Argentina's Trump bound for Presidency?

[reo]

47 minutes ago, WG53 said:

I'd rather read the article than watch a video

 

alright Prag

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/

 

actually having to do work atm but i'll pull out relevant quotes when i get a chance.

 

 

On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. If you had put Buckley and Vidal in a magnetic resonance imaging machine and presented them with identical images, you would likely have seen differences in their brain, especially in the areas that process social and emotional information. The volume of gray matter, or neural cell bodies, making up the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals. And the amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats, is larger in conservatives.

 

While these findings are remarkably consistent, they are probabilities, not certainties—meaning there is plenty of individual variability. The political landscape includes lefties who own guns, right-wingers who drive Priuses and everything in between. There is also an unresolved chicken-and-egg problem: Do brains start out processing the world differently or do they become increasingly different as our politics evolve? Furthermore, it is still not entirely clear how useful it is to know that a Republican’s brain lights up over X while a Democrat’s responds to Y.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by reo

[reo]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050437/

 

How emotions affect logical reasoning: evidence from experiments with mood-manipulated participants, spider phobics, and people with exam anxiety

 

Abstract

Recent experimental studies show that emotions can have a significant effect on the way we think, decide, and solve problems. This paper presents a series of four experiments on how emotions affect logical reasoning. In two experiments different groups of participants first had to pass a manipulated intelligence test. Their emotional state was altered by giving them feedback, that they performed excellent, poor or on average. Then they completed a set of logical inference problems (with if p, then q statements) either in a Wason selection task paradigm or problems from the logical propositional calculus. Problem content also had either a positive, negative or neutral emotional value. Results showed a clear effect of emotions on reasoning performance. Participants in negative mood performed worse than participants in positive mood, but both groups were outperformed by the neutral mood reasoners. Problem content also had an effect on reasoning performance. In a second set of experiments, participants with exam or spider phobia solved logical problems with contents that were related to their anxiety disorder (spiders or exams). Spider phobic participants' performance was lowered by the spider-content, while exam anxious participants were not affected by the exam-related problem content. Overall, unlike some previous studies, no evidence was found that performance is improved when emotion and content are congruent. These results have consequences for cognitive reasoning research and also for cognitively oriented psychotherapy and the treatment of disorders like depression and anxiety.

 

 

 

 

^^ This is why FoxNews tries so often to make their viewers angry about something or angry at someone. It inhibits their ability to think rationally and they're less likely to question what they're being told. There's an article/study on this as well that I've been trying to find.

 

It stands to reason that conservatives, if they're more emotional and more susceptible to things like fear and anger, would be more susceptible to this type of manipulation and propaganda.. 

 

 

On a connected note:

 

https://people.com/angry-people-more-likely-believe-conspiracy-theories-report-7555919

 

People Prone to Anger Are ‘More Likely’ to Believe Conspiracy Theories, New Research Suggests

 

The studies not only showed a positive association between anger and conspiracy beliefs, but also suggested that anger may also be a “unique predictor of conspiracy beliefs,” according to researchers.

Additionally, angry people “were even more likely to believe conspiracy theories when their situational anger was increased,” according to the report.

“The main conclusion … is that people who are more prone to experience anger are also more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, regardless of their content,” study author Kinga Szymaniak, a research associate at the University of New South Wales, told PsyPost. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by reo

[reo]

As a side note, does this sound familiar?

 

The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

 

 

[reo]

Having trouble finding the study detailing the mechanisms of why it works but here's an article talking about a similar propaganda technique that's commonly used.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/power-propaganda-how-shapes-our-thoughts-beliefs-mohd-radzi/?trk=pulse-article

 

"The Power of Propaganda: How It Shapes Our Thoughts and Beliefs"

 

One of the most common techniques used in propaganda is the appeal to emotions. By tapping into people's fears, desires, and aspirations, propaganda can evoke strong emotional responses that can override logical thinking and critical analysis. For example, a political campaign might use fear-mongering tactics to convince people that a certain group of people are a threat to their safety, even if there is no evidence to support this claim.

Another technique used in propaganda is the use of persuasive language. This can include the use of loaded languages, such as buzzwords and slogans, that are designed to trigger an emotional response and make people more receptive to a particular message. For example, a company might use the slogan "Think Different" to convince people that their products are innovative and unique, even if they are not.

Finally, propaganda can also work through repetition. By constantly repeating a message, propaganda can create the illusion of truth and familiarity, making it more difficult for people to question or challenge the message. This is why many propaganda campaigns use slogans, jingles, and other forms of repetition to drive their message home.

Overall, propaganda can be a powerful tool for shaping people's beliefs and opinions. By appealing to emotions, using persuasive language, and repetition, propaganda can influence people's thoughts and behaviours in ways that they may not even be aware of.

 

 

 

So it stands to reason that if conservatives are more susceptible to emotion then they would be more susceptible to this type of propaganda.

[Justafan]

4 hours ago, reo said:

 

alright Prag

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conservative-and-liberal-brains-might-have-some-real-differences/

 

actually having to do work atm but i'll pull out relevant quotes when i get a chance.

 

 

On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. If you had put Buckley and Vidal in a magnetic resonance imaging machine and presented them with identical images, you would likely have seen differences in their brain, especially in the areas that process social and emotional information. The volume of gray matter, or neural cell bodies, making up the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals. And the amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats, is larger in conservatives.

 

While these findings are remarkably consistent, they are probabilities, not certainties—meaning there is plenty of individual variability. The political landscape includes lefties who own guns, right-wingers who drive Priuses and everything in between. There is also an unresolved chicken-and-egg problem: Do brains start out processing the world differently or do they become increasingly different as our politics evolve? Furthermore, it is still not entirely clear how useful it is to know that a Republican’s brain lights up over X while a Democrat’s responds to Y.

 

 

 

 

 

This is hilarious because it says the opposite of how you interpreted it.  Having a larger amygdala means you better regulate emotions and evaluate threats, not less.  I guess the liberals aren't always able to detect errors in their arguments. 

 

It is a great article, for what it's worth.  Unfortunately, like many other phenomena you quoted, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

Also, this is the most relevant video I could find for our discussion.  With all sincerity, I hope you hear me.  None of this was personal or meant as an attack.  I read some of the things you wrote, though, and I couldn't just let it go. It's your rant, though, and I shouldn't have jumped in if I didn't have any desire to argue it to its conclusion, and truthfully, I don't. 

 

 

[reo]

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

This is hilarious because it says the opposite of how you interpreted it.  Having a larger amygdala means you better regulate emotions and evaluate threats, not less.  I guess the liberals aren't always able to detect errors in their arguments. 

 

Yes.. thats the point. They sense threats more acutely and often. Its why they're more susceptible to fear and anger. A large animal comes running at you. Conservative is more likely to feel fear and run, as they should. Liberal is more likely to stand there and try to pet it like an idiot. Not all emotions are bad but they do inhibit rational thought.

 

In terms of a real world propaganda example, say you have an article talking about a caravan of illegal immigrants marching on the border w/ a "hide yo kids, hide yo wives" vibe... Conservative is more likely to feel anger or fear as the article is trying to make them feel. Then they are less likely to rationally read the article and pick out the lies or embellishments. Liberals are less likely to feel that emotion so they're more likely to read the article rationally and pick out the things that don't add up or make sense. And b/c of that conservatives are more susceptible to that type of propaganda and manipulation.

 

1 hour ago, Justafan said:

It is a great article, for what it's worth.  Unfortunately, like many other phenomena you quoted, it doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

As usual, you're missing the point as noted above. 

 

The George Carlin stuff gets into other topics so leaving it off as I'm on my phone atm.

Edited November 28, 2023 by reo

[Justafan]

1 hour ago, reo said:

 

Yes.. thats the point. They sense threats more acutely and often. Its why they're more susceptible to fear and anger. A large animal comes running at you. Conservative is more likely to feel fear and run, as they should. Liberal is more likely to stand there and try to pet it like an idiot. Not all emotions are bad but they do inhibit rational thought.

 

In terms of a real world propaganda example, say you have an article talking about a caravan of illegal immigrants marching on the border w/ a "hide yo kids, hide yo wives" vibe... Conservative is more likely to feel anger or fear as the article is trying to make them feel. Then they are less likely to rationally read the article and pick out the lies or embellishments. Liberals are less likely to feel that emotion so they're more likely to read the article rationally and pick out the things that don't add up or make sense. And b/c of that conservatives are more susceptible to that type of propaganda and manipulation.

 

 

As usual, you're missing the point as noted above. 

 

The George Carlin stuff gets into other topics so leaving it off as I'm on my phone atm.

I disagree with your interpretation, and I still think the original post was in poor form, but I get where you're coming from now.  I appreciate you going into detail and clarifying it even when I came at you with, in hindsight, a pretty aggressive post, even if that wasn't my intent. 

[reo]

7 minutes ago, Justafan said:

I disagree with your interpretation, and I still think the original post was in poor form, but I get where you're coming from now.  I appreciate you going into detail and clarifying it even when I came at you with, in hindsight, a pretty aggressive post, even if that wasn't my intent. 

 

I always appreciate agreeing to disagree especially since I'm fairly notoriously bad at verbalizing my points and I appreciate this response.

Edited November 28, 2023 by reo

[Justafan]

https://9gag.com/gag/aYV02Kx?utm_source=copy_link&utm_medium=post_share

[El Guapo]

The vast generalizations in amygdala size and political leanings are really kind of absurd. The idea that liberals are more likely to pet a threat must have been derived only after covid.

[Justafan]

2 hours ago, El Guapo said:

The vast generalizations in amygdala size and political leanings are really kind of absurd. The idea that liberals are more likely to pet a threat must have been derived only after covid.

He misinterpreted the article. The article clearly says Liberals use a part of their brains that detects errors and resolves conflicts, and conservatives are better at regulating emotions and evaluating threats. He then used that to try to argue that Conservatives are emotional and, therefore, easy to manipulate, but the article basically disproves his own point. 

 

Also, they used 58 people to represent a demographic of 300 million, so I would take the findings with a grain of salt. 

[titanruss]

 

The SciAM article's relevant points...

 

"On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. If you had put Buckley and Vidal in a magnetic resonance imaging machine and presented them with identical images, you would likely have seen differences in their brain, especially in the areas that process social and emotional information. The volume of gray matter, or neural cell bodies, making up the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals. And the amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats, is larger in conservatives"

 

"Liberals proved more attentive to incongruent information, especially for Democratic candidates. When they encountered such a position, it took them longer to make a decision about whether it was good or bad. They were likely to show activation for incongruent information in two brain regions: the insula and anterior cingulate cortex, which “are involved in helping people form and think about their attitudes,”...

 

"Nam and her colleagues set out to understand which brain areas govern the affective processes that underlie system justification. They found that the volume of gray matter in the amygdala is linked to the tendency to perceive the social system as legitimate and desirable. Their interpretation is that “this preference to system justify is related to these basic neurobiological predispositions to be alert to potential threats in your environment,” Nam says."

 

“Larger amygdala volume is associated with a lower likelihood of participating in political protests,” Nam says.  “That makes sense in so far as political protest is a behavior that says, ‘We’ve got to change the system.’”

Understanding the influence of partisanship on identity, even down to the level of neurons, “helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth,”

 

"Among other things, partisan identity clouds memory. In a 2013 study, liberals were more likely to misremember George W. Bush remaining on vacation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and conservatives were more likely to falsely recall seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran."

 

 

in other words...

 

Conservatives are less educated moronic sheep that are afraid of change, easily propagandized, and ready to fight to protect their backwards-ass uneducated beliefs. They don't let things like empathy sway them and they value security and will kill for it while following a New Testament God that says to do the opposite.

 

Liberals are smarter and more educated problem solvers who pay attention to details, are less easily propagandized, will question their leaders, and understand / like unique and complex ideas. They have bleeding hearts and want new ideas to progress while helping everyone grow.

 

But yes, only 58 people were in the study.

Edited December 13, 2023 by titanruss

[Justafan]

18 minutes ago, titanruss said:

 

The SciAM article's relevant points...

 

"On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. If you had put Buckley and Vidal in a magnetic resonance imaging machine and presented them with identical images, you would likely have seen differences in their brain, especially in the areas that process social and emotional information. The volume of gray matter, or neural cell bodies, making up the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals. And the amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats, is larger in conservatives"

 

"Liberals proved more attentive to incongruent information, especially for Democratic candidates. When they encountered such a position, it took them longer to make a decision about whether it was good or bad. They were likely to show activation for incongruent information in two brain regions: the insula and anterior cingulate cortex, which “are involved in helping people form and think about their attitudes,”...

 

"Nam and her colleagues set out to understand which brain areas govern the affective processes that underlie system justification. They found that the volume of gray matter in the amygdala is linked to the tendency to perceive the social system as legitimate and desirable. Their interpretation is that “this preference to system justify is related to these basic neurobiological predispositions to be alert to potential threats in your environment,” Nam says."

 

“Larger amygdala volume is associated with a lower likelihood of participating in political protests,” Nam says.  “That makes sense in so far as political protest is a behavior that says, ‘We’ve got to change the system.’”

Understanding the influence of partisanship on identity, even down to the level of neurons, “helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth,”

 

"Among other things, partisan identity clouds memory. In a 2013 study, liberals were more likely to misremember George W. Bush remaining on vacation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and conservatives were more likely to falsely recall seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran."

 

 

in other words...

 

Conservatives are less educated moronic sheep that are afraid of change, easily propagandized, and ready to fight to protect their backwards-ass uneducated beliefs. They don't let things like empathy sway them and they value security and will kill for it while following a New Testament God that says to do the opposite.

 

Liberals are smarter and more educated problem solvers who pay attention to details, are less easily propagandized, will question their leaders, and understand / like unique and complex ideas. They have bleeding hearts and want new ideas to progress while helping everyone grow.

 

But yes, only 58 people were in the study.

That's a ridiculous interpretation and not close. Typical. Attack attack attack, then accuse others of being angry, emotional, and provocative.

 

Look at me, I'm so smart! So smart that I thought it was a good idea to post the above because that would advance the conversation!

[El Guapo]

57 minutes ago, Justafan said:

He misinterpreted the article. The article clearly says Liberals use a part of their brains that detects errors and resolves conflicts, and conservatives are better at regulating emotions and evaluating threats. He then used that to try to argue that Conservatives are emotional and, therefore, easy to manipulate, but the article basically disproves his own point. 

 

Also, they used 58 people to represent a demographic of 300 million, so I would take the findings with a grain of salt. 

Maybe the only discussion about amygdala size in the history of TR…hopefully. For the record, zero chance any conclusions in that piece are reproducible or scientifically accepted.

[Justafan]

11 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Maybe the only discussion about amygdala size in the history of TR…hopefully. For the record, zero chance any conclusions in that piece are reproducible or scientifically accepted.

How that study plays out in the real world.  I hate Trump, but the Republicans understood keenly the value of stealing Garland's seat and then putting two young conservative justices on the court. That was far more important than even winning the white house.