine.
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome has been extensively studied, but even there the the resultant female is unable to reproduce. No uterus is formed. Furthermore, several cognitive studies show that the resultant brain is more female in nature.
The other problem with this whole gender reassignment concept is the idea that the mind is a blank slate which can be programmed at will. The child's mind is different in learning ability to that of the adolescent. Ever wondered why little kids learn languages so easily while adults have a far harder time? Cognitive development can only occur through certain "window periods" after which it becomes difficult to learn certain skills. Sexual orientation seems to occur early on, in utero, though it seems a bit more malleable than other preferences.
are our hormone sets really less "us" than our brain wiring?
Well it does appear, to a certain degree, that gestational hormones play a role in the formation of our brain wiring. But once again, hormonal imprinting does not confer reproductive capacity. It is the SRY gene that is responsible for this.
This whole "I feel like a woman trapped in a man's body" reeks strongly of "Body Integrity Identity disorder". The parallels are eery. Furthermore, chuck sexual arousal into the mix and you have a powerful delusional disorder in which the individual becomes extremely invested in.
I recently had a diagnosed a something similar in a patient which was missed by the specialists who had treated him. This fellow was convinced that he was constipated. He felt bloated and claimed he could not use his bowels, though, when asked, he reported that he used his bowels daily. (He did not notice the contradiction). He had numerous investigations which were normal and a surgeon was contemplating surgery on him. His investigations showed that he was not constipated.
I suspected that he was delusional and after some probing found out that he had been smoking a bit of dope at the time his symptoms started. The thing about modern marijuana is that it has been bred to have higher amounts of THC and what were are seeing now (in males particularly) is an increase in number of "high functioning" schizophrenia like conditions. I put him on a antipsychotic and his symptoms gradually improved to the extent that his symptoms are only intermittent and he recognises the delusions. Remember, someone was contemplating surgery. I've had similar cases in the past.
I think Paul McHugh is correct in drawing the analogy between the body dysmorphic disorder in anorexics and that seen in "transgender people". Blank slatism has a lot to answer for.
Bonus Article by Paul McHugh"
I have made a post out of my latest comment here and there are some references which I think are of interest in terms of the whole question of "feeling like a woman":
ReplyDeletehttps://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/what-is-it-like-to-be-a-woman/
Neural wiring under the influence of hormones is important to sex-appropriate behaviour and also the fluctuating levels of hormones affect behaviour and subjective feeling. (I think I went through a low testosterone period in my life, but for the last few years I have felt much more masculine, which I suspect might be my testosterone levels coming up again. I suspect some liver problems might have been at the bottom of it.)
The default human position is female because of the way in which our sex determination mechanism works. XO Turner's syndrome girls are supposed to be "ultra-feminine" in their mentality.
As for transsexual men, some of these may be cases of autogynephilia. This claim has caused immense controversy, as you probably know. Other cases may be a genuine confusion about what sex one is. I understand there is evidence that a module in your brain tells you this and it could be failing in its normal job. (Homosexuals seem to know what sex they are. It is their target sex which is unusual).
As for body dysmorphias, it is possible that some of these have a neural basis. I am thinking of those people who are convinced that they have "one limb too many". Brain damage can certainly cause abnormal sexual behaviours and obsessions to develop.
@David
ReplyDeleteAs for body dysmorphias, it is possible that some of these have a neural basis.
I think perceptual/attraction disorders can exist on several different levels.
One of the things to remember is that the brain has a significant degree of plasticity and some of the reported structural changes--amongst the sexually different--may represent post delusional changes rather than being causative factors in themselves.
I think when this is all finally nutted out I feel that some of the errors will turn out to be software errors and others will turn out to be hardware/firmware errors. Some will be a combination of both.
It's interesting to note that in the article David Foster linked to, the administration of testosterone amped up the intensity of the woman's sexual desire but not her orientation: the male hormone did not turn her lesbian.
Sorry, that last comment should be addressed to Julian.
ReplyDeleteSP, I have given up using my old penname, David Collard, and now just go by my real name, Julian O'Dea. I have retired and need no longer fear "exposure".
ReplyDeleteIf you wanted to change my blog name accordingly on your blogroll, that would be good.
Yes, I would have predicted that extra testosterone would have made her "hornier" (there is a good example of women using a phallic term!) for sex - with men.
ReplyDeleteI think I have read that testosterone modulates libido in women, and some people have speculated that the more highly-sexed "Cosmo girls" have a more masculine hormonal makeup.