Author talks about some real studies but obviously doesn't even fully understand the vocabulary they're using,noet alone what the studies mean...

Like, everyone should read more academic studies, but you really need to understand them before you start trying to explain them to other people.

If you try this article and are interested, just read the actual research about differences in brains and even more importantly, how these changes are not innate and are capable of changing into someone's 60s.

Whatever parts of the brain we use most, is what gets developed.

Conservatives are always in fear, they develop larger and more active amygdalas.

Liberals spend more time thinking of others and how things effect them. They get more developed parts around the prefrontal cortex.

Like, the author rambles a bit about how liberals are more quick to show disgust via facial reactions. That's just because they're better at at imagining how a hypothetical would effect someone else

If you say "diarrhea sandwich" to a conservative, it's just two words. Say it to a liberal, and their brain pulls up an image, maybe even smells, maybe it even makes you think what it would taste like.

Conservatives don't have to repress that reaction, because it's not happening to them.

Tell both groups "you have to eat a shit sandwich" and the conservatives now have their amygdala lighting up, and the liberals respond the same.

That's literally why conservatives infamously only care when something is going to effect them. They don't care about general concepts, just when it's going to effect them

But again, we can change how they think, even when they're past retirement age.

ChatGPT summary (since it's my mine I'll add my own comments):

Summary

The text argues that Western political psychology contains a hidden assumption of “liberal primacy,” where liberal viewpoints are treated as the default healthy state and opposing views are framed as psychological abnormalities.

It questions whether political psychology research may unintentionally or intentionally pathologize conservatives while overlooking possible biases in how ideological differences are studied and interpreted.

The author discusses neuroscience research on political beliefs, including studies involving the amygdala, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), emotional regulation, and partisan reactions, arguing that findings are often oversimplified into “fearful conservatives” versus “rational liberals.”

The text challenges the “amygdala-conservatism” narrative, suggesting that brain differences associated with ideology may be more complex and potentially linked to specific progressive cultural attitudes rather than broad economic or political beliefs.

Specifically Western progressive only. And by progressives I mean militant ideological enforcers. Someone with heterodox views with a few liberal positions isn't "pure progressive" by this definition.

It highlights research on emotional expression and argues that conservatives may display greater emotional regulation, interpreting this as evidence of cognitive control rather than emotional deficiency.

The author uses studies of neurological differences in conditions such as pedophilia to argue that abnormal brain function can have negative effects, and questions whether some areas of neuroscience research receive insufficient attention due to political sensitivities.

Didn't elaborate on this, but more closely related behavior would be "Cute Aggression", a relatively common (and mostly benign) expression of difficulty regulating emotional reactions

The text examines MKUltra and related Cold War programs, arguing that their goals may have been broader than creating “Manchurian candidate” assassins and may have included attempts to influence, control, or reshape human behavior.

It discusses CIA experiments involving drugs, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, and psychological manipulation, emphasizing historical examples of government secrecy, compartmentalization, and experimentation without consent.

The author argues that democratic governments may face unique challenges in managing dissent because they cannot openly suppress opposition, suggesting that psychological influence and narrative management could become tools of state power.

The text analyzes figures such as Ken Kesey, arguing that experiences connected to psychedelic experimentation influenced countercultural movements and debates about psychiatry, autonomy, and social institutions.

Note, an important element was the fact that Kesey himself was one of the experimentees of MKUltra and was given drugs by his handler. He also (falsely IMO) believed that the experiments unintentionally "freed his mind".

The core thesis of the work is that his mind wasn't freed, he was pacified, turned into someone unable to resist or challenge true expressions of state power, and diverted attention to more trivial targets. Sort of like how some ACP folks critique that Gloria Steinem redirected many socialist groups to talk about patriarchy/etc, not class war.

It critiques the long-term effects of anti-institutional movements inspired by works like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, claiming that some reforms may have harmed both mentally ill individuals and communities.

The author connects modern political psychology research on “MAGA minorities” and authoritarianism studies to a broader concern that psychological frameworks may increasingly be applied to analyze or deconstruct political dissent across different demographic groups.

The text concludes by calling for a broader philosophical framework that resists what it views as excessive ideological control by intellectual institutions and instead prioritizes civil society, reform, and individual autonomy.