|
|
Post by krish97 on May 3, 2016 8:12:47 GMT
2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818The article above is a list of 16 differences in conservative and liberal brains summarized from 16 different peer-reviewed papers, including some of the ones we have read. I personally thought it was quite incredible at how many differences there were between the neural processes and structures in the opposing groups' brains. Things such as how conservatives prefer, "quick, efficient, and "low effort" thought processes," whilst liberals had more, "effortful and deliberate reasoning," or how, "conservatives have stronger motivations than liberals to preserve purity and cleanliness." But then again, should we really be surprised by these findings? The point I'm trying to hint at is the fact that being a conservative or liberal seems to simply boil down to different ways of categorizing the importance of problems and how to go about solving such problems. It seems very similar to how we differentiate those who think more "scientifically" or those who are more "artsy". As we know, those two ways of thinking also correlate to some sort of neural difference. So what separates other classifications of different chains of thought from also showing physical differences in the brain? Not much. Essentially, all these papers do is provide proof that people who view the world differently inherently have different brains. So here's my question: Given these papers, do you think that your way of thinking, your level of intelligence, and maybe your "best career choice" is all determined simply by the structure of your brain? And if so, do you think that the only way to truly become better at math, or art, or any subject you suck at, is to physically alter your brain? Note: I just realized I'm pretty much stemming a "nature" vs. "nurture" discussion. - Krish
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by rkipp on May 3, 2016 19:14:08 GMT
I definitely think our way of thinking, intelligence, and career choices are determined in some way by the structures of our brains. We tend to enjoy things we are good at and if we are good at certain things, it is most likely due to the structure of our brain. However, I think it is possible to nurture our brains to learn new things. I think if you work hard enough at something, you will eventually get better at it. If this wasn't the case, then there would seem to be no point in practicing things over and over again, or studying concepts for endless hours. Through repetition of similar acts, the brain will adjust (neuroplasticity). The article I attached discusses different scenarios where people's brain structure has changed due to different activities (i.e. leaning a language, playing an instrument, and even riding a taxi). Thus, I believe that the more one does something, the more his or her brain will adjust. So, to answer your question, yes I think to become better at something our brains need to alter, since as we practice more, our brains adjust to the new skill learned. sharpbrains.com/blog/2008/02/26/brain-plasticity-how-learning-changes-your-brain/ |
|
|
|
Post by stacyli on May 3, 2016 22:55:30 GMT
I think that people are definitely born with predetermined capabilities and skills to a certain degree, but I don't think anybody is necessarily born with an extreme knack for any one particular thing. Kind of like Rachel was saying above, I think that people are going to have inclinations towards things they may be good at, even if it's just a small inclination of skill. People's natural abilities do have a significant impact on what people may be interested in or feel more inclined to do, but our interests don't always fit what we were born capable of. I think this comes down to an effort vs ability debate. If someone is interested in something they will put more increased effort into improving or learning something, whether or not they already had abilities for it, whereas if someone has a natural ability in something they may or may not put additional effort in depending on if they were interested in the skill in the first place. Ultimately I think "nurture" wins more in this debate because of our abilities to control our own learning an actions for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Post by melody7song on May 3, 2016 23:32:16 GMT
I really like the article you found. I never knew that different opinions from conservative and liberal sides could be so drastic as to be shown in physical form. I come from a very conservative family, but I personally have more liberal views. Having been raised conservative but then switched over to liberal, I wonder how my brain has changed as a result of thinking differently. The nature vs nurture question probably extends to cover almost every question we have ever asked about brain structure, but I think this is a super original and interesting approach.
Agreeing with Stacy, I don't think that brain structure has that profound of an effect, except in rare cases. I truly think that nurture and how we interact and perceive the world shapes our brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorthompson on May 4, 2016 1:17:19 GMT
This post immediately made me think of handedness. I remember growing up everyone used to correlate handedness with being right-brained or left brained, thus creative or logical, respectively. I don't know how much of this is actually true (I find it hard to believe that someone's hand preference is indicative of their thought-process), but it does provide insight into how our structures influence our thought process.
I remember all the career tests I use to take when I was younger, some even asked you what hand you preferred to write with. Being left-handed, I was always presented with career like artist, musician, designer. Yet, I was frustrated because I always thought of myself as a logical person, interested in STEM as well as creativity.
My point is that I don't think we should read too much into this kind of science when choosing our careers, rathe go with what you're passionate about. A right handed person could love art and a left handed person could love accounting, there's no grand answer to the connection between our structures and thoughts.
|
|
bdang
New Member
Posts: 17 
|
Post by bdang on May 4, 2016 6:08:15 GMT
I believe that most aspects of life are a mix of genetics and the environment. I do believe that you can be predisposed to have a particular talent, but I also believe that you can make significant strides simply through repetition and work. For example, take a 16 year old who is already 6'6" and is the starting goalkeeper for one of the biggest soccer clubs in the world (true story). He obviously had some biological help to get to the point where he is at today, that being gifted with height and natural athletic ability. But like was previously mentioned by others, at some point in this kid's life, he had to have realized that he is pretty dang good at soccer and decided to pursue it further. In doing so, he is essentially training his brain to act and think like a professional soccer player. I don't necessarily think that you need to physically alter your brain in order to progress, but it that it comes down to a mindset change that empowers the nurturing to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on May 4, 2016 8:57:08 GMT
Hey guys really enjoyed your comments and it's super interesting to hear that you're all pretty much on the side of "nurture" (but still obviously agreeing that nature plays some part)! Definitely this idea of neuroplasticity dominates the argument since we can physically alter our brains as we grow throughout our life, surpassing the initial structure we may have been programmed into. Here's another interesting question though: do we have a genetic predisposition to the amount of neuroplasticity that can occur in our brain? If so, can some of just inherently not be able to ever fully change our mechanisms of thought such as being conservative or liberal? Also bdang love the soccer comment, especially because I'm a 5'7 keeper who thinks he's half decent! But the extra foot would definitely help. |
|
