Researchers Just Discovered Something Startling About How Conservatives Pick Political Positions

"As it turns out, neuroscience might be able to explain why. In a new study whose findings will surprise absolutely no one who's endured a fiery holiday dinner debate, researchers discovered that conservative and liberal brains don't just arrive at fundamentally different conclusions, but take strikingly different paths to get there. It's a fascinating piece of research which just might explain something about the yawning political divides currently tearing society apart."

"The study, published in the journal PLOS One, explored why people rely on different types of evidence when explaining why things happen. Specifically, the paper's authors at the University of Idaho sought to find why some people look for tons of high-level statistical information, while others are happy to listen to anecdotes or single authority figures to reach political conclusions."

"The participants were told that, out of the top 300 US cities by population, 100 had ended cash bail. They were then asked to evaluate whether the policy was "effective at reducing crime" based on 10 pieces of evidence. Each piece of information was either composed of statistical figures or testimony from political "experts" from groups like the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and the National Rifle Association, in order to measure which type of"

583 US adults completed political-ideology and cognitive-reflection measures and evaluated a fictional cash-bail scenario. Participants learned that 100 of the top 300 US cities had ended cash bail and judged whether the policy was effective at reducing crime using ten evidence items. Evidence items alternated between statistical figures and testimony from partisan experts representing the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and NRA. Participant political ideology and cognitive-reflection scores predicted how evidence was weighted: higher cognitive reflection and liberal ideology correlated with greater reliance on statistical evidence, while conservative participants relied more on anecdotes and expert testimony.

Read at Futurism