That seems fine as far as it goes, but it’s pretty much impossible to know what to do with the info. I can’t see how you can mesh it at all productively with actual political stances, because, I mean, each contemporary group has its own issues that is a hardliner over and its issues where it chooses to go laissez faire.

A more likely possibility is that certain personality types are drawn to each other in slightly greater numbers. This personality type might actually influence a couple of the social or political views, but then the rest is just socialization into whatever the group happened to already believe. For instance, perhaps your personality gives you a sort of cosmopolitan urge, and you end up hanging with cosmopolitan sort of people who get off on going to ethnic restaurants. Now that group, for completely different reasons, believes in, say, the possibility of same sex marriage, the effects of carbon on the atmosphere, and supports unions. Since people who believe these things are your friends who you like and trust to some degree, you start believing these other stances, too. But your brain had very little to do with any of that.

But that’s just a complete guess.

I’m not sure how inflexibility plays into this. One can be open to new ideas in forming a judgment, but then stick to it for long periods of time. Does flexibility have to be a moment to moment thing?
My GUESS is that the conservative/liberal difference would show up in how they form initial judgments on a new topic, not necessarily on how long or rigorously they stick to those judgments or how open they are to changing their minds later.

I see it more as a difference in approach to NEW ideas or situations. I don;t know what the authors of the study had in mind, however.

It seems like every new study leads to the need for further sudy, which is how it should be if knowledge is to be expanded.

Interesting post.

1. The nature vs. nurture factor. I think it would be rather silly to suppose that you’re either born with a conservative brain or a liberal brain and that’s it. Generally liberals and conservatives are often separated by geography (rural vs. urban) religion (very religious vs. secular) and other factors. What might be true is that a conservative or liberal upbringing can have visible effects on how your brain develops.

2. The definition of “liberal” and “conservative” is important. I’ve known quite a few people who pretty much anyone would describe as “liberal” but who weren’t “more open to new experiences”. Quite the contrary, they were very inflexible, they were just that way on the left side instead of the right. It would be interesting to see if there are differences between those who hold steadfast positions of any sort and those more likely to change their minds or see merits in the ideas of others.

SD, what you say amounts to an outright claim of intellectual and scientific dishonesty. Nature Neuroscience is a VERY prestigious journal. All scientific studies must give their methodology with their results. Sure, they can lie, but this is very dangerous, if they are ever discovered that means utter disgrace and the end of their careers. Nature Neuroscience is NOT the LA Times nor the Washington Times, articles are thoroughly vetted and lies get you into deep doo-doo.

Now, the LA Times is not Nature Neuroscience, and I know from experience that regular press tends to exaggerate the (usually more modest) claims made by actual scientists. God knows how many times the Press has claimed that the cure for Cancer (roughly like saying “the cure for Infection”) is nigh.

I wonder if you did the same test on high school drop outs, blacks, hispanics, and government workers, four groups that overwhelmingly vote liberla, if they would as open to new experiencesor are great at dealing with conflicts.