This is old news. Benjamin Lee Whorf long ago argued that the language one uses defines reality. Many studies have confirmed what he argued. Google language and reality and lots of studies come up.

What's interesting to me is that Mr. Hanson, and you perhaps, sees this universal as the province of the left. The piece totally ignores the possibility that the right is also changing reality with words. The term 'f**e news', for example, is exactly such a word.

So while it is correct to say reality changes with words, it is incorrect to think only one political side does it.
When the right labels American Democrats as anti-American, it is also trying to create a reality. It's a 'reality' I totally reject. It does not square with my reality.

Makes you kind of wonder what happened here: https://www.thejournal.ie/fox-news-falls-for-islamic-ban-on-padded-bras-h**x-103201-Mar2011/

A link to Fox Nation's story: https://nation.foxnews.com/campus/2011/03/13/pakistan-islamic-clerics-protest-women-wearing-padded-bras-devil-s-cushions (just in case you wanted to call B.S. on the story run by https://www.thejoirnal.ie).

Every media outlet gets duped, to say only one side or another does is disingenuous and "f**e news". That said, I read news from many sources, both from left and from right leaning sources (I avoid the extremes on both sides) and it has been my experience that conservative news tends to use far more "loaded words", words specifically chosen to direct emotional responses to news that might be taken either way or to varying degrees.

It is a journalists job to report the news, not to tell us what to make of the news being reported on.

The reason is likely that conservatives tend to be more emotional, they tend to respond better to more emotional information. I think that is why the conservative writers writing for conservatives tend to write with more "loaded words", word specifically chosen to drive emotion.

There have been studies to show that while conservatives tend to have a larger right amygdala (associated with the emotions one feels and the "fight or flight" mechanism), liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex
(the area that is responsible for taking in new information and that impact of the new information on decision making or choices)*.

*Area describing the functions performed by the anterior cingulate cortex taken from: https://www.alternet.org/2016/06/new-studies-show-liberals-and-conservatives-have-different-brain-structures/

That is of course based on several studies that have detected evidence of such anomalies between the brains of liberals and conservatives, of course each person is different, some people have both conservative AND liberal leanings. It would however go a long ways towards explaining the differences in liberal and conservative writings and reactions to what we hear/read/see and why we respond differently to the same information given in the same form.

While those that prefer to make up our own minds as to what we see/hear/read leads us to think, some are just as happy to have their emotions handed to them via "loaded words" meant to drive one's emotions in a specific direction. I suspect that is the reason why conservative media tends to use such "loaded words" in their articles. That is why I prefer to get my news primarily from sources that does not try to "drive" my emotions, I typically only venture to conservative sites if I find it necessary to confirm information that I think may be biased and can't seem to find other reference points to confirm or deny bias.

I would be much more likely to trust conservative news sources if it were not for the obvious bias that they show in their headlines, "loaded words" used to drive emotions, the fact that they take things out of context frequently, I have caught them using misinformation/disinformation/out right lies and often times promoting conspiracy theories. All of which drives me to distrust the conservative sites though there are a few that I find trustworthy, Fox news is not one of them due to the aforementioned reasons.

While everything you say is true, the use of terms by the progressives/l*****ts is dangerous. Recently, I was reading an article pertaining to immigration, where the author used only the word "immigrants." Because I am well aware of the huge difference between immigrants and i*****l a***ns, the article was confusing, but all became clear once I understood that the author was speaking of i*****l a***ns. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of American citizens, today, know quite well of which they speak and obfuscate on purpose OR they are so ignorant as to just take all the words/statements literally and believe them all without thought. Thus, the ignorant, non-thinkers are easily and constantly confused. A prime example of both this and opinion polls are the recently conducted polls about "Medicare for all." When asked if they were in favor of, supportive of, wanted Medicare for all, a large percentage said "YES." But, later, when asked about support for the program if it meant higher/more taxes, the percentage saying "yes" was much lower. I no longer answer polls because the questions are not asked in a way allowing me to answer since I am never supportive of either response possibility offered.

Yet it is the liberals who feel the need for safe spaces. It is the liberals whose response to losing the p**********l e******n was to hold a group scream. It is the left politicians who use emotional arguments to counter border security such as saying a wall is immoral, and AOC saying, “I think that there a lot of people more concerned with being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right.” On follow up she opined being morally right was far more important than being factual. It is the left which asserts requiring proof of citizenship to v**e is r****t. It is the left which predicted withdraw from the Paris Accords is a global disaster which may destroy the Earth.

https://quillette.com/2018/03/10/psychology-progressive-hostility/

In your own post is an example of emotional hyperbole of pseudo facts instead of facts to back up your ideology. You wrote, "There have been studies to show that while conservatives tend to have a larger right amygdala (associated with the emotions one feels and the "fight or flight" mechanism), liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex
(the area that is responsible for taking in new information and that impact of the new information on decision making or choices)*."

Lets look at this assertion. It starts with "there have been studies..." If so, you should be able to cite them.

And how were these studies done. Most did not do any brain measurements but relied of assignment of values with certain values considered to be generated more by negative emotions others by logic and positive emotions. But even if those values were symptomatic of the brain portion they assigned it; how were those values identified. Lets look at the value of compassion which researchers considered to be associated with the left. What identifies compassion. If a conservative offered a meal or a job to someone hungry or out of work, that was not considered as compassionate as a liberal participating in a protest march for a cause the researchers considered compassionate.

Here is an excerpt from a Cognitive and Physiological study which is used to back up the hypothesis that you asserted:
"Personality differences and evolutionary theories may be reflected in how individuals respond, cognitively and physiologically, to environmental stimuli. In general, the further one is on the conservative spectrum, the more likely one is to respond to negative aspects of environmental stimuli, as opposed to positive aspects.22–24,57 This “negativity bias” is evident in studies showing that negative images shown to political conservatives, compared with political liberals, results in a greater, faster, and longer attentional focus on the images and greater physiological measures of arousal to them, as well as a stronger tendency to avoid them.55,58 For example, on presentations of valenced words on an emotional Stroop task, people with politically conservative views respond more slowly to negative words, suggesting that negative information automatically captures their attention.58 On a dot-probe task, political conservatives are more likely to direct their attention toward spatial locations where the negative information was presented.58 Physiologically, political conservatives, compared with political liberals, tend to have increased skin conductance responses to negative or aversive aspects of the environment.55,58,59 On eye-tracking of negative images, political conservatives, compared with political liberals, are faster to fixate on them, spend more time gazing at them, and have a stronger tendency to move away from them.55,60 Although multiple memory systems are involved in political decision making,61 political conservatism is also specifically correlated with negativity bias in remembering more negative than positive information or scenes.57,62"

But wouldn't someone with more compassion react in just such a way far more than someone who has a fearful personality?

As for the stronger reaction to threats, again they look at only one possible reason. But wouldn't collectivistic herd mentality react less to threats than individualistic self reliant people. The former can feel safety in the group and not have to decide in each instance how to respond, but rely more of the group to determine the appropriate response. While the individualist needs to make each decision himself as he is responsible for his own safety. Now I am not saying this is the case. But it is one possible conclussion of the data collected.

These researchers seem to be a bit confused when they try to explain some reactions based on ideology. Here is a good example, "Conservatives tend to use “gut-reaction” heuristics and more step-by-step methodical analyses, whereas liberals tend to be more reflective (e.g., on the Cognitive Reflection Test) and prone to sudden insight solutions.66" On the conservative side they partner "gut reaction" and "step-by-step methodical analysis". Aren't those pretty closed to being mutually exclusive. Note also that the term they use for conservatives of "gut reaction" and the term for liberals of "sudden insights"; are actually the same thing. One just sounds better.

This conclussion interpretation, "In a meta-analysis of over 22,000 participants, political liberals had a preference for deep thought and a rejection of simple solutions." can also be described as political liberals have a preference for complicating things taking convoluted paths to simple solutions. This could mean that conservatives are better at seeing consequences of actions than are liberals.

Here is an excerpt from a study which actually measured the areas of the brain you referenced. Yet the brain areas seem to have different functions than you asserted:
"In the context of risk-taking decision-making, the amygdala is thought to be important for the processing of affective attributes involved in decision making [16]–[18]. The insular cortex is involved in the representation of internal bodily cues crucial for subjective feeling states." This was from: Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans
Darren Schreiber, 1 , 2 , * Greg Fonzo, 3 Alan N. Simmons, 4 , 5 Christopher T. Dawes, 6 Taru F**gan, 4 , 7 James H. Fowler, 8 , 9 and Martin P. Paulus 4 , 5 , 7
Andrew H. Kemp, Editor

So a lot depends on the value and interpretation the researcher place on the reactions. This leads me to ask, what is the ideology of the researchers? Another curious detail not covered in any of the studies I've read is the fact that the ratio of left to right ideologies is different in different age groups. In the under 30 group, there are far more left wing individuals. In the over 30, more right wing individuals. So does this mean the brain differences associated with left or right views are normal changes of maturity?

https://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16030051

Yes but how do you decide what is extreme vs leaning? While I see many news stories from various MSM outlets to be much farther left than the term left-of-center would imply; a liberal might consider the same story I saw as far left as being center. And what I might consider right-of-center, I know my left wing friends consider extreme right. An exampled of the latter is that if a news story has anything positive to say about Trump, my left wing friends label it as extreme right even if what he did was something the left has proposed or supported. While I see the acceptance of our constitution being obsolete as an extreme left view, my left wing friends consider it common sense.

I will not be "baited" into a prolonged argument with you, regardless how hard you try. Accept that or don't, that is your choice.

Interesting observation, It seems to me that you have some perverse preference to attempt to engage in prolonged arguments solely with me, not with anyone else of either the left, center, or right persuasion, should I take this as an insult or as a compliment? Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I just haven't taken notice of when you have tried to "bait" others, perhaps I just never saw these occassions, that too is possible.