Re: Are liberals dumber than conservatives?

From: Mark Neglay (negloid_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: 5 Sep 2004 15:10:00 -0700

royls@telus.net wrote in message news:<4137755f.6191640@news.telus.net>...
> 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_.

But of course, the truth is, it flat out is.

> >> >> >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.

And the muscle flexing in a reptile provides movement to completely
different musculoskeletal systems. But its still just a muscle
flexing.

> >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.

Actually, you are over a hundred years behind the times there, Sparky.
 Evolution happens in spurts, but it's not like this is the first time
you tried to talk out of your ass on a subject you know nothing about.

> 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.

Diesel in a delivery truck serves a much different purpose than diesel
in a water pump.

> >> >> >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.

Only in that little brain of yours that doesn't see the difference
between using a tool to make a decision and a decision "made in" that
tool.

> >> 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.

As above, deceptive, dishonest little putz.

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

"...use of the amygdala for decision making is analagous to how
reptiles (and other animals) make their decisions."

Using a tool to make a decision is not the same as a decision being
made by that tool. This is like saying that using a TV guide to
decide what to watch is the same as the TV guide itself deciding what
to watch, you lying, worthless waste of carbon.

> >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.

...and both are different than a decision "made in" the amygdala.

> >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.

See above, liar.

> >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"?

First of all, that is an incorrect paraphrasing. Second of all, using
a tool to make a decision is not the same as the tool itself making
the decision.

> >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,

I never mentioned the level of consciousness. Another lie.

> >> >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.

Since you keep changing my position for me (at least twice now, so
far), that will be impossible. I already showed you a graduate
student at Stanford linking greater amygdala activity to decisions
being more influenced by emotions.

That right there is the point...if you make more use of the tool that
provides emotional response during decision making, your decisions
will be more affected by that tool and thus by your emotional
response.

> >> >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.

In other words, you are lazy and usually try to wade through arguments
with annoying, deceptive tactics without bothering to look up any
facts.

> >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.

In other words, you can't find it, are too lazy to find it, or are too
stupid to find it. You prefer to lie and squirm and evade.