If you choose to bring conspiracy theories into this discussion, I will choose to back out of it. There is absolutely nothing to base a "homosexual" allegation towards Obama on, other than some right wing nut job made the accusation and everybody piles onto it. You don't see ANYBODY making that allegation towards Trump do you? All the allegations I see directed towards Trump are either well documented or there is reason to suspect them to be true. Let us stick to the facts and the t***h.

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 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

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 is reacting in fear?

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 conclusion 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.


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

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.

If you choose to bring conspiracy theories into this discussion, I will choose to back out of it. There is absolutely nothing to base a "homosexual" allegation towards Obama on, other than some right wing nut job made the accusation and everybody piles onto it. You don't see ANYBODY making that allegation towards Trump do you? All the allegations I see directed towards Trump are either well documented or there is reason to suspect them to be true. Let us stick to the facts and the t***h.

It's possible that 'f**e news' isn't the best example. However, 'f**e news' has gathered a new meaning beyond false reporting. It can now be used by anyone, including all future presidents, to describe news they don't like, whether true or false. So, and I'm spit balling here, we have a new reality: one where we now have to determine more than the t***h of falsity of a news item, but also whether it is simply something a person declaring 'f**e news' doesn't want to hear even though that item might be true.

I appreciate your input and for giving me a chance to explain, hopefully not to muddy the up the subject.

The big push by Obama's homosexual policies and other sexual disphoria support is why I mention it.

Obama brought it "ALL" out of the closet and bedroom and I believe it's relevant to how he governed.

The President now, has had sexual issues but doesn't promote it as policy into law.

A lot of so called Christians believe that homosexuality isn't against the Creator as a a*********n, but that's not my belief.

I watched with my own eyes the profain sexual behavior and lifestyles, like old perverted men wanting to watch little girls in the bathrooms, being promoted as normal.

So perverse sexuality isn't a personal issue with Obama, it was a national policy being forced on Americans.