Re: Are liberals dumber than conservatives?

royls_at_telus.net
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:49:09 GMT

On 2 Sep 2004 07:08:58 -0700, negloid@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay) wrote:

>royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<41316837.4076158@news.telus.net>...
>> On 28 Aug 2004 10:51:53 -0700, negloid@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<412fa2ba.9472267@news.telus.net>...
>> >> On 27 Aug 2004 04:23:44 -0700, negloid@hotmail.com (Mark Neglay)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >What he did imply,
>> >> >correctly, is that use of the amygdala for decision making is
>> >> >analagous to how reptiles (and other animals) make their decisions.
>> >>
>> >> But in fact, it is not.
>> >
>> >But in fact, it is.
>>
>> No, actually, in point of fact, it most definitely is not.
>
>But the way it really is, it is.

No, in fact, the way it really is, it just flat _isn't_.

>> >> >It isn't the same because it is hooked up to a different brain.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't the same even if it were not.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Because a human being's amygdala is not a reptile's brain. There are
>> certain similarities in structure and function, but you might as well
>> claim that a human being running is the same as a lizard running,
>> because of the similar structure and function of their legs. It's
>> just false and stupid.
>
>A better analogy would be that a reptilian muscle flexing is analagous
>to a human muscle flexing.

No, that would be a completely invalid, misleading and dishonest
analogy, because the human amygdala provides input to a much larger
and more active higher brain, and the reptile brain does not.

>They may be hooked up to different bones
>through differently structured tendons but their purpose remains quite
>similar.

Actually, the bones and tendons are just as similar as the muscles.
It's the brains that are completely dissimilar. Your analogy is
therefore grossly fallacious and misleading.

>The limbic system is an ancient part of vertebrate
>neurology. To propose that when the human brain evolved, the amygdala
>suddenly began serving some radical new purpose is ridiculous.

?? Right, because there was nothing sudden about it. That's what
evolution is all about: slow changes over eons. Duh. But the human
amygdala _does_ serve a quite different purpose from the reptile
brain: input to the decision-making function of the far larger, more
active and _dominant_ higher brain.

>> >> >However it is still responsible for emotionional responses.
>> >>
>> >> Now you are reading too much into "emotional responses."
>> >
>> >Fear, possibly love, the amygdala is part of the brain's way of
>> >creating learned desires for pleasurable and more noteably, aversions
>> >to displeasurable stimuli. It creates in us an emotional response to
>> >various stimuli and basing our decision making process on the signals
>> >provided by the amygdala means basing them on that emotional response.
>>
>> But there is no evidence that the decisions are being made on that
>> basis.
>
>...just that our emotions are playing a larger role.

Thank you for admitting that you are and have been completely wrong,
and I am and have been completely right, all along.

>> All the research shows is greater activity in the amygdala.
>> Not less activity in the other areas of the brain, and not that the
>> decisions are being "made in" the amygdala.
>
>...just affected more by it.

As above. Thank you for admitting that I am completely right and you
are completely wrong.

>> >> >> ; and even sillier is the notion that greater activity in
>> >> >> the amygdala indicates decisions are being made there.
>> >> >
>> >> >You better get this published soon, Roy. Thousands of grad students
>> >> >and PhD's are laboring under the impression that it does.
>> >>
>> >> <yawn> Cite? I doubt very much that more than a handful would share
>> >> your delusion on that score.
>> >
>> >Holy *** Roy, the amygdala was been pinpointed as the center of
>> >emotional response *because* it is so much more active when people and
>> >animals are feeling strong emotions, fear in particular. Why do you
>> >think we came to the conclusion that it is the center of emtional
>> >response? Neurobiologists labor under this notion that when a
>> >particular part of the brain is more active during decision making,
>> >that part of the brain is doing more to influence the decision making
>> >process. Holy leap of logic, Batman!
>>
>> It is indeed a leap of logic to claim that greater activity in the
>> amygdala means the decisions are being made there.
>
>You colossal waste of time. I see what this is about. You are keying
>in on the words "made in", as if anyone but you ever claimed that
>decisions were being made *in the anygdala itself*.

??? That's what _you_ said. Look at the first quoted passage at the
top of this post. Your words. Not mine.

>Backwater used
>the phrase "using the same tool" to make decisions and "more
>influenced by" [that tool].

I have no objection to the latter formulation, which though not proved
by the cited research, is at least consistent with it. But the former
formulation is a lie, and nothing but scummy propaganda.

>You changed that in to decisions being
>made within the amygdala itself, and then started arguing against
>*that* proposition.

I changed nothing, liar. I quoted the exact words I was refuting.

>I didn't catch that in my last post, you
>deceptive little twerp. My point was also clear: that a more active
>amygdala suggested it was playing a greater role in decision making,
>and was more influential.

Then why did you falsely claim, in the first quoted passage at the top
of this post, that liberals "use the amygdala for decision making" and
this is "analogous to how reptiles make decisions"?

>Nice try though. Care to try honesty for a change?

Ah. I see. So, in what you are no doubt pleased to think of as your
"higher mammalian brain," when brain researchers find evidence that
lberals care about other people and conservatives do not, it is
"honest" to claim that this shows liberals function at a reptilian
level of consciousness, but "dishonest" to refute such idiotic lies
with incontrovertible facts and logic.

Is that about it?

>> >As far as citations go, I cannot possibly list enough *here* to break
>> >the barrier of what would be considered "more than a handful".
>>
>> You can apparently provide none at all.
>
>I challenged you to tell me what evidence you would require. You
>refused that challenge.

Any peer-reviewed research that actually supports your position would
surprise me, and I have yet to see it.

>> >So you
>> >tell me, what would it take to prove to you that the generally
>> >accepted belief amongst researchers is that the amygdala is the center
>> >of emotional response and critical to emotional decision making?
>>
>> That's not what you claimed. Of course.
>
>You have such a tough time figuring out what I claimed.

No, but it seems that _you_ do. Read your own words at the top of
this post.

>Perhaps you
>should stop running from my point only to argue against a point I did
>not make.

See your own words at the top of this post. If you now wish to
retract them (I can't say I would blame you), we can move on.

>> >Here's an article by a graduate student at Stanford:
>> >http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=news-in-rev/teen-frontal
>>
>> Which does not say what you claim,
>
>Sure it does, it just doesn't "say" what you are pretending I claimed.

No, it just flat-out does not. Read your own words.
 
>> >I'm not going to waste my time looking up hundreds more like this, and
>> >since I dont have access to Lexus Nexis, it would be pretty damn tough
>> >to do so anyway. Besides, I'm only going to put so much effort in to
>> >proving to you that the sky is blue...
>>
>> You have nothing. What a surprise.
>
>Extracting evidence from you on *any* matter would present the real
>surprise.

<yawn> See my recent demolition of Grinch on that score.

>You're all rhetoric Roy, always have been.

My method is Socratic: I remind you of what you already know, and
identify its implications. When Grinch challenged me to cite
references, I destroyed him.

>It's always
>other people getting the citations and references,

Which usually do not mean what they claim they mean. That is very
much the point. Getting citations and references means nothing if
they actually support the other side's position. That's where I come
in: showing _why_ the citations and references support the other
side's position.

>and you changing
>the subject and arguing against points that you created.

I quote the exact words I refute. I change nothing.

Liar.

-- Roy L

Loading