Conservatives have larger area of the brain associated with fear: study
 

There are a number of studies being released regarding brain research. See this TFP thread here for a discussion on brain structures and socializing: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...cializing.html

The study reported below makes an association between those with right-wing views and a larger area of the brain associated with fear:
Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain - Telegraph

The particular angle here is that the study points to brain structure as a signifier of political affiliation.

• Do you believe political associations are dictated by brain structures? i.e. are politics hardwired?
• Is it possible for an extreme conservative to become a deep-seated liberal or vice versa?
• Is there a "liberal gene"?
• Does this study lead you to believe that conservative politics are fuelled by fear?

I usually take these studies with a grain of salt. The brain is so complex, and human behaviour is still a largely misunderstood thing. However, these findings are interesting.

I tend to view conservatives as people who react to things they don't trust or believe in or accept into their own lives. Many tend to think that the acceptance of something new will somehow rip at the very fabric of society. Many disapprove of a lot of things, and it's difficult to know what they do approve of. So I guess that is a kind of fear.

I don't see this as an absolute. I know that politics are a spectrum. I'm more or less commenting on what I've observed in people. There are a few people who I have trouble pegging as either conservative or liberal, and so I guess these people are generally "moderates" for the lack of a better word.

Anyway, what do you think of the study? Of the theory?

No.

Yes, I have both watched and experienced this process within my own life. I have seen the switch go both ways, btw: there is much truth in the adage that "A Conservative is a Liberal who's just been mugged, while a Liberal is a Conservative who's just been arrested."

No more than there is a "catholic gene."

It leads me to believe that the persons authoring or funding the study had a predetermined, desired outcome in mind (ie; Conservatives Are Stupid -AND- Cowards!) and set out to prove it. There have been several such dubious "studies" come out recently, all purporting to show that non-Leftists are cowardly, stupid, uninformed, lacking in compassion and generally Nasty People: oddly enough all of these "studies" seem to do nothing more than support asinine Leftist stereotypes. I wonder if we'll ever see a "study" by a major University which purports to confirm all the nasty stereotypes Rightists bandy about in regards to liberals?

When "The Bell Curve" came out, it was rightly panned for engaging in this kind of "research." But then again, The Bell Curve purported to show that Blacks are stupid, oversexed, criminally-inclined numpties, while these latest such works purport to show that non-Leftists are greedy, stupid, cruel, and cowardly.

If anyone can point out to me a difference between these two cases besides the fact that Black Americans usually vote Democrat, I'd love to see what it is.

i am in the middle of something, but this is interesting so a quick note.

first off conservative discourse is freighted with all kinds of assumptions about the demographic it is aimed at. and within that discourse, fear and its inverse in assertions of identity and/or stability and/or "transcendence" (as over against, say, assertions of historical contingency of values, which would be scary scary bad within the discourse---the erosion of this vaporous illusion called "the american way of life" for example) is a central theme.

it turns up all over the place in conservative-speak.

for example, status anxiety and it's reverse in the surreal assumptions about the welfare state, which is presumably some scary bad instrument of scary bad social mobility which of course is a problem of conservatives who are beset with status anxiety because it follows that if a conservative is interpellated by his or her own discourse as the Eternal Victim and there's social mobility breaking out all over the place, then the conservative cum Eternal Victim is going to loose out.

the racist opposition to "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" as a threat to the racial purity of the american volk is another example.

"terrorist" is another.

the list is easy to extend.


anyway, it's reasonable from a sociological viewpoint (say) to assume that there's something compelling about a discourse based on fear or anxiety about loss of position or status for people who share certain beliefs or assumptions about the world. it's logical to assume that there are connections between these beliefs and some sort of cognitive arrangement, simply because there are connections between *any* disposition (or act or anything else human beings do) with *some* kind of cognitive arrangement.

but i am not convinced at first blush by the approach taken in the study---there are many theoretical frameworks for thinking about the relation between a geography of the brain and cognitive activity and some of the more interesting recent ones (that i'm aware of---there's no doubt others) don't see cognition as linked in any strong way to particular regions of the brain. neural networks more like, which are not localized (but not entirely other than localized---a different frame).

the press release seems to make a simple correlation claim.
i'm not sure.
but i want to check into it more when later...

Can you point me to information regarding these identifiers?

What stereotypes?

There is a difference between behavioural-based research and race-based research.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

I think this is at the core as to why the media would make a correlation. The mainstream conservative political discourse tends to play off of anxieties and fears. It happens in Canada as well as in the U.S.

As one example, there is a big push from conservatives to build more prisons despite a dropping crime rate. And the backdrop of this is a past push for tougher penalties for criminals. All of this despite a dropping crime rate.

Further proof that Liberalism really is a mental disorder - the study and the results. Perhaps the Obama administration can draft something to get it added to the ADA? Sorry, having trouble taking this seriously. No doubt, you guys will, though.:)

cimmaron. so you don't like the results.
but rather than give anything like a coherent argument, you resort to "i know you are but what am i?"

please. that's just weak.

There's no argument to be had. It's a study and it has results. Unless one finances a study to further investigate, it is what it is. What I do know is that for the next 20 years, you guys will be able to say you once read a study that conservatives have a bigger "fear gland" than liberals and that's why <insert liberal mantra here>. So, congratulations for that. Shrug.

but the more difficult problem is that conservative discourse has the characteristics i outlined above and those characteristics are what oriented the study--which isn't really that interesting as a study if you actually look at it---but hey why bother with that when the "real" issue here is that you don't like what it says on the surface?

it's self-evident that there are dispositions amongst conservative folk---across their diversity---that resonate with the patchwork of memes and patterns that comprises conservative discourse. otherwise there'd be no mobilization. there'd be no conservatism.

it's also self-evident that dispositions come from somewhere. that somewhere is one form or another of cognitive arrangement.

unless you imagine that personal dispositions float around in space or that they are consumer goods like everything else in the united states---but even if you for some strange reason thought that you went shopping for dispositions, there'd still be dispositions or patterns of experience/projection (which organize information) that'd lean on one form or another of cognitive arrangement.

because everything human beings do leans at one level of another on cognitive arrangements.
and this because there's very little about the world as human beings understand it that's given with the objects themselves. almost everything is imputed to objects in the world, imputed to the world, across types of (embodied) cognitive arrangements.


so if there is an underlying argument that shapes your objections, it's absurd.


for what it's worth, i think most forms of continuity are illusions. so the idea of some pineal gland defect that "explains" conservatism is laughable. but that's another matter.

A worthwhile critique (or endorsement) of a study typically requires reading the study.

I think that perhaps the conclusion of the study makes sense, but having not read the paper, I have no idea how relevant it is.

Well, that's just it. I don't know anything about the study beyond what's reported here. I just don't see anything that says it is suggesting that conservatives are crybabies and liberals are Pollyannas. To do so would be projecting.

From what I've learned about the brain, the size of any one component does tend to correlate with the intensity of its neural activity - more networks, more myelinated axons, more bulk. Not only is the amygdala associated with fear reactions but it is also heavily involved in almost all of the emotional responses that make up our 'survival instincts' as well as the retention of emotion-based memory so obviously the quality (hardship or relative ease) of one's life is going to affect the size of the amygdala, as well. So I'm not sure you could easily make a case that its size necessarily correlates with political opinion. After all, I'm a liberal and I certainly do fear the consequences of unchecked conservatism in this country. I quite literally fear it.

Overall, I tend to agree with Baraka's observation that the brain is a very complex organ and there are many 'higher' brain functions that contribute to the formation of things like values and opinions (not to mention experience and memory) - so much so that I would think it to be quite difficult to pin down something as vague as 'political attitude' on the observation of one area of the brain.

having some trouble locating the actual study. it looks like it may have just been announced. and these people put out lots of stuff.

this page is from university college london and links to both the wellcome institute, which is the institutional space from which the study originated, and to a bbc radio program that features a discussion with one of the authors

Left wing or right wing? It's written in the brain

the radio program appears to be the source for the other coverage.

in one or another of the press blurbs i've been going through, this caveat from Geraint Rees, the neurologist who carried out the study:

which means basically that the apparent circle pointed out earlier is an actual circle.

it'd be nice to read the study.

---------- Post added at 08:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

this piece explains it:

Political allegiances linked to brain structure, study finds | Politics | The Guardian

Science! :shakehead:

They should make an educational video and use this for the template...

Am I the only one that thinks that the study is far too small to draw any conclusion beyond "huh, that's kinda interesting" from?

I will be shocked if this turns out to be much more than an interesting aside.

You know, how Liberals are intrinsically hostile to Religion in general and Christianity in particular, and will as a result favour any non-Christian in almost any dispute with any Christian, and any Atheist over any Believer.

Or how Liberals are so in love with themselves that, rather than answer a simple and direct question in a simple and direct way, they'll predictably veer of into unintelligible pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook in order to both stroke their own egos (look how smart I am!) and confuse/obfuscate the issue. Mr. Obama is an unfortunate walking-talking-bullshitting avatar of this particular stereotype.

Or how Liberals are motivated primarily by jealousy and greed (thinly and poorly disguised as altruism) and a desire to punish anybody who has ever had any success in life of their own making.

Or how Liberals are too concerned about the possibility of drug-smuggling terrorists dying in the desert to give a fuck about the fact that they are, in fact, drug-smugglers and terrorists.

Or how an analogous concern for (and subliminal guilt over) collectivised racial sins of the past causes Liberals to be more concerned with making sure a Black criminal is released from prison than they are about the crimes he commits upon said release, or the severity of the crimes which landed him there in the first place.

Or how only Liberals could possibly be stupid enough to believe that the way out of debt is by borrowing -more- money, and that the way to make sure people are safe in their beds is to disarm them so that they cannot defend themselves while simultaneously castrating and hobbling the Police, and that the proper response to threats/bullying/assault is either to beg and reason with, bribe, or appease the bully in question, and that self-defense is somehow less dignified and socially acceptable than allowing onesself to be beaten, robbed or killed.


And those are the most polite of the stereotypes I routinely encounter. I'm sure with enough money, a properly manipulated sample, and a vague enough set of objectives, a study could be done which proves each of these bullshit statements to be "fact." It would be just as much horseshit as this alleged "study."

Just going by the infotainment in the OP: this type of study doesn't give any indication of temporality, so no claims can be made about what causes what. Also, there is no indication that any care was given to drawing a representative sample, just that they polled folks who had been scanned for other studies. The nature of these other studies would be good to know.

As far as the study goes, whatever. A more interesting question would be whether conservative political positions are primarily fear driven. A better way of answering would likely rely on aking people why they believe the things they believe.

i don't think the centrality of fear is a stereotype. it's a feature of how conservative political language works.

stereotyping would come with the attempt to say that there's a particular personality traits that explain the appeal of conservative political-speak. it's not that difficult to get your head around.

i find it bewildering how snippy the conservative set has become over this "study"---if you accept the worldview, you obviously know already about the central place accorded anxiety about loss of position, be it international or social or racial....you believe this stuff to the extent that you employ a political discourse that builds patterns (links elements in the worldview) based on that anxiety about loss of position.

so why get all pissy if it's pointed out?

btw the "study" wasn't really a study. it was a lark commissioned for a radio program that turned out to reveal a consistency the explanation for which was not developed and the meaning of which is basically what jazz said: o look at that. interesting.

I can't really comment until more information is released about the study. Before then, all the bruised conservative egos and liberal "ah, I see"s in the world are moot.

thing is that it's not really a study. it was a gig commissioned for the bbc radio 4 show linked above. in the course of that, the team noticed this curious correlation in brain organization. they dont have a real interpretation of it. maybe there'll be a study at some point.

i suppose the act of fearing is far less significant than what you fear.
and, of course, that brings us right back around to where we started.

When I was young and stupid (or stupider) I did not fear anything. I assumed fear was learned and was natures way of helping the human race propagate. Does this study contradict my assumption or what is the implication of the study relative to wisdom that comes with experience?

I can't help wondering what a southern red necked Baptist brain looks like?

I know a few southern red neck baptists; I doubt their brains look any different than yours. Sorry, i could not help myself with that set up and I should add - or mine or anyone else's brain - they all kinda look the same.

Interesting, but how does it explain conservative concentrations in certain parts of the USA. The so called "bible belt" for example.

Does everyone in those areas have the same brain configuration?

From a purely statistical perspective, that would be impossible.

I moved from Southern California to North Carolina. Before the move, I did research, my primary goal was to get out of California so my options were open. I am not a religious person, but the area I live in now is more conservative than liberal (even self designated liberals around here seem more conservative than not) and is an excellent place for family life. I would not recommend it to a young single adult, for that person I would actually recommend Southern California. Seems to me that migration patterns reinforce the perceptions of certain areas and you end up with more of what an area is known for.

Also, this notion of fear has to be looked at from both sides. For example some people fear McDonald's Happy Meals others fear the government taking their guns - which fear is more irrational?

Probably the one based on the much higher improbability or, in extreme cases, fantasy.

I'd be more afraid of junk that's actually inside of children than of the totalitarian state that might one day come.

It's kind of a silly comparison though, and I don't think this is really what this is about. I think the idea is about how we handle fear and how perspectives vary based on how we handle or otherwise register fear.

Kind of a "close the borders!" vs. "reform immigration policy!" sort of thing.

In either case in the examples, the fear is not really the Happy Meal or not having a gun. In one case it seems to be a fear of corrupt big corporations and the other rooted in the fear of corrupt big government.

Fat, salt and sugar is a necessary part of the human diet. It seems your statement supports my point - your fear can not really be what is in a Happy Meal, given acceptable food quality standards. A Happy Meal can easily be a part of a healthy diet for a child.

If your point is that I could have given two better side by side examples of irrational fear, I can be comfortable with the "silly" terminology. If your point is that a comparison of group A's irrational fears to group B's irrational fears is "silly", I think that is "silly".

The human response to fear is very predictable. Most of the initial reaction occurs on a subconscious level. It is easy for me to accept and understand a response to fears that I share - it is more difficult to accept and understand a response to fears that I don't have. I think this is true for most people.

Isn't that just a question of degree. Neither allows for open boarders or a total free-flow. In order to actually have an immigration policy there has to be some kind of closed boarder - even if it is to regulate the flow. Most people I know who want closed boarders actually want the government to do that first and then reform immigration policy. It is a chicken v egg kind of question in my view more than a issue of intolerance.

My point is that your comparison contrasts what is vs. some long shot.

I don't think the fear about Happy Meals is the same as the fear about guns. With the Happy Meals, I'm not sure you could even call it a fear. Maybe more of a concern for the well-being of other people, especially impressionable minors.

Sure you can pass off a Happy Meal as a part of one's diet, but the issue isn't that they contain fat, salt, and carbohydrates, it's that they contain an unideal amount and unideal types. Any nutritionist will tell you that the amount of salt in a Happy Meal is high enough to warrant making it only a rare treat, rather than "a part of a balanced diet." The animal fat and refined carbohydrates are another matter. They're okay in moderation, I suppose, but too much isn't ideal.

I don't even know why I'm going into this. Are people really afraid of Happy Meals, or are they afraid of childhood obesity and the long-term effects of diet on such things as heart disease and cancer?

What's more reasonable to fear? The top actual killers in America or some totalitarian fantasy?

If you were just using these examples as metaphors, then do away with them because they're distracting. Are you instead asking what's more reasonable to fear between corporations and governments?

My point was not a fear of guns. Some people fear of life without guns.

Children don't buy Happy Meals, adults do. The concept of the food police (spreading across this nation in various forms) is something I don't understand, it has never been logically explained - I consider it an irrational fear.

One size does not fit all. Ideal to one child may not be ideal for another.

The sodium content ranges in Happy Meals depending on which on it is, the highest is about 700 mg. Depending on age the daily recommended allowance is about 500 mg. Given the nature of the way some children eat, some will only eat a few select foods perhaps sacrificing protein, to get a child to regularly eat a Happy Meal hamburger may be well worth the extra sodium that they might be getting. Then if you take an extremely active boy in the summer in a hot and humid climate - they may very well need extra sodium. Any nutritionist who make blanket statements without qualification for individual assessment and individual needs is not worth a grain of salt.

Why do they want to outlaw happy Meals? Why is there the chatter about setting legal limits on salt? The issues are judgment, knowledge and the availability of cost effective alternatives. The target of the fear is incorrect. the target is irrational. Such is the case with other fears, and I am just using this to illustrate a point, I think you see it.

That is not how gun lovers would frame the argument. I have never been a good judge of what is a reasonable fear for others, I have started taking the time to understand them. For example I know some black southern gun owners who lived through the "Jim Crow" era in the US, thousands were lynched, as government did nothing, they will never give up their guns. Are their fears reasonable for 2011? Who am I to say.

Distracting? Excuse me, feel free to get back on the real issue.

Yes, it's a bit distracting. You're not going to talk me out of my knowledge that eating too much salt, animal fat, and refined carbohydrates is bad for your health. Also, I'm unaware of people who want to ban McDonald's. I suppose I would rank those people right up there with the people who are afraid the government is going to take away all the guns. You know, extremists.

So to summarize, 1) you won't convince me that McDonald's is healthy, 2) I don't support the idea of a Food Police, and 3) if you are afraid of America becoming a totalitarian state, you're being a bit irrational to say the least.

I guess the core of the matter is, again, how we manifest and how we register fear. Fear often makes one think irrationally because its mechanism doesn't easily distinguish harm from harmlessness. It's a survival mechanism, of course. It's normal to fear danger, but when the chance of that danger is a long shot, it becomes irrational rather quickly.

If I had to choose, though, I assume I would be more afraid of McDonald's and its effect on my children's health than I am of the government tossing out the Constitution. Junk food is bad for you right now. What the government might do to you in your mind is generally harmless except in the unlikelihood that it comes true...or maybe if it causes some kind of psychosomatic illness.

What I find distracting is responce to trivial matters while ignoring major points.

For example:

There is a definite correlation with fear and age. If there is a correlation with fear and conservatism it has more to do with the fact that older people are more conservative than younger people.

Another point, both conservatives and liberals have fears, some are irrational. A liberal is more likely to understand a response to the fears of other liberals based on shared points of view, even when those fears or the responses are irrational - same with conservatives. Based on ideology people tend to find some irrational fears or responses acceptable.

Another point - humans respond to fear in predictable ways.

The premise in the original post's citation has obvious holes.


First that is not my position. I agree "too much" can be bad, even "too much" water can be bad for one's health. Second, a bad diet has more to do with not having access to low cost alternatives. In urban areas in the US fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely costly compared to processed food. The obvious answer is not to attack processed food, but to make alternatives available at a low cost. Poor people will drink more orange juice than orange soda, if the orange juice cost less than orange soda.

Again, not my point. There are people who want to ban Happy Meals. There are people who want to ban soda for children. People who want to regulate salt content in restaurant prepared meals. We even have the government banning certain drinks containing alcohol and caffeine. It is getting ridiculous. Why are they doing this? Why do they think this way? I don't get it.

I was raised in the Chicago area. They banned gun ownership, basically making hundreds of thousands of regular law abiding people criminals overnight. Yet, the city is not safer. You can bet if I lived in the city of Chicago, I would own a gun. if you consider a man who wants to protect his family and property an extremist, color me an extremist along with hundreds of thousands of others who live in the city - a city with one of the highest murder rates in the country. Generations of liberal leadership in the city has failed. Yes, I fear government incompetence.

I do have some irrational fears. But, even knowing they are irrational, those irrational fears cause known and predictable reactions in me. I have taken the time to understand this and I work on it. You seem to suggest that you don't have any irrational fears, is that truly the case?

I might add that it requires an objective and detached self analysis to even be able to understand when a personally held fear is irrational. Most people won't do that type of self analysis. This topic is one that I have given a lot of thought to.

Oh, believe me, I have many irrational fears. I'm quite familiar with the subject, which is why I had originally commented on your comparison. I still think fearing the taking away of guns is more irrational than fearing the health effects of junk food.

Is that what we're talking about?

I thought it was a handgun ban.

I gave a very concrete example of a set of people who lived in fear during the Jim Crow era of the real possibility of being abducted from their homes at night and hung from a tree often in the presence of elected government officials and law enforcement officials. Gun ownership became very important to these men as a means to protect life and property. In 2011 their fears prompting their desires for having guns may in fact be irrational in 2011 - but I am not to judge. However, I understand their fear when it is explained to me but I do not understand fearing the health effects of junk food.

A comparison of junk food and guns was never the key point, the key point was that regardless of ideology, all people have fears that could be considered irrational or responses to fears that can be considered irrational. I further suggest that ideology has an impact on how another views the fears or responses of another. So, to me it is easy to go down a long list of fears held by liberals that I think are completely irrational - but I have learned to pause and try to get a better understanding. I don't think you have done that on the issues involving gun ownership.

I have never read the text of the actual ordinance. Some sources call it a handgun ban some call it a gun ban. The technical differences between a handgun and other types of firearms can get blurry pretty fast, I would assume the ordinance includes its own specific definition.

Since this somehow derailed into an argument about McDonalds (or is it guns?) I'll revitalize the thread with a recent post by that god-awful heathen PZ Myers, and I agree with him word for word.

The new phrenology : Pharyngula

... (snipped)

This is about where I am with this. It's too complex to just pigeon hole except say, "Interesting... almost."

This type of comment comes up frequently after I use specific examples to illustrate a point. When I use an example it is just that, one example. Normally when I give one example, there are hundreds of others that could follow-also illustrating or supporting a point. Often, "we" (when questioned or challenged I will almost always respond) get derailed in the example rather than the primary point. I often interpret this as a mechanism used when there is no reasoned response to the primary point. Then the narrative becomes Ace derailed the thread. I think this is an irrational response to a fear of a strongly held belief being challenged. I also believe it serves as yet another example of the points I have made here.

The Liberals of California do not fear Happy Meals. They fear having to parent their children.

Yeah this is somethingf I don;t understand about some conservatives terrified of taking a shower with a homosexual fellow soldier but fearless up against a heterosexual terrorist with an 80lb machinegun and orders to kill him.

In case anyone is wondering what kind of strange metaphor McDonald's Happy Meals are for conservatives, they're talking about this:

OH NOES! McDonalds can't sell things with toys that have MORE THAN 600 CALORIES!! YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ENTIRE DAILY ALLOWANCE FOR A CHILD! NANNY-STATE LIBERALISM!

Sad day for conservatives when they have to defend corporations at all costs.. when the government cannot interfere with corporations at all without disturbing some sort of free-market ideal, where government actually regulating anything is "too much government".. or somehow indicative of a problem..

Isn't there something about marketing cigarettes to minors as well?

Apparently this is a hot button for some of you. And it seems that some are simply unwilling to step back and look at the issue from a broader point of view. If you think targeting Happy Meals is the solution to obesity in this country, I think your focus is skewed- putting it as kindly as I can think to do. I can tell you what the issues are and you ignore them. For example the availability of fresh fruit and vegetables in some urban and low income areas is inadequate and the processed food alternatives are the only cost effective choice for some. I can tell you (if you never had to feed a 4 year old), that getting some children to eat a Happy Meal hamburger because of the toy is a big deal when ordinarily all they want is that one favorite food is very valuable to parents. I can give multiple examples of food police run-amuck with pure silliness like banning Four-Loco for a caffeine/alcohol combination but not banning rum and coke. So after all of that, including the standard - we are off track - yet we keep going back to it - pattern , what is a guy like me to think about all of this?

---------- Post added at 09:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 PM ----------

This is media creating a story where there is none. The folks in the military know who is gay and who is not and they have been living with it for a long time. The problem with DADT has been a political problem and a problem of leadership both from Washington and the Pentagon. sure if you look hard enough you can find a guy some where who will make a big deal about the shower thing, but that is not the norm.

---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 PM ----------

Let's not let real information get in the way of a good theory. It appears even with a ban on marketing cigarettes to minors, many still make the choice to smoke.

Teen Smoking Rates Remain High | Addiction Treatment

We should focus on real solutions. These theoretical bans (smart/motivated people get around them) don't work and history shows that time and time.

i was under the impression that this thread is about the problematic results of a problematic non-study---more an exercise in playing with brain scan technologies---commissioned by a bbc show that frontloaded the premise (conservatives are more inclined to be afraid of things)----which is at the socio-political level self-evident (going by how conservative political discourse works). and it turned out that to the surprise of the team playing with the scanning technology that there was a correlation. but its wholly unclear what that correlation even really is not to mention what it means.

but we're talking about imaginary "food police" and other conservo-memes? why? why is this interesting? how is it relevant?

Read what has been written here and try to comprehend it.

For your post above.

My response was to give examples of what I consider irrational fears of some conservatives and some liberals - then I add that ideology makes an objective analysis difficult.

Second, or actual it was my initial response in this thread, is that there is a known correlation between inclination of fear and age. There is also a correlation between age and conservatism.

As the responses mounted I further illustrated how ideology clouds an objective analysis of this issue.

It is all there, yet you focus on trivial matters and think I have a problem, go figure. Perhaps I need to s l o w d o w n a n d p e r h a p s u s e c o l o r f u l p i c t u r e s.

The Happy Meal toy ban wasn't voted on by the general public. It was decided by a very small group of people. The decision is very unpopular among most liberals here, including Lt. Governor Newsom and Governor Brown.

This is a bigger picture issue and I believe there is an agenda consistent with Cimarron's point but perhaps even deeper:

The South Central Fast-Food "Ban": Free Enterprise vs. Free Radicals - Los Angeles Restaurants and Dining - Squid Ink

The mindset that first creates an onerous amount of red-tape for a restaurant to be open, then goes on a crusade against the one type of restaurant (large corporate, with the advantage of economy of scale, at a low cost point - especially in low income areas) that can be profitable in some areas given the increased costs of regulations and the demographics, baffles the hell out of me. One day they want to protect the "character" of old neighborhoods, then its livable wages, then it is "for the children", etc. etc. etc. - what is it? What are they really afraid of? Why?

http://gymnasticscoaching.com/new/wp...besity-usa.jpg

I reckon it has something to do with this.

Conservatives are keen to defend the ideals of "free market capitalism is always better" and "personal responsibility is the solution to many problems." However, we have a public health crisis on par with smoking or cancer, and obesity is on track to be the #1 killer of Americans, bar none. It's even worse in children, with the current generation being the first which will not outlive their parents. You're welcome to argue that if everyone had some personal responsibility and the free market were allowed to reign this public health crisis would go away, but I don't tend to agree, for obvious reasons.

In all 50 states, more than ONE FOURTH OF THE POPULATION IS CLINICALLY OBESE.

So as I see it, it is a simple conflict of values. When "free market capitalism" and "personal responsibility" do not solve a problem, an epidemic, even.. which has been developing for nearly 20 years; you can either work to address it with governance, or somehow instill personal responsibility and somehow let free market capitalism solve a problem they have no interest in solving. It's more profitable for everyone if the majority of the public is obese. I'd rather be working towards OBVIOUS solutions (like preventing the marketing of a food that is demonstrably worse for children than smoking TO children WITH toys) than simply chanting the mantra of free markets and responsibility.

Jesus.....

How about satisfy the "free marketers" and those concerned with obesity in America: cancel the corn subsidies. Or better: redirect them into organic farmers of fruit and vegetables.

As a small business owner (it's official as of last month!), this is actually a really good thing. I can't compete with multinational corporations that pay no taxes whatsoever, have their hq in a tax haven, and farm out all of their labor to child workers in Asia. In a mixed free market economy, competition should be fair first and foremost so that competition can allow the superior good, service or what have you do better and reward the people doing the better business.

If I was a restaurateur, even if I was able to provide amazing food at incredible prices by doing good business, I'd never, ever be able to compete directly with McDonalds or Pizza Hut because they're dishonest, evil corporations that are uninterested in fair competition. One of the main ways they're unfair, aside from massive subsidies, tax loopholes, and a bought and paid for food and drug administration, is that they use incredibly low quality products in their food. Large amounts of bovine fecal matter in the meat quality. Fries that never rot quality. Let's say my restaurant served perfect food at highly competitive prices and I paid a fair wage to my workers. McDonalds moves in next door and I'm royally screwed even though their food is of incredibly low quality, their customer service is nonexistant, and the atmosphere is that of the DMV.

Why, you ask? Because corporations have earned their reputations. They DO strip the individuality out of old neighborhoods, they DO provide wages that are terrifyingly low, and they DO sell dangerously unhealthy foods marketed directly to children. They stifle competition, buy themselves subsidies (corn and subsidies benefit McDonalds incredibly), and then they provide a terrible service.

I think you have it slightly incorrect. The "liberals" of California fear the societal costs, both in terms of health and $$$, of the effects of a broken food distribution system. I doubt that over-utilization of fast food is something the families of the proponents of this type of legislation have to deal with; I suspect that when it comes to parenting their own children, the folks who favor these types of bans are doing just fine. These liberals (or maybe they're fiscal conservatives) aren't too keen on relying on the market and personal responsibility because in this instance the market has found ways to ameliorate the ability of personal responsibility to effectively govern behavior.

An over-reliance on the market and on personal responsibility is what has gotten into this mess in the first place.

I don't know whether it's been a major driving force or just one of many factors, but gun laws certainly factor in. Increased eastern regulation led to midwest migration.

I suppose you could file that under 'fear', but then it becomes even murkier as to whether this silly topic is actually a 'gotcha' moment. Perhaps it'll come out that liberals have larger 'apathy' areas in the brain.

The obvious solution is to give low income people (low income people have higher obesity rates) better food choice.

It seems your assumption is that low income people have low cost alternatives to high fat/sugar/salt processed food. Ironically in this country lower fat/sugar/salt foods actually cost more???? Poor people can not afford a diet full of fresh fruit, lean meats and rich colorful vegetables. Your proposed solution does not address the problem.

In addition, low income people are less educated in terms of proper diet, and tasty food preparation using less harmful fats, less sugar and less salt. If we want to solve the obesity problem a focus on this will pay off, banning fast food won't. If people develop a taste for different food that is less fatty, less salty, less sugary - the market will respond. I remember when Mcdonald;s came out with their Mclean burger - it failed.

---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

Right, we have government policies loaded with unintended consequences. I suggest that government stop with the micro-management of everything.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

Big corporations cooperate with big government often to restrict competition by making it virtually impossible for new smaller businesses to fairly compete. You think it is all the big corporation, I don't. It is a partnership. all I have ever suggested is to even the playing field through free market concepts. I don't want government picking winners and losers.

It's a good thing the government doesn't micro-manage everything.

I have asked a vegan friend of mine about how he feels about being a taxpayer when a portion of what he pays goes towards things he doesn't support. I'm thinking particularly about farm subsidies that go towards the meat and dairy industries. He shrugs if off, of course, because what is he going to do? The vegan philosophy is about minimizing what you can with regard to the use of animals as products.

But you're right, there are unintended consequences. I think the U.S. is in a particularly tough spot where they've made corn, meat, and dairy products way cheaper than they should be in the consumer marketplace. I imagine a large proportion of what McDonald's produces has been subsidized by American taxpayers. On top of that add in vast purchasing power, highly developed processes, and high volume production and sales, and you have a really cheap product that makes fresh fruits and vegetables seem a luxury. I won't even get into packaged junk food.

If liberals fear any of this, it's the fear of the influence and reach of McDonald's, rooted in the fact that their products tend to top the list of foods that lead to heart disease among other things.

I agree with you in that the move to ban certain categories of food or whatever is misguided. I'd rather they go to the source. Cut down, redirect, or eliminate the subsidies that go towards corn, meat, and dairy producers. Interestingly enough, the meat and dairy producers are essentially double-dipping in that they use a shit-ton of corn for their purposes. There is no reason why beef should be as cheap as it is.

And for the record, eating products like rice, potatoes, beans, carrots, etc., is rather cheap. But when alternatives are cheaply produced convenience foods, you have competition. I think the problem stems more from a combination of convenience and food education.

But after having said all of this, I cannot see how this train of thought isn't rational. Bad food is bad for you. I suppose the lapse of rationality occurs in how problem is dealt with.

people who choose to opt out of the industrial food system typically do it because they've researched the industrial food system.
it's a conscious choice based on political viewpoint, nutritional information and other considerations.
depending on where you live, it can be a hassle to live off the industrial food grid.

speaking for myself, i lost a lot of weight as a direct function of stopping my consumption of processed foods. i still don't eat them. it had nothing to do with fear---it was a deliberate and considered choice that had direct benefits. it turns out that i don't metabolize that shit very well. i know because i see every day the consequences of eliminating it. for example.

the data about the nature of industrial food, particularly on substances like high-fructose corn syrup, is abundant and readily available.

so as is usual, i don't think ace is talking about anything.

I found your post above very rational. What I find irrational is the thought that we can solve a problem like obesity through restricting choices or the assumption of a - one size fits all - solution. A short review of history shows these approaches generally fail. I have no interest in living in a society where government rations and dictates food choice.

Really? Because, last I checked, if you don't want your child to eat so much fast food that he gets fat and unhealthy -> when he asks for it, you say "No." Wow, not a single fucking politician kept that child thin.

cimmaron---what is your point?

My point is that it seems to me that the liberals of California are afraid to say "No" to their children when their children ask for happy meals EVERY day. So, instead of dealing with the tantrums until the child learns moderation, they have asked their nanny government to simply tell a company to stop producing a product. That way the sissy parents of California can coddle little Johnnie and say, "Oh, honey. I KNOW you want a happy meal. But, unfortunately, they don't make them anymore." Cue little Johnnie demanding Baskin Robbins...until that has to be banned.

If you can't control the fat intake of your 6 year old, you are a pussy.

Let me know when you figure out the difference between public health policy and individual decisionmaking.

uh....so therefore regulation is unnecessary? because regulation does not automatically change the way individuals operate, the choices that they make? what kind of argument is that?

there's a deep problem with the american industrial food system as a whole and its subordination of human nutritional needs to profit imperatives, it's centralization of control/ownership, it's emphasis on standardization (monocropping, massive chemical dependencies to compensate for that), it's willingness to use corn-derivative substances that are only rational in a context where subsidies promote the irrational overproduction of corn no. 2....macdo is a powerful institution within the industrial food system; it is a massive buyer....fast food nation outlines the supply system pretty well. happy meals are basically shitty processed foods marketed to kids. personally, i think they're a health problem not only in themselves, but also because they're marketed at kids. i have no problem with regulating them out of existence.

there's more a problem with the lack of regulation, really. it's the lack of regulation that enables your circular non-argument to function. what's bizarre is that you seem to imagine it an argument against regulation.

Facile prescriptions for more personal responsibility will never be the solution to problems that result from the market's ability to reduce to insignificance the effects of personal responsibility.

Obesity more likely with 'free market' economies

BBC News - Obesity linked to money insecurity in affluent nations

This is an interesting story that I saw earlier today. It links higher obesity rates to nations with greater economic insecurity. For example, Canada and the U.S. have higher obesity rates than rich European countries with greater social systems with strong welfare.

It states that the stresses of economic insecurity spurs poor eating habits even more than the mere availability of cheap fast food.

So those of you who fear the nanny state, what do you think about that?

I suppose this is interesting in that it's a kind of indirect cause rather than the direct cause if you consider not being able to say no to children. If parents are stressed out an eat a lot of fast food/processed food, then I guess the children are eating it too.

So maybe the problem isn't McDonald's and children. It's deeper than that.

Like I said, I don't think the solutions are about banning things. But I do believe the concerns are very real.

There you go. I suppose one thing liberals fear is economic insecurity; though I'm sure that's shared amongst conservatives as well. Their way of dealing with it differs, I'm sure.

Naw, you guys are correct.

cimmaron---do you oppose the idea of public health policies?

If only the question were that simple. I support a policy which forces companies to reveal the ingredients, calories, and potential health consequences of ingestible products so that Americans can make an informed decision about what they put in their bodies (and their children's bodies). I oppose a policy which dictates what products a company can sell and what a person can consume. Now, all of this has the "within reason" caveat. I know we have reached the end of common sense when an American can sue a major corporation for putting a "toy" in a meal which is, in moderation, perfectly fit for consumption.

Frankly, I can't understand the position you take. You call the government's policy on smoking "fascism" but it's policy on food perfectly reasonable? What am I missing here?

Do you have any sort of evidence that this is an effective way of doing anything but ensuring the obesity epidemic gets worse? People already know fast food is bad for them and are typically undereducated when it comes to knowing their own nutritional needs. Adding numbers is either going to have no effect or its going make things worse (See Salad, Eat Fries: When Healthy Menus Backfire). Do you think that adding the Surgeon General's warning to packs of cigarettes was an effective anti-smoking strategy? I suspect not.

Do you think a society increasingly weighted down by the high social and monetary costs of obesity is going to net more or less freedom?

We've been relying on the personal responsibility-centric model for a long time. It is the model which has given us the obesity epidemic. Why do you think that it can provide the solution all on its own?

Where does this deification of personal responsibility come from? I doubt anyone who works in the marketing industry shares it.

Why? No one here is dictating what a person can or can't consume.

~sigh~

Trying to explain personal freedoms to a statist is like trying to explain the color blue to a blind person.

Right. Please, help me understand what personal freedom is. It's this mysterious riddle that I've been trying to figure out for soooo long. I tried reading a thing or two at Reason.com in the hopes I could begin to understand your complex and nuanced philosophy, but their words, they just turn to mush in my simple little head.

No. I understand where you're coming from. I was hoping you could clarify for me a few things which I view as shortcomings of your perspective. My mistake.

I'm so glad the rhetoric is going to be toned down. But anyway.

Let me ask you a simple, serious question. Do you have a right to kill yourself?

How about you answer my questions first?

My answers lie in your answers. Go ahead, it's not that hard: Do you have a right to kill yourself?

I'm not going to play this game. If your perspective is as robust as you seem to think it is you should be able to answer my questions no problem.

It's a yes or no question.

Consider it the "eye test", before I start explaining the color blue to you.

But I don't care about your ability to explain personal responsibility to me. I already know what it means. I want you to answer my questions. I don't want to follow you down some Randian rabbit hole where you repeatedly dodge my questions whilst expecting me to take your questions seriously.

Perhaps your prior difficulties explaining personal responsibility to statists stems from your refusal to answer simple questions?

Very simple. You answer ONE question of mine and I will answer ALL of yours. Otherwise, we are all done here.

Right, your answers will lie in my answers.

~yawn~

I'll pass, thank you. I guess I'll just remain blind to the color blue?

You are a coward. You expect me to share my beliefs and place them up for your scrutiny, but are unwilling to do the same.

Nice. I think you'll find this whole fucking website is littered with me sharing my beliefs and placing them up for scrutiny.

What I don't typically do is post condescending little notes about how statists are all too fucking blind to understand personal responsibility and then resort to silly rhetorical games when asked to clarify how personal responsibility should play out when subject to the constraints of the real world.

You're just pissy because I won't play your game, which is fine. But don't pretend that it's because I'm somehow scared to share my beliefs. Anyone willing to plot the course of this thread will clearly see who lacks the will to support their convictions with explanations.

You are but one word away from the support of my convictions with explanations. It's in your hands...

No, it's in your hands.

Are you trying to teach me about personal responsibility by showing me how to avoid it when it comes to backing up your own ideas in a forthright way?

I have absolutely no responsibility to explain anything to you. My question to you is a litmus test to see how far back I must go in my explanation. If the next post is not a "Yes" or a "No," I'm done.

Like I said, I'm not going to play that game with you. My questions don't require you to understand how I define personal responsibility. They just require a straight answer.

And you're right, you don't have any responsibility to me to explain yourself. It just seems odd to me that someone so confident in his ideological superiority would be so intent on making up a completely bullshit reason to avoid enlightening a blind, cowardly statist such as myself.

Pretty big leap you make. The amount of regulation is subject to what most people find reasonable. There are trade-offs. With every increase in regulation something is lost, usually some freedom. Individual tolerances differ in general and differ based on the subject in question. If I got into things you value and started "regulating" reducing freedoms you hold near and dear to your heart, you can bet your tone on regulation would be completely opposit of what you project here.

The "profit" motives...do you give away your services in the market place for free or are you motivated by "profit" for your services?

You are wrong. They don't market to kids they market to decision makers, the parents. Marketing 101. The basic strategy is to sell the image of "this place is gonna be fun for your kids, save you some time and effort." It is scary when public policy gets formed based on misinformation like what you present above.

I assume you like this forum, would you find it acceptable if people used faulty reasoning and made up crap to regulate TFP out of existence? Feel free not to respond, because there is no reasoned response to the corner you have painted yourself into, continuation of this would only prove to be further embarrassing.

So is your logical argument that more and more regulation will solve all problems? Sorry, don't respond to that either. I just can't help it with these silly questions, suggesting that you don't think things through thoroughly given your chronically condescending tone.

If we move past Marketing 101, and onto the more advanced marketing strategies and theories, we will know more about the leverage that influencers place on decision makers. Marketers know the power of the "nag factor" all too well, which is why they do indeed target children and aggressively. Large corporations that have products and services geared towards children have the marketing to children down to a science. This isn't a figure of speech: they literally have it down to a science, and they often employ psychologists to help them figure out the best ways to influence children.

You'd think parents would be a bit creeped out by a red-haired clown in big red shoes who seems only able to communicate with children. I know I am. Ronald McDonald wasn't created for the parents.

McDonald's has distinct marketing strategies for each segment of their customer base. The convenience/anywhere commercials are for adults; the "this place is really fun!" commercials are for kids.

The "nag factor" is nothing until the decision maker is "sold" on the product or service. Child like themes does not mean the target is the child. Marketers would not spend million if not billions on creating a brand image if the target audience has no disposable income, no means to get to and purchase the product. The "nag factor" as you call it only has value after the decision maker is comfortable with the brand.

Why don't they share this knowledge? If there was such knowledge wouldn't it be employed in our schools? Are you suggesting that a company like McDonald's has this knowledge but a company wanting to sell "healthy" food can not employ it?

McDonald's is successful (I have worked there, invested in its stock, and studied the growth of the company) because they deliver on what they promise. Marketing is nothing without execution - they excel at both.

An affinity for clowns is a learned behavior. It is cultural. It is learned from adults.

Now you are on to something. Perhaps, we do need to be specific. There are "kids" that are decision makers - perhaps we could segment this demographic between about 10-18. This group is not into the clown or Happy Meals, but they do have some independence, disposable income and often the means to go out and get the product. If this is the group you are talking about, I agree. I can assure you that McDonald's is not marketing to toddlers, 3, 4, 5, or 6 year-old kids. i would guess the marketing they do regarding 7, 8, 9 is more for long-term repetitive brand recognition, while still focusing on the decision maker for short-term sales.