View Full Version : Study: Cons have larger "fear center"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html
Political views 'hard-wired' into your Brain
Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.
On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.
.................................................. ..............
Sort of explains what we all suspected.
Particularly the fear of Liberais.
Guess you guys just can't help it.
BOO!
rastajenk
12-31-2010, 06:53 AM
Does that in any way explain libs' fear of global warming? :p
Does that in any way explain libs' fear of global warming? :p
That would be known as another thing the conservative mind avoids "FACTS"
melman
12-31-2010, 08:14 AM
As usual Hcap leaps on junk science and calls it "fact". More gorebull warbling from the progressive left. It's sad really.
Right from the link in the comment section.
I am a neurobiologist. I literally laughed out loud at the statement that the anterior cingulate cortex is where optimisn and bravery happen. Absolute nonsence.
This reasearch was based on Two members of Parliament and 90 students. Hardly a statistically significant sample.
delayjf
12-31-2010, 11:59 AM
Cons have larger "fear center"
Well, given the historic failure of progressive policy maybe that fear is well founded.
Greyfox
12-31-2010, 12:12 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html
Political views 'hard-wired' into your Brain
Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.
On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.
!
Thank you for posting that Hcap.
If there are any graduate students out there who are looking for ideas
consider the following.
It would be an interesting study to compare "normals" with "criminals," (or real cons.)
My hypothesis would be that "Criminals, in general, have smaller fear centers."
The late eminent Psychologist Hans Eysenck would beg for that study to be done if he knew the above results that you have posted.
Greyfox
12-31-2010, 12:28 PM
This reasearch was based on Two members of Parliament and 90 students. Hardly a statistically significant sample.
:ThmbUp: Agreed. Unfortunately many studies use students as "rats" and then generalize to the population as a whole. What a sampling error.
As usual Hcap leaps on junk science and calls it "fact". More gorebull warbling from the progressive left. It's sad really.
Right from the link in the comment section.
I am a neurobiologist. I literally laughed out loud at the statement that the anterior cingulate cortex is where optimisn and bravery happen. Absolute nonsence. This reasearch was based on Two members of Parliament and 90 students. Hardly a statistically significant sample.
Obviously a FEARFUL "neurobiologist" ;)
Probably graduated from Glenn Beck University
Prof Rees and his team, who carried out the research for the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, looked at the brain make up of the Labour MP Stephen Pound and Alan Duncan, the Conservative Minister of State for International Development using a scanner.
The results, which will be published next year, back up a study that showed that some people were born with a "Liberal Gene" that makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views.
The gene, a neurotransmitter in the brain called DRD4, could even be stimulated by the novelty value of radical opinions, claimed the researchers at the University of California
mostpost
12-31-2010, 12:43 PM
As usual Hcap leaps on junk science and calls it "fact". More gorebull warbling from the progressive left. It's sad really.
Right from the link in the comment section.
I am a neurobiologist. I literally laughed out loud at the statement that the anterior cingulate cortex is where optimisn and bravery happen. Absolute nonsence.
This reasearch was based on Two members of Parliament and 90 students. Hardly a statistically significant sample.
From wikipedia:
The anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is the frontal part of the cingulate cortex, that resembles a "collar" form around the corpus callosum, the fibrous bundle that relays neural signals between the right and left cerebral hemispheres of the brain. It includes both the ventral and dorsal areas of the cingulate cortex, and appears to play a role in a wide variety of autonomic functions, such as regulating blood pressure and heart rate, as well as rational cognitive functions, such as reward anticipation, decision-making, empathy[1] and emotion.[2][3]
Optimism and Bravery are emotions. Because a guy says in a comment section that he is a neurobiologist, does not mean he is a neurobioligist.
In any case a person may be exceedingly brave on a battlefield, yet exhibit monumental fears about other things. A black man in the White House, for example. The government coming to get you for another.
Valuist
12-31-2010, 12:46 PM
That would be known as another thing the conservative mind avoids "FACTS"
What does "FACTS" have to do with (alleged) global warming, other than that there is little in the way of facts to support it?
Greyfox
12-31-2010, 12:49 PM
From wikipedia:
[/B]
In any case a person may be exceedingly brave on a battlefield, yet exhibit monumental fears about other things. A black man in the White House, for example. .
Interesting post. What you wrote might also be interpreted that a black man in the White House has exhibited bravery on the battlefield and has monumental fears about other things. ;)
GaryG
12-31-2010, 12:56 PM
Then there is the irrational fear of Fox News, GB in particular. This may not be so irrational though, as he has been quite effective. Someone ask Van Jones about his opinion of Beck. This next two years is going to be interesting.....:jump:
mostpost
12-31-2010, 12:59 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8228192/Political-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html
Political views 'hard-wired' into your Brain
Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.
On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.
.................................................. ..............
Sort of explains what we all suspected.
Particularly the fear of Liberais.
Guess you guys just can't help it.
BOO!
Several months ago there was a study of conservatives which found that they hold their beliefs with a religious fervor. They "KNOW" what is right and what isn't. No amount of facts will deter them from their beliefs. Anytime the facts contradict what they believe, it is because the facts are being manipulated. Or because the people presenting the facts are evil, deceitful people. How do we know they are evil and deceitful. Because they are not conservatives.
I have never posted about this because I only heard of this on TV and was never able to find anything online about it. But I think we have proved this theory here countless times.
mostpost
12-31-2010, 01:01 PM
Interesting post. What you wrote might also be interpreted that a black man in the White House has exhibited bravery on the battlefield and has monumental fears about other things. ;)
You are right. I should have added "A fear of" to the start of my last sentence.
Then there is the irrational fear of Fox News, GB in particular. This may not be so irrational though, as he has been quite effective. Someone ask Van Jones about his opinion of Beck. This next two years is going to be interesting.....:jump:
Ah! The GB aficionados have appeared.
Glenn is da man. Now we're talking masterful stroking of conservatives fears and amygdala.
He even scares himself...
http://www.gonzotimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/glenn-beck.jpg
melman
12-31-2010, 01:10 PM
Just like the recently NASA paid for junk science concerning microbes and arsenic. All the biologists who said that "science" should never have even been published where "fearful biologists".
bigmack
12-31-2010, 01:33 PM
That would be known as another thing the conservative mind avoids "FACTS"
Stop before you make an even bigger goof of yourself.
You know, & I know & The American People know that you haven't a shred of evidence linking man made CO2 to climate change. I've axed you for one document for months and you haven't provided diddly.
I'd leave that whole debate out of any further points you try & make.
Just like the recently NASA paid for junk science concerning microbes and arsenic. All the biologists who said that "science" should never have even been published where "fearful biologists".
Several months ago there was a study of conservatives which found that they hold their beliefs with a religious fervor. They "KNOW" what is right and what isn't. No amount of facts will deter them from their beliefs. Anytime the facts contradict what they believe, it is because the facts are being manipulated. Or because the people presenting the facts are evil, deceitful people. How do we know they are evil and deceitful. Because they are not conservatives.Yep, just think of all the global warming deniers here. They will cite a case where NASA may be wrong, and use it to discredit the earth revolving the sun. Especially if oil companies fund their so-called counter "research". So NASA does countless un-maned planetary and maned lunar missions, and EVERYTHING regardless of merit, gets discredited of course including excellent global warming science.
Now the same argument is being used by I suspect fearful cons a priori to immediately dismiss THIS study. Almost VERIFIES it's validity ;)
Mack, we have been thru this nonsense dozens of times before and you continue to ignore reality. Not worth citing specifics AGAIN and AGAIN. When evidence becomes overwhelming, and 98% of qualified climate specialists agree, oil company funded deniers have little.
bigmack
12-31-2010, 02:04 PM
So NASA does countless un-maned planetary and maned lunar missions, and EVERYTHING regardless of merit, gets discredited of course including excellent global warming science.
You were schooled on this months ago. Have any recollection of NASA saying their own data was seriously flawed? Nah....
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/nasa.png
You were schooled on this months ago. Have any recollection of NASA saying their own data was seriously flawed? Nah....
We had this out before. Your braggadocio crap about "schooling" is typical of your depth of thought. Constantly being wrong and thinking smugly and stupidly everyone else is wrong, is what you do. You are blinded by your ideology and believe the articles you post. Repeatedly. Same bullshit the last time you argued mindlessly. Old wrong news
So not only are you citing David Vitter and John Barraso, 2 knuckle dragging anti-scientific type sloths, you are glorifying their totally discredited Flat Earther source,
the Competitive Enterprise Institute
In light of recent revelations and scientific reports, we are contacting you regarding our continued concerns with the apparent declining credibility of United States climate data," wrote Senators John Barraso of Wyoming and Louisiana’s David Vitter in a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden
....The letter refers to information obtained from NASA by the Competitive Enterprise Institute under a Freedom of Information Act request. In the documents, a senior scientist from the space agency advised a reporter that NASA’s climate data is inferior to the Climategate-spoiled records from the UEA’s disgraced Climatic Research Unit — and that NASA’s information is partially derived from the CRU’s flawed data.
Competitive Enterprise Institute
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute_And_Global_Warmin g
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has been one of the main groups opposing action by the U.S. government to curb greenhouse gas emissions. CEI has been well funded for this work by companies such as ExxonMobil.
One of the early CEI projects on global warming was its involvement in the Cooler Heads Coalition, which was chaired by former CEI director Marlo Lewis and directed by Myron Ebell, CEI's Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy.
The Cooler Heads Coalition was formed on May 6, 1997, "to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific and risk analysis." In March 2001, the nonprofit Clean Air Trust named Ebell its "clean air villain of the month," citing his "ferocious lobbying charge to persuade President Bush to reverse his campaign pledge to control electric utility emissions of carbon dioxide."
Exxon's Cash Pipeline to CEI
Exxonsecrets.org lists Exxon's funding of CEI, based on data released by the company itself, as totalling $2,005,000 since 1998. [9] The specific year-by-year fugures are:
* 1998: $85,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
* 2000: $230,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
* 2001: $280,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
* 2002: $205,000 ExxonMobil Foundation: This was identified as being for "50K congressional briefing program,
140K general operating support, 60K legal activities";
* 2002: $200,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving' This was identified as "140K general operating support, 60K for legal activities;"
* 2003: $25,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Annual Dinner"
* 2003: $440,000 ExxonMobil Foundation for "General Operating Support";
* 2004: $90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation for "Global Climate Change"
* 2004: $90000 ExxonMobil Foundation for "Global Climate Change Outreach"
* 2005: $90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation for "General Operating Support"
* 2005: $180,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General Operating Support"
bigmack
12-31-2010, 05:02 PM
We had this out before.
Bang, bang. Shoot those messengers. Are you disputing the flawed data of NASA and that they fully admitted to it being seriously flawed? Would you like to see more sources?
Don't be silly. It is you who paints anyone not high-stepping in your gullible nonsense that you call ignorant, flat-earthers or whatever. Believe or you're dumb. Nice try.
Have you noticed that many of your peers have abandoned ship on the junk science in the last year? Why do you suppose that is?
Again. Where is that one document I've been asking for? Simple question. Should have a simple solution. Haul it out!
More on CEI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute
In March 1992, CEI’s founder Fred Smith said of anthropogenic climate change: "Most of the indications right now are it looks pretty good. Warmer winters, warmer nights, no effects during the day because of clouding, sounds to me like we’re moving to a more benign planet, more rain, richer, easier productivity to agriculture." [1]
In May 2006, CEI's global warming policy activities attracted attention as it embarked upon an ad campaign with two television commercials [2]. These ads promote carbon dioxide as a positive factor in the environment and argue that global warming is not a concern. One ad focuses on the message that CO2 is misrepresented as a pollutant, stating that "it’s essential to life. We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in... They call it pollution. We call it life."[7] The other states that the world's glaciers are "growing, not melting... getting thicker, not thinner."[7] It cites Science articles to support its claims. However, the editor for Science stated that the ad "misrepresents the conclusions of the two cited Science papers... by selective referencing". The author of the articles, Curt Davis, director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said CEI was misrepresenting his previous research to inflate their claims. "These television ads are a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead the public about the global warming debate," Davis said. [3]
hcap....is the glass half empty or half full?
How about half-assed?
:lol:
Are you disputing the flawed data of NASA and that they fully admitted to it being seriously flawed? Would you like to see more sources?
It's a load and we have been thru the same stuff before. You believe in the tooth fairy and expect others to disprove articles written by imaginary elves. I have posted a rebuttal to all of your fairy tales many times. So although anthropomorphic CO2 emissions cannot be demonstrated 100% as a major factor in GW, they body of scientic evidence outweighs your fairy tales 1000 to1.
bigmack
12-31-2010, 05:17 PM
It's a load and we have been thru the same stuff before. You believe in the tooth fairy and expect others to disprove articles written by imaginary elves.
Attention everyone. YOU MUST BELIEVE IN MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING OR HCAP WILL THINK YOU BELIEVE IN THE TOOTH FAIRY. :lol:
Get off your horse. You wanna believe? Knock yourself out. With CO2 :D
Greyfox
12-31-2010, 05:19 PM
I think that the argument re: Climate Change boils down to whether or not it is caused by man.
Most evidence points to the Sun, Sun spot activity, and electromagnetic emissions from the sun. The latter highly influence the "jet stream" and it is the fluctuating jet stream that creates weather patterns.
Sun spot activity apparently runs on an 11 year cycle. For unexplained reasons the cycle we are in is lasting longer. However, predicted Sun spot activity over the next 30 years suggests that global cooling may occur during that period.
In the meanwhile, this is a long way from hcap's original post re:
the structural brains of conservatives.
hcap....is the glass half empty or half full?
How about half-assed?
:lol:The study about conservative brains is weak compared to GW science, but this discussion on GW now and in the past on this board begins to give credence to that study. You guys are in denial. Could it be be fear? I am beginning to think so. Another black helicopter conspiracy run amok.
I guess we gotta see Al Gore's long form birth certificate
I think that the argument re: Climate Change boils down to whether or not it is caused by man.
Most evidence points to the Sun, Sun spot activity, and electromagnetic emissions from the sunTotally wrong. Not a viable factor. And we have been trhru that before as well
I guess we gotta see Al Gore's long form birth certificate
Just rent Young Frankenstein. :rolleyes:
I wanna see the INTERNET'S birth certificate!
Greyfox
12-31-2010, 05:26 PM
Totally wrong. Not a viable factor. And we have been trhru that before as well
"Totally wrong. Not a viable factor."
Oh silly me. Here I thought the sun might be a factor. :lol:
"Totally wrong. Not a viable factor."
Oh silly me. Here I thought the sun might be a factor. :lol:Sorry, didn' mean to be rude. I have posted ALL of this before. Gets repetitious. Will post the links about sun activity not being a factor soon.
Greyfox
12-31-2010, 05:49 PM
Sorry, didn' mean to be rude. I have posted ALL of this before. Gets repetitious. Will post the links about sun activity not being a factor soon.
Please don't. That will entirely disrail the train that you started out on.
Your original subject was that Science, good or bad, has determined differences in the brain centers related to fear between conservatives and less conservatives.
(By the way, it is NASA who has pointed out temperature increases on all planets, including Pluto which is no longer a planet.)
On Mars, GW is obviously being caused by man - that damn little car we left there!
Yeah your 100% correct Tom. And I bet you didn't know even the sun is undergoing global warming due to the brand new theory of "galactic warming". Just published by WorldNutDaily, and peer-reviewed by Faux Noos. Didn't you guys know theoretically there is a black hole at the center of almost all galaxies.
Sort of like the same kinda empty humongous black hole in the center GW deniers funny fractured fairy tales
Maybe Dudley DoRight has a long form birth certificate?
How come we were molten and frozen before and ended up just fine?
Been hotter, been colder, going to be both again.
and again.
and again.
and again.
You libs area afraid of the weather!
dartman51
12-31-2010, 09:16 PM
Bang, bang. Shoot those messengers. Are you disputing the flawed data of NASA and that they fully admitted to it being seriously flawed? Would you like to see more sources?
Don't be silly. It is you who paints anyone not high-stepping in your gullible nonsense that you call ignorant, flat-earthers or whatever. Believe or you're dumb. Nice try.
Have you noticed that many of your peers have abandoned ship on the junk science in the last year? Why do you suppose that is?
Again. Where is that one document I've been asking for? Simple question. Should have a simple solution. Haul it out!
It's in the lock box with Obama's birth certificate. ;)
JustRalph
01-01-2011, 04:09 AM
classy thread
Mike at A+
01-01-2011, 03:09 PM
Here is the BOTTOM LINE on "global warming". Listen carefully:
Belief in man caused global warming is largely determinable by one's political affiliation. Democrats believe in it, Republicans do not. Just like many other issues of our time. Republicans believe that lower taxes is good for the overall economy, Democrats do not. Republicans believe in a superior military, Democrats do not. Republicans believe in personal responsibility, Dems believe in cradle to grave care for people who are unable (or unwilling) to produce and compete.
With global warming, Democrats want to impose crippling regulations on everyone believing that the Earth's atmosphere will get better and that global warming will be fixed. Because Americans are fairly evenly divided in belief of man caused global warming, there is a very simple solution to tell if global warming is real as most Democrats believe, or a hoax as most Republicans believe.
So I propose that all people who DO believe in global warming simply (but forcibly) impose these regulations on all voters who are registered Democrats with huge penalties for violating them. Give up (or severely restrict your use of) motor vehicles and start riding bicycles, walking or spring for an electric car. Stop eating meat. Buy those cute little light bulbs. One would think that after a period of say 10 years, we'd see a marked improvement in the Earth's atmosphere with happy polar bears, more predictable weather patterns and fewer resperatory ailments. If all these things happen, Democrats will control government forever and will be regarded to be as smart as they claim to be. If these things do not happen, we can begin to start drilling for our own oil, telling OPEC to pound sand and have enough jobs to employ every American who wants to work. Deal?
boxcar
01-01-2011, 03:19 PM
Here is the BOTTOM LINE on "global warming". Listen carefully:
Belief in man caused global warming is largely determinable by one's political affiliation. Democrats believe in it, Republicans do not. Just like many other issues of our time. Republicans believe that lower taxes is good for the overall economy, Democrats do not. Republicans believe in a superior military, Democrats do not. Republicans believe in personal responsibility, Dems believe in cradle to grave care for people who are unable (or unwilling) to produce and compete.
With global warming, Democrats want to impose crippling regulations on everyone believing that the Earth's atmosphere will get better and that global warming will be fixed. Because Americans are fairly evenly divided in belief of man caused global warming, there is a very simple solution to tell if global warming is real as most Democrats believe, or a hoax as most Republicans believe.
So I propose that all people who DO believe in global warming simply (but forcibly) impose these regulations on all voters who are registered Democrats with huge penalties for violating them. Give up (or severely restrict your use of) motor vehicles and start riding bicycles, walking or spring for an electric car. Stop eating meat. Buy those cute little light bulbs. One would think that after a period of say 10 years, we'd see a marked improvement in the Earth's atmosphere with happy polar bears, more predictable weather patterns and fewer resperatory ailments. If all these things happen, Democrats will control government forever and will be regarded to be as smart as they claim to be. If these things do not happen, we can begin to start drilling for our own oil, telling OPEC to pound sand and have enough jobs to employ every American who wants to work. Deal?
Sounds like a plan to me. Half a pie (more or less is better than none) and after a decade we should be able to tell who the smartest people in America are. :D :D Will it be conservatives who can smell a con game a mile away or will it be the liberals who want to reduce toilet paper sheets to 1" squares, and recycle them afterward by flipping them over on the other side? :rolleyes:
Boxcar
BlueShoe
01-03-2011, 12:09 PM
Will it be conservatives who can smell a con game a mile away or will it be the liberals who want to reduce toilet paper sheets to 1" squares, and recycle them afterward by flipping them over on the other side? :rolleyes:
Too many of their screwball ideas to list them all, but the libs think that they can cool the place off by banning plastic bags and using a different kind of light bulb. Here in far left looney California they are very close to doing both. Just before the sale and use of them are forbidden I plan on stockpiling the bags and use them when I clean my cats litter box and purchase several hundred of the old style bulbs, enough to last the rest of my life.
rastajenk
01-03-2011, 03:51 PM
I didn't mean to start yet another global warming thread. That was just the first thing that popped to mind when hcrap posted that conservatives are more fearful of the potential negatives, when it's clearly the lib end of the spectrum that is more afraid of and projects out the worst qualities of any potential set of circumstances. I could have asked how the study explains how the volunteer military is decidedly conservative given their (the conservatives', that is) dread of negative outcomes; makes no sense. This looks like another case of bad science, trying to prove nature over nurture, when anyone with half an ounce of sense can see that people can be conditioned to expect one set of results over another when the "another" has a bad set of past performances. It's called intelligence.
boxcar
01-03-2011, 04:18 PM
It's called intelligence.
Why do you insist on talking about things to which Hcap cannot possibly relate? With 'cap one must always think and speak in visceral terms. :lol: :lol:
Boxcar
woodtoo
01-03-2011, 04:39 PM
It's friggen cold outside
global warming causes a rise in CO2, not the other way around.But relax it'll
work ITSELF out,not to worry ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.