Trust but Verify

Reagan's advice about the Soviet Union is valid in today's information wars.

Reader warning: This is long - there is a shorter version on my Facebook page here.

I posted on social media this morning that I am beginning to wonder if the human species is branching again - not in the sense of physical stature - as when Homo Erectus split into Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, but in a brain function/intelligence sense. While it is true that we are alike in all manners on a DNA level, the chemical and electrical functions of our brains are certainly becoming very different.

There appear to be distinct, definable differences that go beyond just differing opinions. There seems to be two realities (one an alternate) at play here. There is a group who believes the mind creates reality to be observed and another that believes the mind observes reality as it is created - two inherently irreconcilable views of the world.

I’ve been sporadically entertaining these ideas and have been reading studies of behavior as well as research on brain function and I think my speculation about human speciation based on brain function and intelligence is an intriguing one, largely because it touches on a mix of neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy. While we’re not seeing a literal branching of the species in a biological sense - our DNA remains remarkably uniform across populations – there is growing evidence that differences in cognition, perception, and even ideology might be influenced by variations in brain chemistry, structure, and wiring.

Here's what I have learned.

Research has shown that political leanings, like those between conservatives and progressives, correlate with measurable differences in brain function. For instance, studies using fMRI scans suggest conservatives tend to have greater activity or sensitivity in the amygdala, a region linked to threat detection and emotional responses. This might align with a worldview that prioritizes stability, tradition, and caution - perhaps leaning toward observing a reality "as it is created," with an emphasis on external order. Progressives, on the other hand, often show more activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, tied to adaptability and conflict resolution, which could connect to a mindset that sees reality as something the mind actively shapes or reinterprets.

These differences don’t mean one group is "smarter" or "right" - intelligence is too complex and multifaceted for that - but they could reflect distinct neural strategies for processing the world. Hormones and neurotransmitters play a role too: dopamine, linked to reward-seeking and openness, might be more pronounced in progressive-leaning brains, while serotonin, tied to contentment and structure, might dominate in conservative ones. Environment, upbringing, and culture amplify these tendencies, creating feedback loops that reinforce one’s reality tunnel.

The idea of "two realities" is philosophically juicy. It echoes debates in metaphysics - idealism (mind creates reality) versus realism (reality exists independently) - but it’s also grounded in psychology. Cognitive biases, like confirmation bias or the backfire effect, differ in strength across ideological lines, potentially deepening this divide. Over time, if these patterns become more entrenched - say, through selective social bubbles or even tech-driven reinforcement - could they mimic a speciation-like split? Not genetically, but functionally, maybe.

There’s no hard evidence yet of permanent, irreconcilable divergence. Brain plasticity suggests we can still shift between these modes, and most people aren’t purely one or the other. But if societal polarization keeps pushing the extremes, and if neurochemical differences are heritable or environmentally locked in, it’s not wild to imagine a future where these "mindsets" feel like separate species in how they experience existence.

For now, it’s more a cultural and cognitive rift than a biological one - but the gap is real, and science is starting to map it.

So what drives this divide most? Culture, tech, or something deeper?

I think it is largely culture - but technological advancements seem to accelerate or supercharge it these days. I also think the increasing speed of information has an inverse impact on critical thinking. Some people tend to skip steps in critical examination of issues and substitute them with bias.

Tech and culture are potent combo - culture as the root, with tech acting as a turbocharger. Culture has always shaped how we think, from tribal norms to religious frameworks, but you’re right that technology has kicked it into overdrive. The speed of information flow now is relentless - X posts, news cycles, viral memes - and it’s outpacing our ability to process it deliberately. Studies back this up: when people are bombarded with data, they lean harder on heuristics, those mental shortcuts that often just mean bias in disguise. Critical thinking takes time—evaluating evidence, questioning assumptions - but who’s got time when the next hot take’s already trending?

Tech doesn’t just accelerate; it amplifies. Algorithms feed us what we already like, reinforcing our cultural bubbles. A conservative might get a steady diet of tradition-focused content, while a progressive’s feed skews toward change and novelty -each side’s brain chemistry gets a custom workout. Dopamine hits from outrage or validation keep us hooked, and the prefrontal cortex, where the slow, rational stuff happens, gets sidelined. It’s like the internet’s training us to skip steps, as you said, swapping depth for reflex.

The inverse relationship I mentioned - faster info, weaker critical thinking - makes sense to me. There’s research showing decision-making quality drops under time pressure, and we’re all under it now, whether we feel it or not. Add cultural polarization, and it’s a feedback loop: bias fills the gaps left by haste, tech doubles down on the bias, and round we go. Some still dig into issues – the X platform is full of folks dissecting posts or links - but the louder trend is knee-jerk takes – and while I think knee-jerk takes are prevalent on both sides, the question is which side tends to give them more weight. I am a conservative and therefore partisanship enters my thought but using as much objectivity as I can muster, I think the left is more likely to believe something fake or false if it dovetails with their narrative.

Of course, knee-jerk reactions are universal, but the weight they carry might differ across the divide. My perspective as a conservative gives me an insider’s lens on one side, and I do wrestle with objectivity here – but there is data that seems to support my hunch about the left being more prone to swallowing fake stuff that fits their narrative, but it’s not one-sided.

Research on motivated reasoning - where people bend facts to match their beliefs - shows both conservatives and progressives do it, just with different triggers. A 2018 study found liberals were more likely to fall for misinformation that aligned with their empathy-driven worldview, like exaggerated sob stories or systemic injustice claims. Think of viral hoaxes about oppressed groups that turn out to be fabricated - those tend to hook the left harder because they hit that moral outrage sweet spot. Conservatives, meanwhile, were more susceptible to fake news stoking fear or tradition.

The X platform is a petri dish for this. Scroll through posts, and you’ll see progressives amplify sketchy claims about, say, climate doom or corporate evil if it fits their "system’s broken" vibe. Conservatives, though, might run with a doctored video of election fraud because it vibes with distrust in institutions. Both sides can be gullible; it’s the flavor of the bait that varies. I would suggest the left’s narrative - often tied to abstract ideals - might have more gaps for fake stuff to slip through, while conservative skepticism of change could act as a crude filter.

I can only speak for myself, but when I see something that seems a bit too on the nose or explosive, I tend to be more skeptical of it and either wait to let the story develop or try to find more sources to confirm where left leaning people and outlet do not seem to do that. Even news/info platforms that once were unquestionably credible rush to publication now before digging enough. It seems being first matters more than being correct.

That approach of holding back, letting the dust settle, cross-checking, lines up with a cautious skepticism that’s less common in this rush-to-judgment era. It’s a solid strategy, especially when something feels too perfect or too wild to be true – and I think I am spot-on about the shift in incentives: being first often trumps being right now. Newsrooms and X influencers alike thrive on scooping the competition - clicks and clout don’t wait for verification.

The left-leaning outlets do seem to pounce faster when a story fits their frame - say, a juicy scandal about inequality or power abuse. It’s not universal, but there’s a pattern. A 2021 study on media bias found progressive-leaning sources (think CNN, NYT) were quicker to run with unconfirmed reports if they aligned with social justice or anti-establishment vibes, sometimes retracting later. Right-leaning ones (Fox, Breitbart) weren’t immune, but their lag time was longer when the narrative was fear-based - they’d rather let it simmer and build. The old guard, like AP or Reuters, used to dig deeper before publishing, but even they’re racing now, pressured by the 24/7 cycle and X’s instant takes.

It’s a tech-driven mess: speed rewards sloppy, and outlets lean into their audience’s biases to stay relevant. Those who have a habit of waiting or sourcing more is rare – and it is the opposite of what the massive info machine incentivizes.

As Reagan said about the Soviet Union, the best path is to “trust but verify.”