Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain

Differences between conservative and liberal brain‎

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Differences between conservative and liberal brain

Differences between conservative and liberal brain‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ails to meet MEDRS: all cites are news articles referring to the single medical study which has not been referenced in tertiary medical science reviews. The article may in future (after other scientific studies, and the tertiary summary of the aforementioned) be valid, at the moment, it isn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: See [1][2][3][4] The study is covered by major news agencies and maninstream newspapers. And please see these links: 1. study published in Nature Neuroscience by New York University and UCLA scientists in 2007 [5], 2. online survey by psychologists in 2009 [6], 3. study in New Scientist in 2008 [7] So we now have multiple studies. It is not "the study", it is "the studies". Given the sources, it meets WP:N. --Brain Researcher (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Creator of the article JFW | T@lk 19:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Article on this topic published in prestigious journal Nature Neuroscience. David M Amodio, John T Jost, Sarah L Master & Cindy M Yee, Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism, Nature Neuroscience. --Brain Researcher (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• mild keep This seems to be an interesting and ongoing area of research. I see no reason to rush to delete. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Now based on all of TWO small studies, neither one of which has been mentioned much outside original publication at all. Less worthwhile than the ones on "race and intelligence" to be sure. As the studies have not been referred, they do not meet notability standards for articles on medical studies. Ideal sources for such content includes general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals Initial publication of a small study does not meet that standard. Nor does coverage in a tabloid apply. Nor does a study on typing appear to be related to "brain differences" as claimed. "It's very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions," seems also dispositive that the researchers did not intend for this sort of article to be produced from a small sample. Then I cjhecked every article by Kanai on Google Scholar to see if anyone ever referenced this study. Cited nowhere. I suggest that a study which is cited nowhere is a minor study, falling short, on its face, of the requirements for medical articles. Collect (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You checked all 135 of Ryota Kanai's articles cited on Google Scholar? If you know the title of his study, please share. Anarchangel (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - POV trojan horse, at a minimum. Race and intelligence has been a gargantuan time drain for dozens of people, do we want another one — especially one about a fundamentally non-notable topic parsing TWO, count them TWO studies? Yikes. Kill this one with a wooden stake to the heart and burn the corpse. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. At this stage, this looks like a fringe theory that, as Carrite says, seems to have been contrived for the sake of controversy. Unlike some fringe theories, this one seems at least halfway plausible. Question: do we have an article on dúchas, inheritance of personality traits, or biological basis of personality traits? This study might be worth a mention in any such article, but I don't see the underlying hypothesis as notable enough to merit a stand alone article yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Weak delete or merge if a suitable place can be found - The studies have been picked up by some major news organizations, so there is a fair amount of coverage (that explains the weak part of my !vote), but IMO two studies that have not been the subject of review articles don't quite make a robust scientific theory suitable for its own Wikipedia article. I'm not familiar with most aspects of psychology, but is there a suitable article into which some of this material could be merged? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral - I've reconsidered in light of improvements made. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 23:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Race and intelligence is the closest. Collect (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Behavioural genetics strikes me as an even closer fit, and that article could stand quite a bit of expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I should mention that in this case a couple of sentences or a short paragraph is all that would need to be merged. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Weakly sourced, as mentioned above, and a fundamentally POV-based topic until there is significant independent coverage. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete WP:COATRACK problems for people wishing to spread points of view about political opponents, coupled with the fact that this study's siginificance doesn't extend beyond the news cycle that caught it. This is the case of newspapers picking up an interesting story with a catchy title, but there's no evidence of lasting notability here. This is no more significant than what happens when newspapers pick up a story on a skateboarding dog or anything else like that. When this becomes significant in the scientific literature, then we may have something. But right now there's not enough here to create a quality article from. --Jayron32 17:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a coatrack - actually, the focus of the article is rather too narrow. For example, I had to omit adding a (very) small study about anarchists and moderates^[8] because it says "conservative and liberal". Wnt (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. POV nonsense labelling persons of Conservative political orientation as products of fear.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Weak keep per the secondary coverage of the two scientific studies in numerous mainstream news media such as Time magazine. The question of a biological basis for political style has demonstrated notability, but the two studies are a rather slight basis for making it an established scientific fact. As noted above, if there is no consensus to keep, then a paragraph could be added to Behavioural genetics. This does not belong in Race and intelligence unless someone can prove that either liberals or conservatives are more intelligent. Does not seem at all to be nonsense. Edison (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This kind of study will always make it into the popular press because of its whackiness, but none of this signifies a major trend in neuroscience and the data needs confirmation. (It sounds like something out of Michael Crichton's NEXT!) JFW | T@lk 19:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Small studies such as those that support this article simply aren't notable in terms of their scientific significance. They get gleeful attention and over-interpretation from narrow-minded people that want to use them for fodder to support partisan political battles, but this topic has no real notability. Peacock (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added some material about two older studies showing a link between IQ and intelligence which was "gleefully" deleted (within 3-5 minutes each time) when I tried to add it to other articles. The topic is notable and important, with many reliable sources; unfortunately there are people who just don't like it and expect to get their way no matter what the notability may be. Note that if you say "this will be like race and intelligence", that's just a formal way of hoisting up the white flag and saying that's alright with you. Wnt (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, within two hours after I added my information, Fifelfoo deleted the whole section about IQ, claiming it was beyond the scope of the article.^[9] I'll reproduce the deleted section here (since I doubt you'll see it anywhere else, ever):

"According to the ASA, IQ data from the "Add Health" survey averaged 106 for adolescents identifying as "very liberal", versus 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative". An unrelated study in 2009 found that among students applying to U.S. universities, conservatism correlated negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. However, a 1946 study of 6000 persons found that those more informed on current political issues had more years of formal education and were "more liberal in issues regarding Russia and atom-bomb control, but more conservative in their views regarding power for the workers and government guarantees.""

I suspect most reasonable people think the IQ is a measure of brain function, and I do not believe it is appropriate to propose an article for deletion because it is based on a "single study", then remove additional studies from the article! Wnt (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your text needs to indicate that link and the link needs to emerge from the study itself. If the ASA used IQ as a proxy for brain activity, then go ahead. However, and as you would know, IQ has regularly been criticised as a measure of cultural norms rather than fundamental "quotients" of raw "intelligence". If the ASA used IQ to proxy fundamentally physiological intelligence, then fine. And the text in the article needs to indicate that link. You can't simply coatrack material in unless the material itself relates its findings to the brain. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources I use say "intelligent people". They do not suggest that the difference in scores is due to "cultural norms". Liberals and conservatives come from the same country, the same socioeconomic groups; the idea seems absurd. But I won't try to prove that because it would be original research. And sooner or later Wikipedia needs to recognize that it is wrong to remove information based on original research. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, the article name itself asserts the existence of a difference that is not proven to be a widely excepted phenomenon. Elocute (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on young Earth creationism - your criterion is irrelevant. It doesn't have to be proved, just verifiable. And I've tossed in lots more references about this sort of thing since I voted Keep above. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Only based on primary sources, and passing media attention - no indication of any real recognition as science (e.g. citation, follow-up studies etc). Maybe this will come, but until then, we don't need to cover it, per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. (though I must admit I like the idea that Conservatism causes the useful parts of your brain to shrink ;) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Do any of the arguments originate from the amygdala region of the brain? Edison (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons well-articulated by Collect. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a topic on which a bunch of research has been done and continues to be done. We shouldn't delete it just because it feels politically incorrect. It would be like deleting the Race and intelligence article. We also shouldn't delete it just because existing research hasn't shown strong differences. That's a classic example of biasing against studies that support the null hypothesis. If the topic is interesting enough to be getting research grants to study it, then the results of those studies should be interesting enough for Wikipedia. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I just added another study, which I believe was originally published in Nature ([10]), although I couldn't confirm this (see article talk). This was covered heavily by secondary sources, which the article now cites. It also echos my assertion above: if the topic is interesting enough that researchers are getting grants for it and it's being published in Nature, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Article now much improved and extensively referenced; original reasons for nomination no longer apply. An excellent example of how AfD triggers article improvement. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, and now well-sourced and IMO NPOV. (And POV is not by itself a ground for deletion).  --Lambiam 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The trouble with this topic is the facile way in which liberal/conservative seems to be determined. For example, see The Political Brain. In this we see that the brains of Alan Duncan and Stephen Pound have been analysed. But who is the conservative and who the liberal? Alan Duncan is a Conservative Party politician but is openly homosexual and liberal on social issues. Stephen Pound is a Labour Party politician but seems more traditional in his views, being a former boxer and bus conductor. And then there's the study of the brains of London taxi drivers, who are notorious for their reactionary views. What's needed is a more general article about brain structure and personality, which would raise the topic about the level of petty politics, but I'm not seeing anything close to that. The current version seems contrary to our policy which excludes partisan politics - WP:SOAP. And because terms like liberal are so ill-defined, there's too much difficulty with WP:V and WP:SYN. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep notable topic, excellent sourced information available, not just the articles, but the summaries in news sources. It would be a good idea to find a somewhat more neutral topic that makes it clearer that this is still a hypothesis with some evidence, not soundly established science. that somework on this subject may not be of any quality does not mean that none of it is. Nor do anecdotaly based differences of opinion by Wikipedia contributors represent anything than their own SYN. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This topic seems similar to studies of the "gay brain", which also point to the amygdala but it seems that gay brain and gay brain development are both red links. Did we have articles on this which were deleted or what? I'm also reminded of political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union, whereby dissidents were considered certifiably insane. That is a substantial article and its treatment may be instructive. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete Per Colonel Warden and the nominator. The article is actually a list of some unrelated, individual small studies that do not have any scientific significance and are not used in other scientific papers. The result of the studies are not established fact and there is no indication that these have acceptance among the scientific community. Coverage in popular press is not enough to keep an article under Category:Cognitive neuroscience if we are going to build an encyclopedia. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)