Liberal vs. Conservative: A Neuroscientific Analysis with Gail Saltz

[Remote]

Interesting stuff.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Gonna go a limb and say this is bullshyt.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

 

[Remote]

Gonna go a limb and say this is bullshyt.

Based on your extensive research, right breh?

 

[CHL]

What about @JahFocus CS?

 

[JahFocus CS]

What about @JahFocus CS?

What about me?

 

[CHL]

What about me?

This seems to cover a rather narrow range of the political spectrum

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

im sure she has no agenda..this is all "science"

 

[Remote]

im sure she has no agenda..this is all "science"

So your reply to the original video is an interview and not scientific evidence that contradicts her assertions?

Well at least there are no holes in that argument.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

So your reply to the original video is an interview and not scientific evidence that contradicts her assertions?

Well at least there are no holes in that argument.

sure buddy.

Gail Saltz and Skeptical vs. Credulous Brains

In an fMRI, brain activation (in the form of blood flow) is measured within brain regions identified by little three dimensional cubes known as “voxels.” There are literally hundreds of thousands of voxels in a fully imaged brain.

That means there are literally hundreds of thousands of potential “observations” in the brain of each study subject. Because there is constantly varying activation levels going on throughout the brain at all time, one can always find “statistically significant” correlations between stimuli and brain activation by chance.

. . .

Accordingly, if one is going to use an fMRI to test hypotheses about the “region” of the brain involved in some cognitive function, one has to specifyin advance the “region of interest” (ROI) in the brain that is relevant to the study hypotheses. What’s more, one has to carefully constrain one’s collection of observations even from within that region—brain regions like the “amygdala” and “anterior cingulate cortex” themselves contain lots of voxels that will vary in activation level—and refrain from “fishing around” within ROIs for “significant effects.”

Schreiber et al. didn’t discipline their evidence-gathering in this way.

But contrary to their hypotheses, Schreiber et al. didn’t find any significant differences in the activation levels within the portions of either the amygdala or the anterior cingulate cortex singled out in the 2011 Kanai et al. paper. Nor did Schreiber et al. find any such differences in a host of other precisely defined areas (the “entorhinal cortex,” “left insula,” or “Right Entorhinal”) that Kanai et al. identified as differeing structurally among Democrats and Republicans in ways that could suggest the hypothesized differences in cognition.

In response, Schreiber et al. simply widened the lens, as it were, of their observational camera to take in a wider expanse of the brain. “The analysis of the specific spheres [from Kanai et al.] did not appear statistically significant,” they explain,” so larger ROIs based on the anatomy were used next.”

Using this technique (which involves creating an “anatomical mask” of larger regions of the brain) to compensate for not finding significant results within more constrained ROI regions specified in advance amounts to a straightforward “fishing” expedition for “activated” voxels.

This is clearly, indisputably, undeniably not valid. Commenting on the inappropriateness of this technique, one commentator recently wrote that “this sounds like a remedial lesson in basic statistics but unfortunately it seems to be regularly forgotten by researchers in the field.”

let me know if you want the sesame street version of that peer review

 

[Remote]

sure buddy.


let me know if you want the sesame street version of that peer review

You should have replied with that in the first place.
Clown.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Based on your extensive research, right breh?

based on the predilection of pop culture analysis by "neuropsychologists" abstracting ideologies as a reflection of neurological state.

The Problem with the Neuroscience Backlash - The New Yorker

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/brain-culture-how-neuroscience-became-a-pop-culture-fixation/243810/

Its going to turn neuroscience into fukking cosmology at this point with know-nothings masquerading as legitimate scions of inner truths or in complex understandings with any additions of their emotional and mythological influences. Its just a perversion of a field to appeal to the masses.

Theres actual cosmology and astrophysics by Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Kip Thorne...then theres jackasses like Deepak Chopra

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

You should have replied with that in the first place.
Clown.

It aint no fun if a nikka cant troll sometimes

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

sure buddy.


let me know if you want the sesame street version of that peer review

Precisely same shyt I said here:

http://www.thecoli.com/posts/19773594/

 

[Remote]

based on the predilection of pop culture analysis by "neuropsychologists" abstracting ideologies as a reflection of neurological state.

The Problem with the Neuroscience Backlash - The New Yorker

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/brain-culture-how-neuroscience-became-a-pop-culture-fixation/243810/

Its going to turn neuroscience into fukking cosmology at this point with know-nothings masquerading as legitimate scions of inner truths or in complex understandings with any additions of their emotional and mythological influences. Its just a perversion of a field to appeal to the masses.

Theres actual cosmology and astrophysics by Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Kip Thorne...then theres jackasses like Deepak Chopra

Should have posted that in the beginning instead of an hour later.