You have to be careful about believing news articles about scientific papers, so bear that in mind in my discussion of a new paper by "scientists' at UCLA and NYU. Their actual paper, reported in Nature Neuroscience today (unavailable online so far) is described in a joint Chicago Tribune/Los Angeles Times article today that claims that people's political convictions derive from (you guessed it), differences in biology. ("..(A) specific region of the brain's cortex is more sensitive in people who consider themselves liberals than in self-declared conservatives," they advise us.
As as result, liberals (among other things) "are more flexible in their thinking", while conservatives are "more rigid and close-minded."
What do you want to bet the study's co-author's, UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Lacoboni and NYU psychologist David Amodio, would personally consider themselves liberal?
The test group were "college students", however, so it has to be objective. (There is no mention in the news article about the size or characteristics of the study group.)
Here is a hint to the media. When you get a story like this that sounds far-fetched, try getting a contrary opinion; say, in this case, from professor of neurosurgery (SUNY) Michael Egnor. At least let a little skepticism escape into the ebullient scientific ether.
As is, we seem to have yet another self-serving bit of ideolgical propaganda dressed up as "science" and sold to the rubes.
Who pays for this stuff, anyhow?
Of course, maybe conservatives should hail the report and adopt it. Then when liberals complain about some conservative policy--like attacking terrorists in Iraq, say, or reducing tax rates--conservatives can reply, "Well, gosh, you don't have to be so nasty about it. It's just that you have your brain reactions to such policies and I have mine. You should learn to be more tolerant."