Liberal vs. Conservative: A Neuroscientific Analysis with Gail Saltz

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

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

And who the fukk are you?

I don't owe you shyt , other than to call out bullshyt posts.

 

[Remote]

And who the fukk are you?

I don't owe you shyt , other than to call out bullshyt posts.

Higher Learning aint supposed to be for petty posts breh

 

[JahFocus CS]

Higher Learning aint supposed to be for petty posts breh

You must be new here

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Higher Learning aint supposed to be for petty posts breh

Its not supposed to be for shyt-posts, either.

Keep the pseudoscience to those who don't know any better.

Learn from this. You don't want to be like them.

 

[Remote]

Its not supposed to be for shyt-posts, either.

Keep the pseudoscience to those who don't know any better.

Learn from this. You don't want to be like them.

All I said was it was interesting.

I don't know much about Gail Saltz, but connecting her to Deepak Chopra is one hell of a bridge.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

All I said was it was interesting.

I don't know much about Gail Saltz, but connecting her to Deepak Chopra is one hell of a bridge.

Thats the problem. If you know absolutely nothing about neuroscience (I do), then you come to understand most of this popularization and extrapolation of "science showing political preference" just to be complex forms of confirmation bias and extreme misrepresentation of attempts at using "cool science" to tell us new things.

Its just a perversion of an already corrupted social science field.

This isn't science, and just cause she has a PhD, doesn't mean she knows WTF she's talking about.

 

[Remote]

Thats the problem. If you know absolutely nothing about neuroscience (I do), then you come to understand most of this popularization and extrapolation of "science showing political preference" just to be complex forms of confirmation bias and extreme misrepresentation of attempts at using "cool science" to tell us new things.

Its just a perversion of an already corrupted social science field.

This isn't science, and just cause she has a PhD, doesn't mean she knows WTF she's talking about.

The broader discussion, rather than attack this particular woman, is whether there might be tangible biological evidence in human brains that tread toward a particular thought pattern.

How is that not a fair question?
We already know that certain brain issues correlate to certain behaviors.

Or are you denying that too?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The broader discussion, rather than attack this particular woman, is whether there might be tangible biological evidence in human brains that tread toward a particular thought pattern.

How is that not a fair question?
We already know that certain brain issues correlate to certain behaviors.

Or are you denying that too?

Its something that can't really be extrapolated in the way she did it, if at all, at this point.

Theres so many things that go into cognition, that to make associative studies with fMRI readings is a classical error of the most naive proportions.

Remember, any scientist of her "caliber" who ends up getting to such popularity by making such baseless claims probably is not someone who is actually on the forefront of doing the hard work in a lab somewhere.

The real discoveries are boring, incremental, and to the layman, unremarkable.

The problem is that theres many steps you have to skip and go through before you can say "well this is just liberals" ...because it asserts the binary nature of a person in a western democracy with respect to the defining issues. Its layers and layers of assumptions.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

The broader discussion, rather than attack this particular woman, is whether there might be tangible biological evidence in human brains that tread toward a particular thought pattern.

How is that not a fair question?
We already know that certain brain issues correlate to certain behaviors.

Or are you denying that too?

I would think so..the problem is no one knows exactly where to look..the FMRI is pretty much useless in such because it follows blood flow and even if a more precise tool is developed there still the matter of a lack of a reference point....Nobody knows what a normal brain should look and act like.

But when you look at certain things that can run in a family like musical talent, schizophrenia,Alcoholism and even criminality theres probably a genetic component at work there