Liberal, Conservative, and Nonpartisan Concerns

Herein, we'll see more than one way to look at these things. To start, let's use a presentation by moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt (pronounced "height"), on The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives (18 mins). Haidt went around the world, and measured people in five moral categories, and reportedly the results showed great consistency. Here is the graph produced for the US:

Fully named, the five categories are 1) harm/care, 2) fairness/reciprocity, 3) ingroup loyalty, 4) authority/respect, and 5) purity/sanctity. As we can see, on the left the liberals showed up strongly in two categories, and on the right, conservatives showed up equally strongly in all five.

Early on, Haidt said that "openness to experience" was a signature characteristic of the liberal, and he referred to the conservative side as "safe and dependable". I have also heard him in an interview talking about putting two-year-olds in a room with their mother seated in the middle, and they have evidence to show that these very young conservatives will stay within a tight circle around the mother, whereas these very young liberals will wander outside of that circle and explore.

I have to say that I think this lends itself to a more fundamental mechanical understanding. On the one hand, there is staying safe, and on the other, there is what can come from what is new. Perhaps there is a fundamental paradox between the two, where either by itself may not work as well for our survival overall. To the extent that neither by itself is as good, we may need to actually conduct, in our dance of life, a balancing act between these two. Haidt also said that when there is a lack of left-right diversity, people start gathering into teams.

I also recall Haidt, who is speaking at TED, saying that 70% of observed statements made at TED were noted to be of the "harm/care" type, and 30% categorized under "fairness/reciprocity", which says to me that nothing at TED fell under any of the other three. It appears to me that he is describing a very liberal place.

From another source, in this video, Gail Satz talks about Liberal vs. Conservative: A Neuroscientific Analysis (14 mins). Here, we can note the differences in liberal and conservative brains seen in 71% of cases, where liberals show an enlarged anterior cingulate gyrus, and conservatives show an enlarged right amygdala. In the case of monitoring brain activity, in 82% of cases, liberals can be identified by their greater "social awareness", and conservatives by their greater "fight or flight" activations. In most cases, we are able to identify liberal and conservative by looking at brain structure and activity.

Plugging Haidt into Left and Right

I will say in advance that I entertain profound alignments between the left brain and conservatives, and between the right brain and liberals. From my last article, the profound terms applied included "physical" and "analog" (and now also liberal) for right brain, and "mental" and "discrete" (and now also conservative) for left. I placed the mental as a discrete space, in a second medium, as facilitated by the physical part, in a first medium.

Harm/care and fairness/reciprocity appear to me to fall on the right side of the brain. In a study at Neuroscience News, Fair Share or Fair Play: Unraveling Our Brain’s Fairness Mechanisms , it is noted; ..."the right temporo-parietal junction (rTPJ) and the right lateral prefrontal cortex (rLPFC), play distinct roles in understanding others’ perspectives and reacting to unfairness."… In the case of harm/care, there is strong support from falling on the right side. From the Google AI on empathy right brain, is says, "Many studies indicate that the right hemisphere of the brain plays a dominant role in empathy, the ability to understand and share another person's emotions"… and from Left and Right Hemispheric Contribution to Social Cognition (PubMed), it says; ..."empathy is dominantly supported by the right hemisphere"…

In regards to ingroup loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity, what I am going to propose is that a fundamental quality of left-brain runs through these. I think that there is a place for each one being rooted in the mind. To start, I think most loyalty is based upon knowledge of what to be loyal to, and that the group is more defined mentally than it is physically, unless you're racist. If you are, then you might say loyalty is based on one's physical self, but I don't think race, color, or creed is going to work. This is where a paragraph on a class of people is needed to define it, which is commonly seen where people who cannot be distinguished physically also strongly distinguish themselves mentally.

In this study; Left Brain vs Right Brain: Consumer Study Probes Brand Loyalty, It was found; ..."Both sides are involved in decision making, but which aspect dictates loyalty, whether the practical or the emotional, depends on the personality of the shopper. For left-brain consumers, price, value and selection are huge motivating factors. Right-brain shoppers want to be loyal to a brand if the loyalty is deserved and demonstrated by action over time."… And that sounds to me as if right-brained loyalty resembles familiarity and trust built from conditioning. This is the kind of place where I do not want to mix this in for the wrong reason. The behavior on the right side is also called "automatic", and it is based much on programming and experience. I don't know if Haidt included this source of loyalty, but I will go with this word providing a basis for a known or defined group of people to be the in-group, and the mind as the facility for that definition.

From the Google AI on authority left brain; "The left hemisphere of the brain is often associated with authority due to its analytical and logical thinking, which can help people do well in tasks that require these abilities. "… And I feel like I must add, philosophically, that I imagine an "authority" to have to be defined as such to be what we are looking for, which puts it on the left. That is a definition in mind, just like the in-group above. We're doing this mentally and discretely.

In regards to the word "respect", one might find it interesting that "spect" is Latin for "to look at", and "re-spect" is Latin for "to look back at". Philosophically, I think it may be necessary to have memory in order to look back, which would make this based upon memory, and mind. For example, a Kalahari Bushman that has been suddenly dropped into the city will not be able to respect a policeman's uniform or badge, because he has never seen or heard of such things before. I think he will have to respect the officer as a human being.

On the matter of purity/sanctity, I have some examples from philosophy, where there is believed to be a particularly left-brained way to have these things. I would say imagine the mind as a white expanse, and everything could be in it, equally, like the very character of the framing, if it were everything, like any monistic playing field, and it could define holy things in the same way as it does political authorities and in-groups. A religion is easily based upon the mental ability to carry its general definition, and to then call it pure.

I would like to include an excerpt from The Divided Brain And Religion: Left Brain Angels And Right Brain Gods by Rod Tweedy (regarding William Blake, Iain McGilchrist & "the War in Heaven"):

..."Writer and researcher Steve Taylor, for example, has observed that “after 4000 BCE the Middle East saw a sudden surge of technological development which quickly outstripped anything which had come before.” These innovations included the wheel, the plough, “complex new writing and number systems, and the calendar” (Taylor, The Fall) – all, it has to be said, notably left brain skills and interests. As Baring and Cashford also remark, “a tremendous explosion of knowledge took place as writing, mathematics and astronomy were discovered. It was as if the human mind had suddenly revealed a new dimension of itself” (Baring & Cashford).

It was also at about this time that we find the first recorded references to “temple towns” and “temples” – the emergence of a left brain priestly caste, who were usually skilled in astronomy, mathematics, and other left-hemisphere practices, and who also seem to have been the first people to have abstracted divinity away from living beings and to relocate it up into the skies – it was the early Mesopotamian civilisations who first originated the pentagram or five-pointed star ideogram. This is the brilliant manoeuvre of Urizenic consciousness, magnificently correlating and aligning its own ascendancy within the psyche with the radically new forms of authority and therefore of worship that characterised its emergence. This new remote, abstracted, idea of ‘God’ was perfectly reflected in the new temples built to separate divinity from the rest of the population: the very word ‘temple’ – from the Latin “templum” and Greek “temnein” – means to cut or cut off, which is exactly what the left brain wanted to do."...

The article includes a variety of other examples of a glorified, religious, left-brained "reason" and "enlightenment" - this is a purity and sanctity in mind. From the article, Philosophy And The Two-Sided Brain, Carol Nicholson says,

"The extreme manifestation of left-brain-dominated philosophy is maximum logical precision with minimum relevance to everyday life. The extreme manifestation of right-brain-dominated philosophy is minimum logical precision with maximum relevance to everyday life. At worst, pure left-brain-dominated philosophy tends towards over-specialization and sterile logic-chopping, while pure right-brain-dominated philosophy tends towards fuzzy and irrational speculation. This suggests that, ideally, philosophy should aim to achieve a delicate balance between the two extremes, with enough left-brain philosophy to clarify the issues under consideration, and enough right-brain philosophy to keep sight of what the important issues are."

At this point, I would like to introduce the idea of a modern-day rennaissance, where herein we have been citing pioneers of the period. These are people who may be seeing into philosophy, religion, and the brain, and finding the deep and relevant importance of understanding ourselves hemispherically. I believe that to see these things may also see our deepest contemporary challenges, and maybe with some bearing on how to respond. As previously discussed here, we are in a very left-brained age, and this may in its own right turn out to be maniacal.

Adding a Third Element

We have seen left and right politically, and the ability to determine these by where our brain activity is. I have found it easier to think in terms of the physical and the mental to understand the two, but the challenge in doing this is to figure out which of the two a given thing is. It has been important to note that the left brain is discrete, and private, and I will add that I think that in its detached placement among all things, as Iain McGilchrist has characterized the left as dedicated to building its own power (above), I would propose it may be expected to mechanically do so. It is in its own discrete world, and that's all it has, and so it will keep growing inside of its discrete space as much as it can. (Note: we also saw in the last article the right's regard for the left, and the left's lack of regard for the right).

I think the political right resembles the thinking mind, in that it will do what it knows, and it will get its house in order. I think this is what a mind would do. In the case of the political left, there is resemblance to what might seem to be the exercise of one's liberties, or the experience of life itself. I think this can be like herding cats, because it's like the right side of the brain, which is highly multitasking, subjective, and God only knows what it's going to do next. I think of it as a human animal, with its direct, physical-brain operation. The political right, interestingly, was able to show up in all five of Haidt's moral measures, which I suppose could mean, as they say, having done it all. As I imagine it, it has done all that it knows.

Fifteen minutes into Haidt's presentation, he references Asian schools which teach that there is beyond the two opposites. He cites, "If you want the truth to stand before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease," from Sent ts'an, 700 C.E.. I would add to this the Buddhist teaching to avoid all pairs of opposites, and take the middle way. We are going to be proposing a way that is neither left nor right.

I'm going to add a third element to the pair. I'm going to propose to you what I call the "brain set", which is proposed to combine elements into a great intelligence system, with great ontological virtue. This set includes left, right, and association areas. In the brain, the midline structures, such as the hypothalamus and basal ganglia, are mostly association areas, and the cerebral cortex is surrounded by them. These areas do consitute much of the brain, and they are distinct from left and right.

An association area is where inputs come in from different sources. Let us think of what the function and experience of this might be. I imagine the different inputs may associate more harmoniously, or with more discord. I imagine this place of association as a place of different things having been combined, as rising to the point of one's consciousness, or singular point of view. I think the feelings that accompany association might include the sense that everything fits, or that there is something that does not. My ponderings upon this have put it as a matter of conscience and integrity.

We have painted a picture with left and right, and we've proposed it as covering its own spectrum, ranging from the side of knowing and the mind, to the side of what the human animal is going to do. I also think that we can be nice animals. Because of this being mental and physical, I am going to say that we have real and imaginary subsystems, and on top of that, we're going to associate the various sources within ourselves that are in service to a higher and more singular point of view.

In politics, we can see the aptitude of the terms used. "Conservative" will stand for tried, tested, and true. "Liberal" might do something just because it's new. It could also be good. It seems likely to be in the realm of the first two categories that Haidt provided. This reminds me of a joke I have shared with a friend on politics. If I wanted new legislation, I'd want the right to do it, but the left is the one that would. This seems like a paradox. In other words, we're building left-brained structure when we make laws. Its side should be reliable and as duly respectful as needed to well-perform this task (in all five Haidt categories), whereas the other side is what it's like to live in a place and to not have any rules, but... It might do anything. If that sounds bad, I do think we are aided by those of us who are curious, and by those who might challenge unduly respected things.

What do you do in politics when everyone agrees? This sounds harmonious to me. It also sounds like something that isn't going to see much political activity, but what if we all agree, and some matter of conscience or integrity arises? What if association, for example, between mental and physical inputs, is giving a warning? What if the politicians are messing up our bodies, and saying that they're doing good things? I think that's a violation of conscience and integrity.

"Nonpartisan" is defined as "not biased or partisan, especially toward any particular political group.". What if the left-right spectrum provides a place to be in a group, and the product of association is therefore not in any group, rather; it is in the place of one's conscience and integrity? In all reality, it seems we have been given a complete physical and mental spectrum, and we can say that integrity is beyond them both. It is a statement from the standpoint of the end-product of all association upon left and right inputs. What can really happen here, outside of left and right, is that either things will associate well, or they won't.

We can have a nonpartisan "issue", it seems, if we all agree that something is wrong. This reminds me of having an issue in the brain only if its association is not harmonious.

I would now like to introduce another set of three things; I imagine these to be like special, metaphysical words. The words are "body", "mind", and "soul". What if "body" was a word that came from long before anyone had known about right brain? I think it is possible that these three types of bodies may have been coined from ancient experience. "Body" could have manifest from the experience on the right side of the brain. "Mind" could have manifested from the experience on the left. "Soul" could have manifest from the experience of association and consciousness, but if consciousness has its own substance, I wouldn't put it in the brain set anymore than I would include molecules if the body had those. I would skip any possible philosophical substances, and remain in the context of (the brain and) life, as dynamic, life elements, for the metaphysical, brain, and political sets.

Body: right brain, liberal, (physical, analog)

Mind: left brain, conservative, (mental, discrete)

Soul: association areas, nonpartisan, (overview, likely analog)

I think we really are stuck in politics if we say that we have a complete political spectrum, but there isn't any way to agree. I also propose that agreement may be analogous to harmonious association in the brain. As an intelligence system, I think it sounds smart to have an integrity overview on top of an opposing pair of subsystems. The brain and political sets also agree in this element, in that when harmonious, there are no issues, and when not, there are.

For your enjoyment, here are a few other examples of what appear to be "life sets" that follow the same pattern. There is our system of law, with its legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and from positive psychology, there is a happiness set (or here), with the meaningful life, the good or engaging life, and the pleasant life, and in firefighting, there are the values of duty, respect, and integrity. See if you can see definitions that fit. (Hint: the law set begins in the imaginary, and may seem to throw a curve; legislative is first medium and imaginary, whereas executive is second medium and real).

Body: right brain, liberal, legislative, pleasant, duty

Mind: left brain, conservative, executive, engaging, respect

Soul: association areas, nonpartisan, judicial, meaningful, integrity

---

This article follows directly on to The Two Sides of Everything. To see an architected approach to conducting nonpartisan politics - also proposed to be good in practice for human health, please see the hub article here; Complete Introduction to Building Communities, which includes a related reading list.

Follow-on article to this: A Magna Carta for Left and Right