Climate idea
Image of United Nations

United Nations

Climate idea

To convey messages to the conservative population, you need literally to know how that persons brain is wired

Now the researchers have found the mysterious thing that right-wing conservative minds see If the discovery helps us see the world through each other's eyes, the locks in the polarized conversation can be softened. They say. It is remarkable, bordering on uncanny, that democratic elections so often become exciting. How can it be so even between one and the other when everyone who goes and votes belongs to the same species? It happens that the political landscape capsizes in the shadow of some charismatic leader, but it always sinks back with time and makes itself ready for new election shakers. And only habit obscures the view of how strange it is. One species, two camps. It doesn't have to be more difficult than that to describe the struggle about how society should be organized. This is, of course, more clearly seen in countries where politics is boiled down to two parties, such as in the USA, but if you look closely you can see that even the Swedish electorate - at first glance split into eight camps - can be sorted into two and that they are the same here as there . It is as if there is something fundamental within us that divides us into these two camps. The two camps can be described with an American political scientist definition where the conservatives (the right) are characterized by a general tendency to resist change and tolerate social inequality, while the liberals (the left in an American context) tend to embrace change and reject social inequality. Isn't that all that needs to be said about the basic political chord in a person? Can you think of a single political issue that does not fit into this breakdown? Attempts in recent years to explain the tremors in Western politics have given us new axes and concepts, such as the British David Goodhart's homemade model with "somewheres" and "anywheres" or the slightly more dynamic gal–tan scale, but deep down everyone knows that in political meaning there are only two kinds of people and that it is remarkable bordering on uncanny. The researchers think so too. They have been searching for decades for the fundamental, psychological difference between voters who gravitate to the right and voters who gravitate to the left. It is as if there is something fundamental within us that divides us into these two camps. In the US, the funnest aquarium to study because everything is so clear and colorful in their comic book version of politics, forty years of study have bolstered a popular and overarching theory that right-wing voters see the world as a more dangerous place than left-wing voters do. This is the fundamental difference, researchers have said, pointing to how nicely the theory marries reality's locked positions on issues like the right to bear arms or the need for border controls, walls, surveillance and crackdowns. Similar results have been seen in studies of the Swedish electorate, and one really only needs to know a couple of voters of each kind to know that there is both correlation and causality between the feeling that the world is dangerous and right-wing conservative tendencies. I have long liked the theory and was therefore a little horrified when I read that it does not work. It was a Jeremy Clifton, leader of a research program on people's worldviews at the University of Pennsylvania, who wrote it in Scientific American a few months ago. Clifton and his colleagues have found a new and much better difference. It started as a secondary finding in another study but was then confirmed in nine more studies with almost 5,500 participants. The thing about conservatives believing the world is dangerous faded as an explanatory model in the shadow of a 20 times stronger connection. "We found that the main difference between left and right is the belief that the world is hierarchical in nature," Clifton writes. "Conservatives tend to believe more in a hierarchical world, which is basically a view that the universe is a place where the boundaries between categories and concepts matter." So now I sit here with my left calibrated brain trying to see the world with right eyes. Simply put: right-wing voters see lines and feel that the lines reflect something natural, real, and importantβ€”while the typical left-wing voter tends to find the lines contrived, random, and even ridiculous. (And this is not about how we want the world to work, but how we perceive it to work.) A conservatively tuned brain can see a rough line that marks the line between male and female or the line where life begins (at the moment of conception) while the left brain has a hard time even discussing where the lines are because it sees no lines, only gray areas. The same with the gap between rich and poor – which to the right brain may reflect a meaningful difference in work ethic, talent or societal value while the left brain tends to see an almost random injustice. Not to mention the country borders, decidedly made up but still real and important to the right-wing calibrated brain. Clifton hopes this discovery will help us see the world through each other's eyes and soften the locks of polarized conversation. So now I sit here with my left calibrated brain trying to see the world with right eyes. It's a bit like stepping into the head of a big weird hallucinating baby and I don't really understand how it's supposed to heal anything but it works. At least it's fun to sit in here and say things like there are only two kinds of people.

Do you agree?

24 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient

  • Kevin



    64 w

    Impeccable writing

    • Mc Kaka


      64 w


      Welcome, let's solve the climate crisis together
      Post youtube preview with preloading
      youtube overlay

      Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.

      Write a climate review

      Voice your opinion on how businesses and organizations impact the climate.
      0 trees planted

      One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogueβ„’.

      Download the app

      We plant a tree for every new user.