Physiological Foundations of the Investiture Controversy
Whenever I see "scientific" articles like this one (via Michael. ), which purport to document "innate" differences between conservatives and liberals (of course, usually ignoring the possibility that other political ideologies may exist) I think about how great it would be if we could gather up a bunch of psychologists and political scientists, stick'em all into a time machine and send them to... oh, I dunno, the 12th century, and let them study the people there.
Then they'd write an article with an abstract like this:
Support for Pope and Emperor Varies with Physiological Traits
Although views on the Investiture Controversy have been thought to arise largely from individuals' experiences, recent research suggests that they may have a biological basis. We present evidence that variations in support for the Pope vs. the Emperor, correlate with physiological traits. In a group of 46 adult participants with strong allegiance to either the Guelph or the Ghibelline faction, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises (like Church bells) and threatening visual images (Dragons, Saracens, washing oneself with water) were more likely to support simony, mundus, Phillip of Swabia, agricultural interests and capital punishment, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor auctoritas, ecclesia, Lombard League, Otto of Brunswick, mercantile interests and capital punishment. Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both the (external) existing social structure and (internal) existing social structure. Or at least favor Pisa over Genoa.
Of course the main benefit of this experiment, aside from the extra addition to our knowledge of social phenomenon, would be that we'd get to leave all those psychologists and political scientists in the 12th century.
UPDATE: Here's Reason's Hit and Run on the same study. Some of the comments are pretty funny.
Then they'd write an article with an abstract like this:
Support for Pope and Emperor Varies with Physiological Traits
Although views on the Investiture Controversy have been thought to arise largely from individuals' experiences, recent research suggests that they may have a biological basis. We present evidence that variations in support for the Pope vs. the Emperor, correlate with physiological traits. In a group of 46 adult participants with strong allegiance to either the Guelph or the Ghibelline faction, individuals with measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises (like Church bells) and threatening visual images (Dragons, Saracens, washing oneself with water) were more likely to support simony, mundus, Phillip of Swabia, agricultural interests and capital punishment, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor auctoritas, ecclesia, Lombard League, Otto of Brunswick, mercantile interests and capital punishment. Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both the (external) existing social structure and (internal) existing social structure. Or at least favor Pisa over Genoa.
Of course the main benefit of this experiment, aside from the extra addition to our knowledge of social phenomenon, would be that we'd get to leave all those psychologists and political scientists in the 12th century.
UPDATE: Here's Reason's Hit and Run on the same study. Some of the comments are pretty funny.
posted by YouNotSneaky! at 2:47 PM
2 Comments:
Uh, uh... this is just the first step. By the end of the decade they'll commit all conservatives to mental institutions... they're neurotic! :-)
"Thus, the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure from both external (outgroup) and internal (norm-violator) threats."
I think that´s pretty universal
Post a Comment
<< Home